he may interpret.”  Why, pray that he may interpret, if he understood himself?  Does a man who speaks with understanding a foreign language, need to pray that he may be enabled to interpret what he says in his mother tongue?  Surely every man who understands himself, can naturally do this?  After more to the same purpose, Paul wisely concludes his argument by declaring, “that he would rather speak in the church five words with understanding, (i. e., knowing what he said) that he might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”  And he fortifies his reasoning by this sensible remark, “If, therefore, the whole church come together into one place, and all speak in unknown tongues, and those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, come in, will they not say, that ye are mad?” as the spectators said of the Shakers.

He advises them, therefore, to conduct their assemblies with less uproar than formerly, and exhorts them as follows:—­“How is it, then, brethren, when you come together, hath each of you a psalm, hath he a doctrine, hath he an unknown tongue, hath he a revelation?  Let all things be done to edifying.  Now, if any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and that in succession, and let one interpret; but if there be no interpreter, let such keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God.  And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern.  But if any thing be revealed to another who sitteth by, let the first keep silence.  For ye may all prophecy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted.”

I presume it will be needless to point out more particularly, the perfect correspondence between “the spiritual gifts” of the Corinthians, and those of the Shakers.  And I would ask the venerable Paley, if it were now possible, whether an apostolical epistle of Ann Lee, William Lee, or Whitaker, (the spiritual mother and. fathers of the Shakers,) addressed to them, and seriously giving directions about the use of “their gifts of working miracles, and speaking with tongues,” would be sufficient to prove that they really had those gifts?  And, moreover, (to make the cases more analogous) suppose that the Shakers from this time become the dominant sect throughout the religious world, and kept the upper hand during a series of a thousand or two thousand years, taking especial care to collect and burn up every writing of their enemies and opposers.  How should we, (supposing ourselves all the while invisible spectators of the thing), how should we pity our posterity, who, at the end of that period, should be gravely told by the learned and mitred advocates of Shakerism, that the miracles of the founders, and first followers of their religion were certainly true, for that they were honest and good men, with no motive to deceive, and had addressed letters to their first converts, wherein they make express mention of their possessing these gifts; and give in the simplest and most unassuming