which can be attested historically, and when His resurrection and ascension are in the same way considered as occurrences perceived by the senses, so far as the Sensuous is concerned we are not dealing with the sensuous attestation of these phenomena, and it is not suggested that the miracles of Christ, His resurrection and ascension, in their character as themselves outward phenomena and sensuous occurrences, have not sufficient evidence of their truth; but, on the contrary, what we are concerned with is the relation of the sensuous verification and the sensuous occurrences taken together, to Spirit, to the spiritual content. The verification of the Sensuous, whatever be its content, and whether it is based on evidence or direct perception, is always open to an infinite number of objections, because it is based on what is sensuous and external, and this is an Other so far as Spirit or consciousness is concerned; here consciousness and its object are separated, and what holds sway is this underlying separation, which carries with it the possibility of error, deception, and a want of the culture necessary to form a correct conception of a fact, so that one may have doubts, and look on the Holy Scriptures, as regards what in them has reference to what is merely external and historical, as profane writings, without mistrusting the goodwill of those who give the personal evidence. The sensuous or material content is not certain in itself, because it does not originate with Spirit as such, because it belongs to another sphere and does not come into existence by means of the Notion. It may be thought that we ought to come to our conclusions by a comparison of all the evidence and the circumstances, or that there must be reasons why we should decide for the one or for the other, only, this entire method of proof and the sensuous content as such ought to be given a subordinate place in comparison with the need of Spirit. What is to be true for Spirit, what it is necessary for it to believe must have no connection with
