the tokens of the visible presence;-saw such external marks of the spiritual essence of the Deity, as they saw on no other occasion; and which, in the greatness of the disclosure, (however remote and inferior to the true radiance of the Deity) yet authorized the affirmation, that they saw the God of Israel. The idea conveyed to the minds of the priests and the seventy elders who accompanied them, must have been, and evidently was, that they had seen the Spiritual Essence of the Deity revealed in symbols to their outward senses. A Spirit hath neither form nor limbs; and can therefore be only manifested to man in his present state under symbols; but if these are displayed to him, as representing the Deity, I receive them under that character, and in having beheld these, assume that I have seen God. Why should the Deity be less seen in one form than in another, if having no form by which he may be delineated in his true essence and majesty (seeing that as a Spirit, he pervades every portion of unlimited space-the universe in its most extended sense) he contracts, as it were, a portion of his Spirit into a visible form, or figure, or emblem, and declares that man in seeing that, beholds the Deity? Christ, in his Divinity and participation of every quality of the Godhead, was alike uncircumscribed by form or substance as the Father himself; but shall we say, that Christ was never seen by man, because he was only seen in the human form? The question is, whether he was seen at all; not whether under one form or another. If he was seen by Abraham, when he entertained the three angels, previously to the destruction of Sodom, he was as much, and no more

seen in that form, than when seen by Moses in the flame of fire in the bush. The one form was no more peculiarly his, as God, than the other; but the sentient and intelligent spirit was, in both cases, contracted, as it were into a focus, and in listening to that spirit, and in beholding that external form and symbol, both Abraham and Moses, assuredly beheld God. What should we say to a man, who should assert that no human eye had ever looked on an angel or heard an angel's voice; because the human form in which they had descended was not an angel's, and the human voice with which they spake, was not that appropriated to angels in their own seat of Heaven? If he allowed that a supernatural agency had been manifested at all, should we not ridicule the special pleading, which would fix on such points as an objection against angels having been seen or heard at all? In truth it makes no manner of difference, in what the outward resemblance may consist. God is a Spirit: and some external form is necessary to be used, because of the extreme imperfection of our senses. Let it be fire;-a cloud ;-a halo of glory; an angel ;—it is a form chosen by the Deity as being adapted to our powers; and the voice proceeding from that resemblance, adapted for the same reason to our language and uttered by apparently human organs, is plainly and manifestly the voice of God.

There can indeed be no question, that the idea which was intended to be given to the elders was the visible presence of the Deity ;- their terror and alarm sufficiently indicate it; a presence more perfect and defined than had been displayed in the pillar and in the cloud; and we come again and

again to the conclusion, that when the elders were received into the Mount, they saw God ;-even though they saw only a part,—and that a very inferior part of his divine glory. But the reasoning which we have pursued in regard to this topic, is wondrously supported, when adapted to the memorable request unto God of Moses, that "he would show him his glory."

God does not refuse to manifest himself to his favoured prophet; but states, in answer to his prayer, that it would be impossible to his human nature to see him in the full effulgence of his Majesty. "Thou canst not see my face," he replies, "for no man shall see my face, and live. Behold," he adds, "there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover thee with my hand, while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen." ""*

The marvellous deed took place; - God was beheld by Moses in a portion of his glory; but if this were the case, how could it be said of Moses, that he had not actually seen God. If this were the Father, how could it be declared, that no man hath seen him "at any time." If this be acknowledged, how could it have been the Father who twice said to Moses, "I will not go. Mine angel shall go before thee, &c."

We pass designedly over an infinite number of cases, in which Christ personally ministered to men,

* Exod. xxxiii. 20.

recorded in the Books which treat of Israel's journey through the wilderness; that the attention may not be wearied by a long succession of facts, which multiply the evidence without increasing its force. Both the mode of interposition, and the terms in which it is noticed are, for the most part, precisely similar to the general tenor of the past history. They involve no new principle; and merely carry on the mind in the same impression, whether of assent or disapproval, which it has received during the previous course of the investigation. The person is unchanged. The angel, the Lord, - who has led them from Egypt, in accordance with his promise to Israel, still continues his direction; - still leads ; —still governs; - still blesses; - still inflicts justice on their transgressions. His presence still goes with them, as he promised, and the Lord himself is the Redeemer of his people. We therefore omit them; contenting ourselves with those which seem to present, either some new feature, or one which possesses some more than ordinary power.

There is however one point, which, though an exception to this rule, in that the mode of revelation is not dissimilar from others which have been already discussed, we cannot refrain from bringing forward, for the sake of the forcible comment with which, even by Jewish writers, it is supported.

In a very early stage of the progress of the Israelites, while they abode at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron, jealous, it would seem, of the authority of Moses, and instigated by a petty vanity, (that we may not characterize it more pointedly,) sought occasion to oppose him, and to lessen his influence

amongst the nation over whom he ruled. It would seem, that they endeavoured to raise a faction against him; and as, from his perfect integrity, they could not procure any grounds of accusation against him personally; they sought it on the pretence of his marriage with a stranger. They spake against him because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married. "And they said; Hath the Lord indeed spoken only to Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it."* However deeply he may have felt the injustice, Moses would not take vengeance on his own blood; and would have passed over the indignity in the consciousness that it was unmerited. He trusted in the righteousness of his own cause; and felt sufficiently strong to disdain the opposition which was founded on false principles. But the insult in reality was directed not so much against Moses as against God. He had appointed Moses the leader of the nation; and his own decrees were attacked, when that appointment was set at nought. It was a juncture in which it was right that he should intervene to vindicate his own glory. The Lord was wroth. "He came down in the pillar and in the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle;" and calling Aaron and Miriam from their tents before him, said; Hear now my words, If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall

* Numb. xii. 2.

66