S S3 of divine knowledge acknowledged by the divin', the to cologian, and the philo8opher. Thus we in St. Augustine saying. “Duo sunf, qnae in cognitionem l)ei ducunt: Featura e Scripturie &c.” (1) So says Newton, “ De I)eo de quo utique ex phenomenis disseri.*e ad philosopbiam naturalem pertiuet.” (2) Archbishop Tillotson declares the saune in a “The principles of scrition to the king. natural religion are the soundation of that “And whatever article of revelation is found incompatible with the tight, of f'. j oted which is revealed.” nature altd reason, deserves to be as a paradox imposing upon the ignorant, and a dogfua forcing one's belief hy compulsion. Also socke has very truly said “He who would toke away reason to make 1 opin fo, volation puts out the light of both, as if he world polade a man to put out his •y", lh , , er , rec^iv" i '" refotest light, of an in i-bi, star by a telescope.” Let ԱԷ: tlit in sise whether the ۹؛b؛ ۱ را idea trf God is conformal de to both natin al and re vealed rågion. li, is impossibie from the doctrines of any systent of theology to ai rive at a definite conception of God, as ther, is no genus under whiel, the Infinite ond Floriaal nuay be compeehendeel Even the most abstract- predicailaeut urw]gr wiriel wr unig!1t propo$r· 'w p!»eg him is an inadequate 16et of Hirn wilose nature is wholly incomprehensible, Ilo, then are we to allain to a ¥ 11. wledge of ou Alaker, it, a. natural inquiry, if the light of popular faiths and Seriptum es will iv »f I. *)«! us to a right 1ιιιίίων of his nature ? But says the theologiant, though we wre unable adequovo y to defi'it. God yo!, \\" é » , *,}** * able to ! 3: rin soint': 'ting tof hini, # } - ኣW { • “ House that which may be ki, w i, of 4 itul is uitvinifest in f 8 I l M iind in Roma's "{1}}, ], { }}. tu-n, o) a* \' . ;. lata (t';!a;tishály says “Noris; く。 Įt di's ו ר ' vet. Bl.a. i. neither that ዃኋ ؛ از ه. ۱ i, n »w httn 1 t 1 3r it had we know him.” last us however how "to the different inodos ant! tu, rhod o 11: riv. ’d by philosophers to o onvey to as a , ; botion of God, and the definition: generwit v '! & 'v'! ti ; d. ~fine lris maturo. The ; nie 'oth, wil negattiowie, by magti . . . Two tito, there are, which lead us to zu idea of Goti, , vt. i. " and Scriptures (2) It appe i, o, to 114tural philosophy to discuss convori!s of {}otl trorn those things Ul) overy side whici wo oec. তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিকা ! ৯ বঙ্গ, ও ভাগ tion; hat aphairesin, by negation, or removing all imperfections from the nature of God, as neti neti or tanna tanna pursned Neo-Platonics, Schoolmen, and Vedanta philosophers, gives us negative propositions, ae he is neither this nor that, and therefore fall short of giving any idea of what God really is. The socond method, the attribution of all perfections to God by eminence, via emiwentia, kata schesin or woachara of Vedanta, furnishes us only with ideas of properties belonging to created beings, and cannot therefore he properly descriptive of the real nature of tile Deisy The third method, the ascribing of the qualities of creation, preservation, &c, to the livinity by causality, via causolitatis. latta 1 hitsin. or Kárana gwna of the Na унуа. philosophy, are mere assumptions of necessity and argumeuts a posteriori, derived from the state of things in the world and do not give as any direct idea of the nature of God. We have no knowledge fron' un u priori argument of diving nature, all that we know of God's attributes is derived by our reakoning a posterio, i from his works to himself, which does not ouable us to discern his nature. By way ،) Głnci: lating these, argu se u is, I insert the Eih", to passages from the "panshads descri', is the nature and attributes of the Štip, one foing. Under the first or iழ oth') of offiction, we have ; “The being invisible, lostizable, without origin, without tolor, without eyes, without hands, feet, &ca;” “ without death without, fear “ &ea; “With. out begining, without oud, &ca" and without every imperfection &c.” Now what ideas do all titese 11 gations Ꮠ#'tᏉᏋ tü impress {》饥 {}{1次 units, but those of the things they negative, viz; eyes, hands feet &ca, &ca, and not of what they are intended to affirm. Should the phrase “without eyes, feet, and hands” lead us to forin ideas of the absence of these organs, what would they autountsto, but simply that the deity was devoid of them. They do not leud 118 to form au idea of what he ровіtively is. l Under the second or by stay qf етinesteе, the Vedas declare : “We know him the Supreme great Ruler of all rulers, the supreme Deity of all deities, the Lord of lords, greater that what is groatest, the resplendent and praiseworthy Ruler of the universo." Now what better notion of God do these epi
