^{page 221 note 2} I have in mind the view of Charles Hartshorne, as developed in The Logic of Perfection (LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962)Google Scholar, and Anselm's Discovery (LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Co., 1965).Google Scholar I must postpone until another occasion the attempt to do full justice to the subtlety of his neo-classical position.

^{page 221 note 3} Rudolf, Otto, The Idea of the Holy, trans. by Harvey, J. W., 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} Paul Tillich speaks of two similar strands in his paper, ‘The Two Types of Philosophy of Religion’, in Theology of Culture, ed. by Kimball, Robert C. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).Google Scholar The present may bears certain positive relations to Tillich's, though it attempts to develop similar themes in more concrete and directly experiential terms.

^{page 225 note 1} This passage clearly reflects a Tillichian perspective, as developed in Systematic Theology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951), I, 238–41Google Scholar and Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 41–54.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} For a treatment of some of the problems pertaining to non-objectifying speech, cf. Robinson, James M. and Cobb, John B. Jr,. (eds.), The Later Heidegger and Theology (New York: Harper and Row, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} In ‘Being and God’, a forthcoming paper in Essays in Metaphysics (The Pennsylvania State University Press), I have attempted to effect a unification between the mystery and intelligibility of God in terms of a somewhat untraditional interpretation of the meaning of Being. At the same time, the unification in question involves a tensional element. This element comprises the permanent truth in the present interpretation.