From Reformation to Reformation

No Creature is Omnipresent like God. That is, the Omnipresence or Immensity attributed to God includes actual Infinity with respect to Somewhere, so that God is Omnipresent because Immense and Infinite. But no species of whatever Infinity is able able to have its place in a finite essence, of which sort is everything that is distinct from and dependent upon God. Still less any Body, just as nevertheless the Ubiquitarians maintain in asserting the Omnipresence of the Human Bod

But, α. that this Essential Omnipresence is not conceived of by us through the mode of Co-extension or Diffusion, is evident from the declarations concerning this matter read everywhere in our Theologians. β. That, on account of the difficulty in conceptualizing the Mode, the matter itself ought not to be denied, is no less an acknowledge fact, since this Essential Omnipresence is clearly delivered to us in Scripture. Who grasps how God understands and wills all things by one

Diffusion With respect to the Mode of divine Omnipresence, it is certainly exceedingly difficult to understand. In particular, it ought not to be placed in a certain Co-extension or Diffusion of the divine Essence: because, 1. it is inconsistent with the Spiritual and Perfectly Simple Essence of God: 2. and with the Nature of extended bodies, which are not able to penetrate each other; but they exclude other bodies from the same place. 3. And so, when the divine Essence is sa

Finally, the Socinians deny this, who feign that God in Essence is contained in the Heavens; and in the passages cited by HOORNBECK, Socinianismo confutato, book II, chapter II, section I, tome I, pages 288, etc., they everywhere deny the Immensity of the divine Essence or Presence; although they acknowledge the Immensity of His Power: “The substance of God,” says Socinus in his Catechism, found in HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismo confutato, book II, chapter II, section I, tome I, p

β. Reason confirms the same: 1. from the Independence of God. For whatever is limited by something in some way, even with respect to its Where, depends upon that which is responsible for why it is limited, and enjoys so much Where, but no more. If therefore a Where is to be assigned to the Independent God, that is to be attributed to Him, which is altogether Independent; and so confined within no limits, or defined by no bounds. But He is comprehended, neither by the whole ci

It is evident from this Definition that our AUTHOR does not speak of the Presence of divine Knowledge and Operations only, but of His Essential Presence. And that in this sense Omnipresence and Immensity coincide, it proven, α. by Express passages of Scripture: Jeremiah 23:24, 24: In which, 1. God speaks most clearly of Himself with respect to His Essence, saying אֲנִי/I several times.[1] 2. He affirms Himself to be near and afar off at the same time, in such a way that even

God’s Immensity follows, which comprehends in itself His Omnipresence and Ubiquity. Obviously Omnipresence and Ubiquity assert a relation to created things, to all which God is said to be present. But Immensity is an Absolute Attribute, which includes Omnipresence; but it additionally posits that God is there, where created things do not even exist at this point, but are able to exist through the Power of God; in such a way that God is not able to be enclosed within the bound

Johannes Crellius Hence also the Affections and Passions of the Soul are not to be attributed to God; as it is done by the Socinians, among whom Crellius, libro de Deo ejusque Attributis, chapter XXIX-XXXI, everywhere ascribes Affections to God, which in chapter XXIX, opera, tome 4, page 98a, he describes as being “the Passions of the divine Will, especially the more vehement; or the acts of this sort, whereby the will is brought more vehemently to its object, or flees from a

But this Immutability of God pertains, α. to God’s Existence, Eternally, in accordance with § 31, 32. β. To His Essence, forever the same, according Psalm 102:27, and so not subject to the possibility of Annihilation, which the Necessity of His Existence implies, concerning which in § 21. Neither does the Essence of God suffer any Mutation, either, 1. By Creation, which, as far as God is concerned, is not some accidental property of God, but His active Essence was already fro

From Simplicity flows Immutability, which, as it was organized by our AUTHOR, is proven, 1. From Sacred Scripture, among other passages, James 1:17, where to God is denied, not only παραλλαγὴ/ variableness, but even any τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα, shadow of turning/ change. The very Sun in the eclipse of its Light suffers, if not change, at least shadowing: but not so the Father of Lights, in whom there is not even the slightest appearance of change. For an illustration of this text f

β. On the other hand, God’s Simplicity excludes all Composition that God might enter into with the Creature. For, if, 1. God’s Simplicity prevents all Composition, then it also prevents Composition with Creatures. By which, 2. the Immutable God would have endured actual Mutation. By which also, 3. God, who is distinguished from all other things by His Independence, would be made Dependent: since in the coming together of multiple things to constitute a composite, properly so

The Simplicty of God excludes: α. On the one hand, all Partial Communication of the Divine Essence, whether with all Creatures, or with man; just as the Manicheans are related to have held that all Creatures were propaged from God’s Essence as a vine, and that the Soul of Man in particular is a particle of the diven Essence: consult AUGUSTINE, de Hæresibus, chapter XLVI, page 967a, b, and DANÆUS on the same place, page 970a; EPIPHANIUS, Hæresi LXVI, chapter IX, page 626. Thus

But, as the Socinians and Vorstius here pursue their finite and corporeal conception of God, and study to overthrow in this way the Essential identity of the divine Persons: so the Remonstrants, so that they might flatter the Socinians, in their Apologia, chapter II, page 41b, pronounce that the whole Question or disputation concerning the Simplicity of God is Metaphysical, concerning which there is not so much as one Jot in Scripture. They say that the most acute geniuses pa

That God is thus Simple and without any Composition, we hold, 1. against the Socinians, who depict to us a Composite God, when they assert that it is false that the divine Attributes are God Himself, with Slichtingius:[1] while the Eternity and faculties, by which God does whatever He wills, together with the acts of God, they maintain to be a means, or a third thing between God and His creatures, according to Adam Goslawski:[2] and they say that the Attributes do not destroy

Moreover, in this Single Essence there is no Real Composition, either of the Nature and Attributes, or of the Attributes among themselves. Real Composition, says our AUTHOR, while admitting in § 18 the Difference of the Reason Reasoned, whereby the Attributes are distinguished from the Essence according to the reckoning of the Objects and Effects, and according to our Manner of Conception, is also held to admit such a Composition of the Reason Reasoned according to our Manner

We are obliged, at last, to charge the Socinians, who set themselves above all other Christians as Unitarians, because they multiply Gods; since they call Jesus Christ True God, but nevertheless made by the Father, and altogether distinct from Him in Essence; but indeed a ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον, mere man, who was not before he was born of the Virgin Mary; and, nevertheless, they thing that divine honors, of Adoration, for example, are also to be bestowed upon Him: compare SPANHEIM’S

This error of the Manicheans in the Third Century and thereafter was more well known than the others, that there are two eternal and opposite Principia, one of the good, the other of evil: in the assertion of which heresy a superabounding herd of Gnostics followed, who already in the Second Century were conversant with this opinion: see SPANHEIM’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Century III, chapter VII, § 5, columns 751-753; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chap

Neither is the Trinity any hindrance, β. to this Unity of Persons in One divine Essence. For the Trinity does not assert a divine Nature common to multiple Essences distinct in number; but this Trinity of Persons sweetly agrees and is conjoined with Unity of Essence, 1 John 5:7; see below, Chapter V, § 18: some also refer to this Deuteronomy 6:4; see Chapter V, § 19. Nor does it hinder, that three Persons among men also assert three men and three Essences diverse in number; i

Now, this Unity is not only Specific, just as many things that are actually plural are sometimes said to be One, to the extent that they are apt to come together in the conception of the same species. Thus with respect to species there is only one human nature, of which we are all partakers; while we nevertheless possess a human essence diverse from the singular number: but in God Numeric Unity obtains, in accordance with which His Being is so singular that it admits absolute

2. A posteriori, from the Stable Government of all things and Direction of them to One End; whence also one may gather the protection of One God as supreme King, just as previously from this our AUTHOR also proved the Existence of God, § 10: see IRENÆUS’ book III adversus Hæreses, chapter XXV or XLI-XLVI, pages 223, 224, where he disputes against Marcion:[1] also compare GROTIUS’ de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, book I, § 3. [1] Marcion (c. 85-160) was a Gnostic heretic fro