{ | i اما t * *, h f : कॉर्डिंक እዋm)
- *
| ਾ 骨 sł thets lead us to than that of a temporal autocrat, un emperor or sovran monarch. They in no way serve to give as an idea of the true nature of God. Again the Vedic definition of the deity. “Everywhere are his eyes, every where his face, every where his arm, every where his feet, he joins man with arms, the birds with wings, the fishes with fins dea.” What do these words serve to convey to our minds, other than filling them with thoughts of the several organs of sense which they express instead of giving the true image of God, which ought to occupy our minds and souls in our meditation and devotion of Him. Undor the third or causality, we have : “He from whom all things are born, by whom they are supported, and upto wholu they return, &ea,” “He is the Creator, }'reserver and Annihilator of the 'These pas ag s give us only idea" ol the agencies of univ 2.86.” L) lerived fran the er ution, preseaviction and lostruction of the world, bott tootho, what v, f of his real esseuer or nature. There is n well known work extut om the existes:', of God which proves hit, only is a moury cause, froid the existence of the visible work; without describing to us his nature or from. tudor the south or argument a priori or wored out as it is called in Huidu logic, we a cleverly written treatise by au ingenions writer, who bas atterupteel to prove the existence and attributes of God by demon. stration from cause to cffect. But it proved a writched failue as no such reasoning eat. lead us to the knowledge of God. Prior trnfiis arejustly the campus //l. ilosophorum, (3) and will over remain subject to controversy. The definition of God given by philossophers as “An absolute perfect being to which a necessary existence is essoritial anti denonstrable; is no other than an argument of necessity for the existence and not the essential nature of God. Its enunciations are 1 am, He is, Alast, Asti, Sat, Id est, Ens, Om. &c. There are many other definitions which are little better tham identical propositions, expressing the same thing, as, a line is length, a point has position, &c, such as Sadasti God is good, Al Rahaman ul rahiln &c, which couvey to us no more instruction than that x=x.
- . . .
kratisyengriptistiemiņasman ‘’ਂ •יאי
- (8) Arena of philosopliers,
AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF GOD | | | SQ(t The words used in several scriptures as expressive of God, such as, Satyan—verax, Jnanam,intelligems, Sat-homas, Anandam-felix, Haq justus, Rahim-Misericors, Mattay—liberrimus &c, are either relative terms of what God is in relation to others, or analogical expressions derived from the veracity, intelligence, goodness, justice and mercy of mankind and not of what God is in him, elf, and conso4ııeııtly fajj to give u: u right wōnceptiola of his natur..". The best and most distinctive definition we havo of the nature of God, is given in the words,“l)eus est essentia spiritualis aeternm, et imuuemsae patoutiae et sapentiae"(4) in which titte ti ”mas spiriltus, tite spirit, ueterovas, etermity and is owcows, iron, ensity are truly definitive of J); vine essenre. But do we know A to idea, of spiritual coelice, of etermity, and of these, better than we know God? {}Ա ի՞ imitter, sity Inore simple ant cohet, siv, than out idea of God? The idol of “ i..', wholl (Jod, of a duty sitt ing in gi " " oti i is in a venly itud eon -
- sin : : :f, :
- }, r, tre, is certainly thors:
iv. i hatt the {:t »!!{:ě'}}ł ! \ nr. o Uod, włanii w v ca1! ( sh i it, r u?", "1", i ni C: whou we is o' tlie og i tre of The idea of etormity io 1,01. kit, w w łętlier it
iii. \, i: با ty; . ;: في لا { } {" u,) 3"} ر ". vr w, 1, 3, iit*' (iutavi, a; niay ix, foro te •) cf An objeei, et auyolimousions orniagnitude, either as “...afirot in a certon place or extol,ding over a large #pare, «ud tła 1:stre is utit suffiejęctly expressive of the vast and rouproBut, the idea of Infini's comprehousis in itself, the hensive idol பl در) وي؟ tinat WU" have, ideas of umluisita + sp:u:^, asi well ,i, 1 hai wi duration, and not only tilo alon, but ave, ording to the usual acceptation of the term as applied to God the l it fin ity of Gool и мі і о рe ofotions, the infi դնtյ of his to slo Ito, his #1, wool, tsife, his power, his govdiv'ss, a wo holiness. What word therefore is more adequate to express the comprehensive idea of God, than soft-rity? But it suity be asked whether Insia its awar. Joturnity, are attributes, or the very essence of the lyeity? They can be viewed in both light, substantive, as well as attributive. Distimet, attributes as “I)eu» mon est duralio vel spacium, sed, durat et adest (5) rvmd. -- —£ k _ इन्हू s- י" sm - א= • ישיאי יוז= e^יחיא זו אי "י א (4) God is a spiritual essence, eternal and immeise, powerful ard wise &c., (3) God is not duration or space, but endures and is
- కాrఉssRkRssa
