Meander's discussion on the 2nd Chapter of the Acts first opened to me the certainty, that Luke (or the authority whom he followed) has exaggerated into a gift of languages what cannot have been essentially different from the Corinthian, and in short from the Irvingite, tongues.

Thus Luke's narrative has transformed into a splendid miracle, what in Paul is no miracle at all.

It is true that Paul speaks of _interpretation of tongues_ as possible, but without a hint that any verification was to be used.

Besides, why should a Greek not speak Greek in an assembly of his own countrymen?
Is it credible, that the Spirit should inspire one man to utter unintelligible sounds, and a second to interpret these, and then give the assembly endless trouble to find out whether the interpretation was pretence or reality, when the whole difficulty was gratuitous?
We grant that there _may_ be good reasons for what is paradoxical, but we need the stronger proof that it is a reality.

Yet what in fact is there?
and why should the gift of tongues in Corinth, as described by Paul, be treated with more respect than in Newman Street, London?
I could find no other reply, than that Paul was too sober-minded: yet his own description of the tongues is that of a barbaric jargon, which makes the church appear as if it "were mad," and which is only redeemed from contempt by miraculous interpretation.