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