4. Finally, from Divine Honor and Worship: for, to whom is applicable Divine Honor and Worship, to Him is applicable the Divine Essence: which is evident, α. From God’s Zeal for His own Glory, Isaiah 42:8, where the Remonstrants contend that there is an exclusion only of the Worship of idols and of such a creature, or person, to which divine adoration or worship is offered without regard to, or contrary to, the express commandment of God; but not simply of whatever creature or person that is not the most high God, Apologia Remonstrantium, chapter XII, page 139a; against whom see TRIGLAND disputing with gravity, Antapologia, chapter XLIV, pages 575-577. But thus the Remonstrants imitate the Socinians, who in their Catechesi Racoviana, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, question 93, pages 122, 123, discourse in this way concerning the sense of the passage in Isaiah 42:8, so that they might supply arms to the Papists for the invocation of Saints: thoroughly compare ARNOLDI, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the place cited, § V-XI, pages 341-343. β. From the universal prohibition of Divine Worship towards Creatures, Jeremiah 17:5; the force of our argument from Jeremiah 17:5 against the Exception of the Catechesis Racovianæ, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, question 92, page 121, ARNOLDI urges in his refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the place cited, pages 336-339. From Matthew 4:10, on which passage compare below, Chapter IX, § 19; Chapter XI, § 6. γ. Also from the prerequisite divine Sufficiency and Perfections in Him, to whom we present this Honor.
To this refer the Honor in John 5:23. This is the end of the intention of God the Father in giving Judgment to the Son, ἵνα, that all men should honor the Son, καθὼς, even as, etc.; which not only connects the matter, but also place the same kind of Honor in the Son and the Father: see WITSIUS, in Orationem Dominicam, Exercise I, §29; ARNOLDI, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, question 93, § I-III, pages 340-341.
Invocation, in Hebrew 1:6, on which passage see WESSELIUS’ Dissertationes Academicas XVI-XVIII. In Philippians 2:9-11, whether the honor of Adoration here be restricted to Christ alone; or through it the Confession of Jesus as Lord equally tend to the honor of the Father. Whatever the case may be, it is not able to be gathered from here, that the divine Honor in this passage claimed for Christ is only subaltern: for no divine Honor is given except the very highest. It is none the less rightly said that the divine Honor to be bestowed upon Christ as Mediator tends to the Glory of the Father: for it is the Glory of the Father to have such and so great a Son, who, with the work of Redemption successfully accomplished, as the glorious Prince of all those redeemed by Him, shines with unstained honors: compare ARNOLDI, refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, on chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, question 93 (pages 122, 123), § IV, page 341, questions 94, 95 (pages 123-126), where Isaiah 45:23 is also cited, page 345. Just as elsewhere the honor of Adoration is attributed to Christ, the Son of God, absolutely, no less than to the Father, 1 Corinthians 1:2; Revelation 5:13; Acts 7:59, on which passage Socinus in his Disputatione cum Francisco Davidis de Jesu Christi Invocatione, opera, tome 2, page 713: “For the situation is not what one says, that Stephen invoked God, whom he called the Lord of Jesus. For surely, if that had been Stephen’s intention: that an ambiguity full of danger might be avoided (seeing that Christ is neither able, nor ought, to be invoked), indeed, that he might be able to be plain concerning that matter, which otherwise would appear to lie hidden deep within those words, Luke would have written, not Κύριε Ἰησοῦ, but Κύριε τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Especially since elsewhere it is most frequently read, Lord Jesus; but by this formula of speech, namely, the Lord of Jesus, God is nowhere named. But to whom is it able to be uncertain that the Lord Jesus was invoked by Stephen, when a little previously he affirmed that he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, as if he had arisen to bring help to him?” And hitherto he speaks well. And so Stephen here doubtlessly invokes the Lord Jesus, to whom his speech is directed by the same address in Revelation 22:20, Ναί, ἔρχου, Κύριε Ἰησοῦ, even so, come, Lord Jesus. On Acts 7:59, compare also BECMANN, Exercitationibus Theologicis II, pages 9, 10, who also presses an argument for the true Deity of Christ from Adoration in Exercitationibus Theologicis V, pages 67, 68.
Obedience, unquestioning, to such an extent that His Will alone is the supreme Law for us, Psalm 2:12, in which the commanded Kissing of the Son requires willing obedience, reverence and subjection, indeed, to be yielded to Him as the Divine King of Zion, who with Jehovah the Father is joined in an equal position as an object worthy of religious Worship, in comparison with 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Kings 19:18: see our AUTHOR’S Exercitation XV, § 19, Part III, Exercitationibus Textualibus. Likewise, total, religious, and trusting Subjection, which sort is applicable to the Divine King, is commended to the Church, to be yield to Christ, the Son of God, Psalm 45:11; compare verses 6, 7, and our AUTHOR’S Analysem exegeticam on Psalm 45, § 13, after his Commentarium in Canticum, pages 1002, 1003. Thus with absolute Obedience the commends the hearing of Him above Moses and Elijah, as the Church’s highest Teacher and only Lord, since He is the Only Begotten Son of God and the One Mediator between God and men, Matthew 17:5; compare WITSIUS’ Meletemata Leidensia, Dissertation IV, § 32-38.
Faith, John 14:1, in which πιστεύετε, believe ye, in the latter place ought to be translated in the Imperative from the scope of the speech: and that from this commanded Faith in Christ, divine Honor is verily applicable to Him, and that hence His divine Nature, coessential with the Father, is legitimately inferred, and that the text in 1 Peter 1:21 is not obstacle, against the Exceptions of the Catecheseos Racovianæ, chapter I de Cognitione Personæ Christi, questions 90, 91, pages 119-131, ARNOLDI abundantly demonstrates in his Catecheseos Racovianæ refutatione, on passage cited, pages 333-336, ), question 92, § XIII, XIV, page 339, where he observes that to believe upon Christ, that is, through Christ upon God, in the Socinian sense, hardly attributes anything more to Christ than when we are said to believe upon God through John the Baptist, the Apostles, and the other ministers of the Word, John 1:7; 17:20; 1 Corinthians 3:5; on John 14:1, see also GOMARUS, Opera, part I, pages 473, 474; Psalm 2:12, where they are proclaimed blessed that with faith betake themselves unto this Son, fleeing unto Him, ח֥וֹסֵי בֽוֹ׃, putting their trust in Him, seeking refuge in Him, in comparison with Jeremiah 17:5: see our AUTHOR’S Exercitation XV, Part III, § 21.
Love, not of just whatever sort, but the highest, according to Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26, above all others, πλεῖον τούτων, more than these, John 21:15, upon which passage see our AUTHOR’S Historiam Exaltationis Christi, book I, chapter XIII, § 7-9; and my Sermon after my Commentarium in 2 Peter, chapter 1, pages 822 and following. In which manner, whoever loves not the Son, as Jesus, the Christ, the highest Lord and true Jehovah, Paul threatens him with Anathema, Maranatha, 1 Corinthians 16:22, upon which verse read our AUTHOR’S Exercitation XLVIII, Part V, Exercitationibus Textualibus.
Hope, 1 Timothy 1:1; Romans 15:12, in comparison with verse 13; Psalm 42:12; 130:7, 8.
Baptism unto His Name, Matthew 28:19, upon which passage see what things taught above in § 17.
Indeed, in the various Passages cited, the Son of God is presented as Mediator, to whom as such Divine Honor is also to be offered; but always with regard to the Deity supposed in this Office: compare below, Chapter XIX, § 27.
Ferenc Dávid, Superintendent of Transylvania, with his followers, most unhappily robbed the Son of God of this divine Worship, especially of Adoration, on account of the denial of His Deity: but no less unhappily does Socinus undertake to refute this, he himself also denying the Deity of the Son, and who will not ever prove, with that foundation stone removed, that divine Honor is rightly attributed to anyone: see HOORNBEECK’S Apparatum ad Controversiam Socinianismi, pages 31-36, 44-46; BECMANN’S Exercitationes Theologicas, II, pages 16, 17; WEISMANN’S Historiam Ecclesiasticam Novi Testamenti, Century XVII, § 10, pages 554, 555; SPANHEIM’S Decadum Theologicarum V, § 9, number 1, opera, tome 3, column 1223, and Elenchum Controversiarum cum Socinianis, § XXIV, in the same place, columns 814, 815.
Concerning the opinion of the Remonstrants about offering Divine Worship to Christ, the Son of God, see SPANHEIM’S Elenchum Controversiarum cum Remonstrantibus, § XII, opera, tome 3, columns 861, 862; Censuram Confessionis Remonstrantium, chapter II, section 2, pages 34, 35, in comparison with page 28; Apologiam Remonstrantium, chapter II, page 39; TRIGLAND’S Antapologiam, chapter IV, pages 60, 61a, in comparison with page 59a. The Remonstrants omit the argument from divine Worship in proving the Deity of Christ; for it does indeed follow that, if Christ is eternal God, then He is to be honored with divine Worship: but according to their understanding it is not likewise without controversy that Christ is eternal God, because He is to be adored: see Censuram Confessionis Remonstrantium, chapter III, § 3, pages 53, 54; Apologiam Remonstrantium, chapter II, pages 50b, 51a; TRIGLAND’S Antapologiam, chapter V, page 84a, chapter XLV, pages 580b-590. The Apologia Remonstrantium, in chapter XVI, page 153a, affirms that it is altogether just, that we no longer contend for that leaden argument [namely, drawn from divine Hnor, on behalf of the Deity of Christ]: for it is not to be endured, that a thing altogether certain rest upon the help of a lifeless proof. Nevertheless, VAN CATTENBURGH expresses dissent in Spicilegio Theologiæ Christianæ, book II, chapter XVII, section I, § 27, 28. BULL, in Primitiva et Apostolica Traditione de Jesu Christi Divinitate, chapter VI, pages 29-43, prolixly contends, the Argument whereupon the Ancients constructed the Deity of Christ, from the truly divine Worship conceded to Him in Sacred Scripture, is altogether invincible; while BUDDEUS, Animadversionibus in Petri Chauvini librum de Religione Naturali, chapter VII, in his Parergis historico-theologicis, pages 534-544, comes against Chauvin, who asserts in the work cited, part II, chapter V, page 269, that the glory of Jesus Christ was so obscured in this world, that you can scarcely prove that He had been adored with religious worship during His life.
With this paragraph to prove the eternal Deity of the Son, compare CALVIN’S Institutes of the Christian Religion, book I, chapter XIII, § 7-13; GIROLAMO ZANCHI’S de tribus Elohim, part I, books II-VI, opera, tome I; JOSUA PLACÆUS’ opera, tome 2 in its entirety; HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, tome 2, book I, chapter I, section II, pages 71-211; GERHARD’S Loca Communia, tome I, de Deo Patre et Æterno ejus Filio, chapter IV, pages 104-137; PETAVIUS’ Dogmata theologica, tome 2, book II, chapters VIII-XII; VAN CATTENBURGH’S Spicilegium Theologiæ Christianæ, book II, chapter XVII, section I, pages 186-194; ABADIE’S Tractatum de Deitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, whose argument is recounted in Bibliotheca Belgica, part V, number 2, pages 92-99.
That the Christian Church in the Apostolic age and first Centuries after the birth of Christ also believed and confessed the true, natural, and eternal Deity of Christ, the Son of God, by which He is ὁμοούσιος/homoousios with the Father, in the same manner as we do, is proven in an especially painstaking manner by HOORNBEECK, Socinianismo confutato, tome 2, book I, chapter I, section III, pages 226-252; and by GEORGE BULL, in his Defensione Fidei Nicænæ, ex Scriptis Catholicorum Doctorum, qui intra tria prima Ecclesiæ Christianæ Secula floruerunt: likewise in his Judicio Ecclesiæ Catholicæ trium primorum Seculorum de Necessitate credendi, quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus sit verus Deus: and also in his Primitiva et Apostolica Traditione de Jesu Christi Divinitate asserta atque evidenter demonstrata contra Danielis Zuickeri.
Ferenc Dávid (c. 1520-1579) of Transylvania, was originally trained for the Roman Catholic Priesthood, but embraced the Reformation, first the Lutheran and then the Reformed. He came to question the Doctrine of the Trinity, and founded a Unitarian church in Transylvania.  Which words can both be taken in the Vocative.  The article makes it clear that Ἰησοῦ/Jesus is in the Genitive case.  John 14:1: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me (πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε).”  With respect to form, πιστεύετε can be either indicative or imperative.  Christian Eberhard Weismann (1677-1747) was Professor of Theology at the University of Tubingen.