I THERE is nothing superficially less attractive to a philosophical mind than the notion of a revealed truth. For philosophy is reasonable examination, and must resist the claim of any doctrine to exempt itself from criticism. And revealed truth is commonly said to be accepted on the mere authority of its revealer; not on any empirical evidence for it, nor on any logical self-evidence contained in it. The analogy used to substantiate this difficult idea is that of human statements taken upon trust. It is pointed out that we often do, and must, accept without evidence the selfdisclosures of our friends about their past histories, present sentiments, and future intentions; and it is asked whether it is not even more necessary and proper to accept the self-disclosures of God. More proper, for He neither errs nor lies; more necessary, for whereas we may guess the minds of our equals by many indications, we can scarcely hope to guess the mind of our Creator, beyond establishing the visible nature of His creations. But:
what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, what never entered the heart of man ... God has revealed to us by the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep thoughts of God. For who among men knoweth the thoughts of a man, save the spirit of a man that is in him? Even so the thoughts of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God. But we have received not the spirit of the \vorld but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the bounty devised to us by God .... Now the natural man receiveth not the communications of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; he cannot know them, because they are spiritually
judged. Whereas he that is spiritual judges all things and is himself judged by none. For who hath known the mind of the Lord that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ (I Cor. ii. 9-15).