short with knowing how anything first presents itself, but find out whether this is actually its nature.
If, for instance, we consider a perception, we see that I am the knowledge, the perception, and that further there is an Other, an object; or, if it is not conceived of as objective, but as subjective, there is at least some determinateness or conscious state present for me. In sensation, I am thus mediated only by means of the object, by means of the definite character of my sensation. It is always a content; two elements go to the making of it. Knowledge is absolutely simple, but I must know something; if I am mere knowledge, I know nothing at all. It is the same with pure seeing. In pure seeing I see nothing at all. Pure knowledge may be called immediate, it is simple; but if knowledge be actual, be real, we have then what knows and what is known, we have relation and mediacy.
Speaking more definitely, religious knowledge is essentially a mediated knowledge, but all the same it is not admissible to look in a one-sided way upon mere mediated knowledge as being real and true. To whatever religion a man may belong, every one knows that he was brought up in it, that he received instruction in it. This instruction, this up-bringing, supplies me with my knowledge; my knowledge is mediated through doctrine, education, &c.
Besides, if it be positive religion that is in question, it is revealed, and that in a manner external to the individual; there the faith in the religion is essentially mediated through revelation. These circumstances and doctrines, and this revelation, are not of a chance character, they are not accidental, but are essential; they undoubtedly have to do with an external relation, but this relation is not non-essential on account of its being external.
If we now turn our attention to the other side, the inner side, and forget that faith, conviction, has this
