and limited, even if in reality He is not? From this point of view, to be limited spatially and to appear to be limited amount to just the same thing. God has, as a matter of fact, limited Himself spatially in merely revealing words and ideas like 'throne', 'heaven', 'send', 'messenger', 'see', 'hear', etc., and attributing all to Himself. Every one of these notions is a purely spatial one and calls up spatial images. This is true just as much for the Muslim as the Christian; for he also uses all these words; and he talks of the throne on which God sits, borne by angels, surrounded by angels above, below, and around. What is this except the utmost of spatial limitations? And when he talks of the soul's entering the garden, being with God, seeing His face, standing by His throne, does he not necessarily imagine and picture in his mind a place, and forms and figures and spaces? Of course he does. Therefore we repeat from this point of view that God, quite apart from the Incarnation, has struck Himself into space, having in the minds and imaginations of all men limited Himself, and, if you please, incarnated Himself, using incarnation in the wider sense of entering within material bounds.

(2) But, in the second place, if we admit the principle that God allows Himself to appear bounded by space, in thought, while really transcending it in a manner not to be imagined by us, and further admit that this appearance is at least a hint of some truth, we can carry the argument a step

further and say that it is equally possible for God to give some sensible manifestation of His presence in space—that is, one affecting not only the imagination but the senses. That is to say, He can connect His presence more with one part of space than another, without thereby denying His omnipresence. Who shall say this is impossible? On the contrary, it is admitted. We say even in common parlance, at certain solemn times, we feel that God is with us. If in old times He made a wondrous light, or fiery cloud or smoke, and gave His people to understand that His presence was in some particular way connected with or manifested in that fire or light, who can deny it? And on the other hand, who is so foolish as to think that which manifestation exhausted or monopolized the presence of God! When Moses saw the fire in the bush and heard the voice; when Israel saw the fiery cloud in the Holy of Holies, and they bowed down and worshipped as if in the immediate presence of God (and they were so from this point of view) were they so foolish as to think that the Heaven of Heavens was then empty of God's presence? No, they saw a mystery with two sides to it—like all mysteries in heaven and earth (and what thing created or uncreated is not a mystery?) and were thankful.

And similarly the 'Angel of the Presence', the Angel who said to Manoah that His name was WONDERFUL (pelai), which is the peculiar epithet of God; in these cases also we have a mysterious