ANSWERED, PERHAPS THE THOUSANDTH TIME, BY REQUEST FROM LOGANSPORT.
"Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death."—Second Samuel, vi, 23. "But the king took the five sons of Michal, whom she brought up for Adriel, the son of Barzillai, the Meholathite."—Second Samuel, xxi, 8. Dear friend, if you will notice the last quotation closely you will find that the words which I have italicised clearly indicate the true solution of the difficulty, which has no real historic existence. Those sons were not the natural sons of Michal, but adopted sons, which she brought up for Adriel, whose wife was Moreb, the natural mother of those children. But, somehow, it comes to pass that you refer me in both cases to the first book of Samuel instead of the second. How is this?
Second case. "And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham." The contrary does not happen to be a contradiction. Here it is, "Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God; for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man with evil."—James i, 13. Any grammarian can see at once that there is no contradiction here. God did (try) tempt Abraham. When was this and what was it for? Well, it was thousands of years before James's present tense language was written. Suppose I give a parallel. Here it is: Let no Jew say when he offers a lamb he offers it to obey the Lord, for the Lord accepteth not lambs, neither does he require them of any man. The contradiction is found in the fact that some thousands of years in the past, the Lord did, for wise and benevolent purposes, require Jews to offer lambs. Now, can any man fail to see that there is no contradiction here. God did tempt Abraham. What was it for? Answer. He simply designed to teach Abraham, in a way that would impress the lesson upon the mind for all time to come, that the human beings were not to be offered in burnt sacrifices as the heathen were wont to do. His angel said to Abraham, "Stay thy hand." See! there is an offering fast by the horns in the bushes. Don't kill your son! Yes, God did try or tempt Abraham. It was a grand trial of his loyalty to God. And it was God's most effectual way of teaching Abraham and his posterity that they must not offer their sons and daughters in the fire as the heathen did. There is not only no contradiction here, but a grand lesson also, which represents God in just the reverse of the infidel interpretation of the case.
Third case. "And the man which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."—Acts iv, 7. This voice heard by those persons was in the Hebrew tongue, and as such was not understood by those who were with Saul. So we have it upon record in the 22d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that "they saw the light and were afraid, but they heard not," that is, understood not, the voice. That the voice was in the Hebrew is asserted in the twenty-sixth chapter and the fourteenth verse. We often hear a man's voice, and fail at the same time—say we did not hear because we did not understand the words uttered. Such is the latitude of the original term translated by the word hear. So there is no contradiction here. The term hear in one passage is used with reference simply to the noise; in the other it is used with reference to the words spoken, which they understood not. So it is said, they heard them not. Can you hear a man speaking in a dead language? You can hear the voice in the sense of hearing the noise, but you can't hear the voice in the sense of hearing the language. No man can hear a language unless he understands it in the sense of the original term.
Your fourth case is in the following quotations: "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."—Gen. xxxii, 30. It somehow happens that my good querist in giving this quotation refers me to the 31st chapter, which is wrong again. He says he has taken advice, and has read the contexts. Well, perhaps he has. But this is the second mistake any way. The first is reference to the wrong book. The second is reference to the wrong chapter. How is this?
Our querist's contrary is, however, in these words, "No man hath seen God at any time."—John's Record i, 18. Our friend, proposing these contradictions for my consideration, says he has "given himself the trouble to investigate;" has "read the context in connection with each quotation, and still they are not clear," yet for the last quotation he refers me to 1 John iv, 12. Well, well; how shall we understand this? And how shall we harmonize the quotations? Well, "No man hath seen God at any time"—this is true, for he is "the King Eternal, immortal, invisible, whom no man hath seen" with the literal eye, "nor can see." This teaching is positive and pointed, but in ancient times even "those to whom the word of God was sent were called gods." So said Jesus. The one Jacob saw was called a man. And again, there was a messenger—an angel, if you please—that bore Jehovah's name upon him. (See Exodus xxiii, 21, and context.) This was the angel of God's presence. "The angel of his presence saved them."—Isaiah lxiii, 9. God's great messenger bore his name. Men saw him, the angel, and seeing him saw God, for this angel was God with them—God's representative bearing his name. This angel God, or angel having God's name in him, talked with Moses. Moses saw him, and it is truthfully said that Moses saw God, that is, saw this angel whose name was that of God. "And when forty years were transpired there appeared to him, Moses, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it he wondered at the sight, and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him." * * * * * This (Moses) is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spoke to him in the Mount Sinai and with our fathers, etc. Moses went up into Sinai and saw God, but it was simply the angel that bore his name—the angel of his presence. That is all there is of it. I once sat in a church-house in Logansport when there were present representatives from different states in our Union, and a gentleman made a little address and introduced them to the audience, saying, Ohio is here, Iowa is here, Kentucky is here, Illinois is here, California is here. How was this? Well, those men were messengers from those states, and their presence was the presence of those several states. Just so the angel of God's presence was with Moses; and Stephen said, with our fathers. The presence of this angel was the presence of God, and they who saw him saw God, for this angel's name was God, or, in other words, "God's name was in him." But the God whose name this angel bore, and whose name even men bore who were called Gods, because to them the word of God was sent, and they, having God's word, were his representatives, has not been seen at any time, neither indeed can be with literal eyes.
N.B.—Friends who wish to engage our attention and space must remember the important rule among editors, and send their name along with their requests and articles.
SOME THINGS THAT NEED THOUGHT.
It has been said of past nations, that side by side have grown in their midst the elements both of greatness and of ruin. There is one phase of our society, as Americans, which is more to be dreaded than all others known to the philosophic mind, that is the reckless licentiousness which characterizes many politicians during political campaigns.
In ancient times a grand safeguard against this debasing practice was found in the law that said, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of my people." This evil, like all others, when it becomes a strong habit, is well calculated to stir up anger, and wrath, and hatred; to stir up the passions, and destroy confidence, which is always and only disastrous to the social state. This growing evil needs to be checked by some means, otherwise our country will experience tumults growing out of maddened party ambition, and party interests, which will cause disaster and grief. The ballot-box needs to be guarded with wise and severe laws, because it is the pivotal wheel in our government. And next to this, because of the relation it sustains to our government's welfare, is the reputation of our public officials. I would not screen them from their just deserts, but I do say that the leaders in political affairs should be, in common with all others, too high-minded to indulge in slandering each other, as many are in the habit of doing. It reminds me in some of our political campaigns of the cursing-matches of the Popes, in some of the councils that were held during the dark ages. It is possible that we have in Indiana, and perhaps in some of the other states, sufficient law upon the subjects of slander, but law that is disregarded, being seldom enforced, amounts to nothing. Then, there is a disposition growing out of the pride of character to disregard the slanderer's tongue. Yet licentiousness tends to civil and social ruin all the same. That is to say, it destroys confidence, breeds retaliation and corruption, and inflames all the baser passions known in the dying agonies of a civil government. As an American citizen I would warn our people to manufacture all the public sentiment possible against this low, vile, and debasing practice, by pleading with our countrymen against it. And let us never hold our peace until we shall have thrown such safeguard around our ballot-box as will put an end to all the abominable corruptions that now threaten our existence as a free people. Is it true of us, that we carry the seeds of our own destruction as a nation in our own bosom? Are we to die as a nation, over the ballot-box? Shall we be so foolish? Let statesmen and politicians look well to the essential elements of the nation's life, by the advocacy of reform at this point where reform is most needed. And let Christians of every name plead for morality as an essential qualification for a place at the head of so great affairs as belong of right to the people of counties, states and nation. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. It is time for us to look after the moral elements of every man's life who proposes himself as a candidate for office in our midst, but we can well afford to be satisfied with the truth. Shall we look to this?
While we pray as Christians for such rulers and authorities as will look to the permanent and lasting interests of our country, let us vote as we pray. Do we pray one way and vote another? If so, let us repent. Do we pray for righteous rulers and for a good government and then vote for profane, wicked men; for men of intemperate habits, men who are perfectly indifferent to the moral welfare of our country; men who will disregard the welfare of the nation by neglecting the elements of national greatness? If political parties triumph in this government through slander, trickery, whisky and corruption, and continue to do so, the time will inevitably come when we will realize the facts of national ruin. We might as well think of a man having good health and living long upon the earth who takes poison into his stomach continually, as to think of future glory as a nation if we carry out our purposes by dishonest, illegal measures and by railing, in a slanderous and unjustifiable manner, against the best men of the nation. It has been said that political parties are necessary as checks to corruption, but when parties themselves indulge in all manner of corruption in order to succeed as parties, they are no longer checks, but abettors of corruption.
Let the preachers, whose business it is to reprove sin, and who have been kept from taking the risk of being shut out of Paradise, by being kept out of politics(?) open their mouths and be heard all over this country against all these immoral, vile practices indulged as a means of political success. The ignorant, fossilized partisan who looks no higher than party will perhaps raise a yell of indignation against them, but at the same time he will continue the use of the same old argument, viz: the pool of politics is too filthy for preachers to meddle with. Is it a filthy pool? Then let us bring all the purifying elements of the nation to bear upon it and see if there is anything in it besides corruption. If there is not, the sooner we find it out the better, and if there is, the sooner we get it separated from its corruption the better.