Omnipresence, Matthew 18:20, οὗ γάρ εἰσι δύο, etc., for where are two, etc. This statement expressly posits πολυτοπίαν/multi-presence, and πολυτοπία/multi-presence implies παντοπίαν/omnipresence. Matthew 28:20, on which text, in addition to Exercitation XXX, Part II, Exercitationibus Textualibus, consult our AUTHOR’S Historiam Exaltationis Christi, book I, chapter XIV, § 20. John 3:13, concerning the sense of which passage see below, Chapter XX, § 7.
Independence, John 5:26, concerning which passage there has already been discussion in § 8, 10.
Immutability, Psalm 102:26, 27, where the speech is directed toward God the Son, as the Apostle observes, and hence also concludes His true Deity, Hebrews 1:10-12. But this testimony, horribly twisted by the Socinians, Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 33, 41, 42, pages 72, 73, 80-83, ARNOLDI vindicates for Christ the Son of God, verily the Creator of the whole universe, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, § CCXXXIII-CCXLII, pages 259-262.
Omniscience, John 21:17, where there was a question concerning the inner affection of the heart and its sincerity; consult our AUTHOR’S Historiam Exaltationis Christi, book I, chapter XIII, § 10, 13. Revelation 2:23, in which the Son, as very God, claims for Himself Knowledge of man’s heart and deepest parts; and thus it teaches that not only did Peter ascribe the same to His Lord, but that he did not presume too highly concerning Him. Neither is it able to be said that Christ has this by revelation; since He says that He Himself searches hearts: nor even that by a blessing obtained by prayer Christ the man received καριογνωσίαν, the knowledge of the heart, in time from the One God, as the Catechesis Racoviana maintains, de Prophetico Christi munere, chapter I, question 67, page 161, seeing that God reserves this prerogative for Himself alone, 1 Kings 8:39, as founded in His infinite divine Nature: compare below on Chapter XII, § 12, number I. γ.
Omnipotence, Revelation 1:8, which passage proves both the Eternity and the Omnipotence of Christ the Son of God, whatever the Socinians might deny in their Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 23, 29, pages 60, 67-69; but compare on this place ARNOLDI, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, § CLXXI-CLXXXV, pages 235-239, etc.
Which Essential Attributes, since they are not separate from the Divine Essence, indeed, do not differ in God; doubtlessly imply this, even more expressly attributed to the Son under the name of Deity, Colossians 2:9, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as over against that shadowy inhabitation of the שׁכינה/Shechinah in the old Tabernacle and Temple, as the σῶμα/body of all σκιῶν τῶν μελλόντων, the shadows of coming things is τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Christ’s, Colossians 2:17,[1] so that it might thus be indicated that Deity dwells in the human nature of Christ in a far more excellent manner than formerly in the Tabernacle before the Ark of the covenant: or σωματικῶς/bodily, that is, οὐσιωδῶς/essentially, as עֶצֶם/body often signifies the very essence of a thing: compare VITRINGA’S Observationum sacrarum, book I, dissertation II, chapter IV, § 5, 7, pages 159, 160, 164; BOCHART’S Epistle on this passage after Phaleg et Canaan, columns 1038-1042. Indeed, the very height of impudence is the Socinian gloss, Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 81, pages 110, 111, and finally, by those words, that the fullness of divinity dwells in Him bodily, the divine nature is not proven. For, first, this language of divinity is able to indicate the will of God, and, since the Apostle sets that speech in opposition to Philosophy and Law, not persons, it is clear that this is to be taken of the teaching, not of the person, of the Lord Jesus. But, 1. that interpretation of the word θεότης/Godhead/Deity is able to be proven from no authority. 2. There is an opposition between the persons seducing through philosophy, verse 8, Βλέπετε μή ΤΙΣ, etc., beward lest ANY MAN, etc., and Christ, between seducers as men and Christ as God. Who, 3. in verse 10, is proven to have, not only divine doctrine, but also divine power, and hence the divine nature, indicated by θεότητα/ Godhead, inasmuch as He is ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, the head of all principality and power: compare ARNOLDI, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, § XIV, XV, pages 318, 319. Whence also it of itself come to nothing, that the same Catechesis Racoviana, de Prophetico Christi Munere, question 4, page 130, further on thus explains the same words of Paul, whereby he asserts that all the fullness of the Deity dwells in Christ bodily, that is, that in His doctrine the entire will of God is revealed wholly and and actually. See also the vindications of this passage for the true Deity of Christ against the Socinians in BECMANN’S Exercitationibus Theologicis, IX, pages 132, 133, 138-140, compared with Exercitation II, page 11, and also against Harwood in CAROLUS BOERS’ Specimine Animadversionum in Harwood Novi Testamenti Versionem Britannicam, chapter II, section 4, pages 73-82.
Also, the Form of God, and Equality with Him, Philippians 2:6. In which, 1. it is treated of things that Christ truly possessed, before He ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, emptied Himself, by assuming a vile and lowly human nature, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Concerning this Person, who verily already previously existed and subsisted, it is affirmed, 2. of what sort He was, namely, ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, in the form of God, in the image and similitude of the Father, or in perfect conformity with Him, which ought to be sought no less in Essence and all Properties than in Majesty: not λαβὼν/taking this μορφὴν Θεοῦ, the form of God, in time, as it is asserted of the μορφῇ δούλου, the form of a servant, verse 7; but ὑπάρχων ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, subsisting personally in the form of God, not accidental, which is not applicable to God, and in which it is not given ὑπάρχειν, to be; but essential, which argues that Christ is also very God. Hence, 3. ἶσα, an abstract in the neuter plural, equals, equalities, that is, altogether equal, perfectly equal with God the Father in the supreme authority of God; and, with glorious majesty being applicable to Him, τὸ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God: in no manner did He regard this equality with God robbery; neither actively, for He was certain that He was not falsely arrogating Deity to Himself, but that this was applicable to Him φύσει, by nature, and by a natural giving of the Father; nor passively, for He was certain that this most just possession was never to be taken from Him by anyone. Now, that ἰσότης/equality with God the Father could not be ascribed to Christ without blasphemy, unless He also be signified to be truly ὁμοούσιος/ Homoousios/Consubstantial by ὕπαρξιν ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, being in the form of God, comparing Psalm 113:5; Micah 7:18; John 5:18: compare our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes Textuales XLI, XLII, Part II, and also XLII, § 1-8, Part VI; BECMANN’S Exercitationes Theologicas, XII, pages 168-211; POLYANDER’S primam Concertationem Anti-Socinianam, disputation VIII, § 15-27, pages 85-91; likewise ARNOLDI’S refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on chapter I, de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 51, 54-56 (pages 89, 92-94), pages 279-283, likewise on questions 70, 71 (page 103), pages 298, 299. And on the whole context of Philippians 2:6-11, see the excursus of Röellius against the Socinians, Commentario in principium Epistolæ ad Ephesios, verses 1-3, § 209-213, pages 488-512.
Unity also with the Father, John 10:30,[2] not εἷς ἐσμεν, we are one person, for they were two, one and another; but ἕν ἐσμεν, we are One Thing, not only in consent, but in Essence, and hence also in Power: see ARNOLDI’S refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, de Cognitione Dei, chapter I, § CXVII-CXXII, pages 127-130, and likewise on chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 68, 69, pages 101, 102, § I-IV, pages 296, 297; DAVID PAREUS’ Calvinum Orthodoxum, book II, chapter XIV.