In the Acts we see that this phenomenon pervaded all the Churches; from the day of Pentecost onward it was looked on as the standard mark of "the descent of the Holy Spirit;" and in the conversion of Cornelius it was the justification of Peter for admitting uncircumcised Gentiles: yet not once is "interpretation" alluded to, except in Paul's epistle.

Paul could not go against the whole Church.

He held a logic too much in common with the rest, to denounce the tongues as _mere_ carnal excitement; but he does anxiously degrade them as of lowest spiritual value, and wholly prohibits them where there is "no interpreter." To carry out this rule, would perhaps have suppressed them entirely.
This however showed me, that I could not rest on Paul's practical wisdom, as securing him against speculative hallucinations in the matter of miracles; for indeed he says: "I thank my God, that I speak with tongues _more than ye all_." 2.

To another broad fact I had been astonishingly blind, though the truth of it flashed upon me as soon as I heard it named;--that Paul shows total unconcern to the human history and earthly teaching of Jesus, never quoting his doctrine or any detail of his actions.

The Christ with whom Paul held communion was a risen, ascended, exalted Lord, a heavenly being, who reigned over arch-angels, and was about to appear as Judge of the world: but of Jesus in the flesh Paul seems to know nothing beyond the bare fact that he _did_[24] "humble himself" to become man, and "pleased not himself." Even in the very critical controversy about meat and drink, Paul omits to quote Christ's doctrine, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man," &c.
He surely, therefore, must have been wholly and contentedly ignorant of the oral teachings of Jesus.
3.