[Doctrina foederum, sive systema theologica didacticae et elencticae (Amstelodami , 1691)]
Johannes Braunius (1628–1708), a venerable divine of the Dutch Reformed tradition, was born at Kaiserslautern in the year of our Lord 1628, and was trained in sacred learning at the illustrious University of Leiden, where he sat under the eminent Johannes Coccejus. Nurtured in the federal and covenantal theology of the Reformation, Braunius gave himself to the laborious study of the Hebrew tongue and the Levitical institutions of the Old Testament, wherein he discerned types and shadows of gospel mysteries. He ministered as a faithful pastor and was later appointed to the chair of theology at the University of Groningen in 1681, a post he held unto his death nearly three decades thereafter. His life was adorned not only with erudition, but with devotion, uniting the careful exposition of Scripture with reverence for the covenant mercies of God. Among his chief works stands Vestitus Sacerdotum Hebraeorum, a deep and learned commentary upon the vestments and ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood, drawn from the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth chapters of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leviticus, showing forth the typological beauty of the ceremonial law as fulfilled in Christ. Likewise, his Doctrina Foedorum offered a comprehensive system of didactic and elenctic theology, built upon the foundation of federal theology, expounding the covenant of works and grace with scholastic clarity. In all his writings, Braunius exhibited that rare balance of penetrating intellect and humble piety, ever seeking the edification of the church and the glory of the Redeemer, whose garments of righteousness he found prefigured in those of the ancient priesthood. He fell asleep in the Lord in the year 1708, full of days and full of faith.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
Certain attributes of God pertain either to place, as omnipresence, or to duration, as eternity. The infinity and immensity of God ought not properly to be referred to His omnipresence: for infinity signifieth His supreme perfections, inasmuch as God acknowledgeth no bounds in any of His perfections; whence His essence and all His attributes must be called infinite, because He is infinitely perfect. In the same sense is His immensity oft taken. Nevertheless, by immensity, authors oft signify some relative attribute, inasmuch as there is no thing whereby the perfection of God may be determined or measured. Especially since God is wholly free from all matter, He must be called immense. Therefore, it is ill said that God is infinite or immense, as if His essence were extended and diffused unto infinity, and as if it had some continuous quantity. For these are mere properties of bodies, whence they who hold such concepts make of God a body rather than a spirit.
The same must be said concerning ubi (place) and ubiquity, which signify nothing else than the space or place occupied by a body; yea, if we speak accurately, space, place, or ubi is the body itself, so that neither ubi nor ubiquity can be attributed save to bodies. What doth ubisignify? It hath relation to particular bodies, whereas ubique (everywhere) in some sense denoteth all bodies. For that which is in ubi hath an extended quantity unto certain limits, whereby it excludeth all other bodies; so that it is not called ubi save in respect of surrounding bodies, with which it is present, either by its own convexity, or by the concavity and surface of other bodies, whereby it is bounded, defined, and circumscribed. Wherefore, to be somewhere definitively or circumscriptively is one and the same. Therefore, as only bodies are in ubi, or in a place, so only particular bodies, or parts of the whole corporeal world, are in ubi, or in a place. But the whole frame of corporeal things, which occupieth all space and place, is properly said to be ubique, because beyond the corporeal world neither ubi nor place can be conceived. But a spirit, which hath neither body nor extension, cannot be defined or circumscribed by any place or limits, whence it cannot be said to be in a place, nor in ubi, nor ubique in this sense. Hence, ubique (everywhere), if we would speak strictly, accurately, and according to the nature of the thing, cannot be attributed to any spirit.
Nevertheless, if by ubique we understand the omnipresence of God, inasmuch as He is present not only to corporeal things but also, in some sense, to spirits, angels, and souls, that phrase, “God is everywhere,” may be admitted. Moreover, since God hath created and hitherto preserveth all bodies, spaces, places, and ubi, it is certain that He is also present to all bodies, spaces, places, and every ubi. And since He worketh everywhere by His essence, He is also everywhere by His essence. Yet it is better to speak of omnipresence than ubiquity: for omnipresence includeth no locality, nor any extension or diffusion, and denoteth God’s presence no less in spirits than in corporeal things; whereas ubiquity, strictly speaking, can be attributed only to bodies.
That God is omnipresent (1) is proclaimed by all Holy Scripture: “The heavens cannot contain Him,” 1 Kings 8:27. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” Jeremiah 23:24. “He is not far from every one of us,” Acts 17:27. “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool,” Isaiah 66:1; Psalm 139:7-9. (2) It followeth from the supreme perfection of God, since He hath created and preserveth all things, He must necessarily be present to them all. For where God createth and preserveth, there is His most effectual will; and where His will is, there He is present, since His will is His very essence.
No reason can be conceived why God should be more present to one thing than to all others; and since He is present to all things, He is surely present to all in the same manner of presence. Thus, He is present to all things according to His operations and according to His essence; for His operation cannot be separated from His essence, since God worketh by His essence. Vainly, therefore, doth Vorstius (from whom the Remonstrants, especially Episcopius, depart not far) assert that God is present according to His essence only in heaven, as a king shut up in his palace; but in the other parts of the world only by His commands, precepts, and operations. That God is present to all things by His essence, and not only by His operations, is evident: (1) Because His operation cannot be separated from His essence, as hath been said, since God worketh by His essence. (2) Because no reason can be devised why the most perfect being should be more present by His essence to one thing, for example, heaven, than to all others, since He createth and preserveth all things by the same act of His will. (3) If God were not present to all things in the same manner by His essence, it would be either because He could not, or because He would not. That He would not cannot be said, since He willed to create and preserve all things. If He could not, He would be hindered by a greater power; therefore, He would not be omnipotent. (4) If they suppose that God hath hitherto been present only in heaven according to His essence, and afterward willed to be present in the same manner to the earth and other bodies, this could not be done save by local motion; whence it would follow that God is corporeal, which is the height of impiety. Yet such a notion doth Vorstius not abhor, whence he also feareth lest God be defiled by the filth of the earth if He were present there. It followeth, therefore, that God is present to all things not only by His operation but also by His essence together, so that no presence of God can be conceived save by His essence. Most wickedly, therefore, doth Episcopius affirm that it sufficeth to believe that God careth for human affairs on earth and is present to them by His providence and governance, though in our concepts we place His essence in heaven; and that the question is only concerning the mode of omnipresence, not omnipresence itself. For if He is not present in creatures outside heaven according to His essence, it followeth that His omnipresence according to His essence, which alone is the true presence of God, is denied. And since there is no presence of God save according to His essence, it followeth that, this being denied, omnipresence itself is denied, not merely the mode of omnipresence.
It must be confessed, however, that we cannot comprehend the mode of God’s omnipresence, that is, the manner in which He is present to all things; for His infinite essence exceedeth our finite understanding infinitely. It is commonly said that God is present in three ways: in re(in things), praesenter (presently), and ubique potenter (everywhere powerfully). This expression, if taken with a grain of salt, may be tolerated. But if by in re they understand some locality, diffusion, and extension, as if His substance were diffused everywhere like air or another body; and if they distinguish His power from His essence, as if His effectual will and supreme power were something other than His essence, then that saying would be most absurd. But if by praesenter and ubique potenter they mean the most effectual will of God, inasmuch as His will is His very power, and by in re the same will and essence, since God worketh by His essence, then this expression may be tolerated. But these things could be expressed in one word, to wit: that God is present to all things according to His essence. Thus, that expression is not only barbarous but also useless.