Discussing the miracle of Pentecost in Acts, which he, of course, regards as the instantaneous communication of ability to speak in foreign languages, Zeller makes the following remarks: "The supposition of such a miracle is opposed to a right view of divine agency, and of the relation of God to the world, and, in this case in particular, to a right view of the constitution of the human mind. The composition and the properties of a body may be altered through external influence, but mental acquirements are attained only through personal activity, through practice; and it is just in this that spirit distinguishes itself from matter: that it is free, that there is nothing in it which it has not itself spontaneously introduced. The external and instantaneous in-pouring of a mental acquirement is a representation which refutes itself." In reply to those who object to this reasoning he retorts: "The assertion that such a miracle actually occurred contradicts the analogy of all attested experience, that it is invented by an individual or by tradition corresponds with it; when, therefore, the historical writer has only the choice between these two {370} alternatives, he must according to the laws of historical probability, under all the circumstances, unconditionally decide for the second. He must do this even if an eyewitness of the pretended miracle stood before him; he must all the more do so if he has to do with a statement which, beyond doubt not proceeding from an eye-witness, is more possibly separated by some generations from the event in question."(1) These objections are not confined to rationalistic critics and do not merely represent the arguments of scepticism. Neander expresses similar sentiments,(2) and after careful examination pronounces the narrative in Acts untrustworthy, and, adhering to the representations of Paul, rejects the theory that [------] was speech in foreign languages supernaturally imparted. Meyer, who arrives at much the same result as Neander, speaks still more emphatically. He says: "_This_ supposed gift of tongues (all languages), however, was in the apostolic age, partly _unnecessary_ for the preaching of the Gospel, as the preachers thereof only required to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek; partly _too general_, as amongst the assembly there were certainly many who were not called to be teachers. And, on the other hand, again, it would also have been _premature_, as, before all, Paul the apostle of the Gentiles would have required it, in whom nevertheless there is as little trace of any _subsequent_ reception of it as that he preached otherwise than in Hebrew and Greek. _But now, how is the event to be historically judged?_ Regarding this the following is to be observed: As the instantaneous bestowal of facility in a foreign language is neither logically possible nor psychologically {371}