 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
FOOTNOTESPREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP - GR VIDEOS - GR YOUTUBE - TWITTER - SD1 YOUTUBE 
De Natura Theologim, lib. 3. Theologoumena etc., lib. 2 cap. 1, sect. 11. Ubi supra, lib. 3 cap. 3, de origine et progressu idololotria. Exercitat. on the Epist. to the Heb., Exer, 1. In the "Divine Original of Sacred Scripture." —ED. In 1679, Dr. Owen published a small treatise answering this description, under the title of "The Church of Rome no Safe Guide" It forms a part of his controversial writings. See vol. 14:—ED. See his treatise on the Holy Spirit, book 3 chap 3 vol. 3 of his works. —\parED. Horat. Od. lib. 1:8, 25. See vol 3 of the author's works. See vol. 7 of his works. There seems a general agreement among modern critics that this expression of the apostle is not susceptible of the meaning which is here attached to it. It does not refer to any rule according to which we are to try a doctrine by its harmony with the system of divine truth as a whole (although the rule itself is sound and valuable); but the passage simply means that a man is to preach or prophesy “according to the measure of his faith," — the me>pron pi>stewv of which the apostle had been speaking in verse 3. —ED. The treatise to which Dr. Owen alludes was subsequently published, and appears in this volume of his works, page 285. —ED. These statements are founded on those views respecting the functions and tendency of biblical criticism in which, by universal admission, Owen, in common with most theologians of his age, altogether erred. We need not consider his opinions on the subject under the incidental reference to them above. He refers to his writings in controversy with Brian Walton; for which see vol. 16 of his works. His argument proceeds on the supposition that, by a continuous miracle, extending over ages, every point and letter of Scripture have been indubitably preserved as they came from the inspired penmen. But it is a necessary condition of the argument, that what he alleges or assumes respecting the miraculous preservation of all the letters and words of Scripture should be true. If it be not true, and if there be really higher evidence for the peculiar claims of the Word in the fact that, with the common liabilities of all manuscripts to corruption, it exists in such accuracy and perfection, greater reverence is shown to it in critical efforts to weed out all remaining errata by the collation of manuscripts, than by slothful acquiescence in the text, without any attempt to ascertain on what authority it must be received as the actual text of inspiration. —ED. See this volume of the author's works, p. 420. —ED. Hugh Paulin de Cressey was a noted controversialist in defence of Popery, and, among other productions devoted to this object, wrote two treatises in reply to Stillingfleet. The work to which Owen alludes is entitled "Church History of Britain; or, England from the Beginning of Christianity to the Norman Conquest" and was published in —ED. "Omnino oportet nos orationis tempore curiam intrare coelestem, illam utique curiam, in qua rex regum stellato sedet solio, circumdante innumerabili et ineffabili beatorum spirituum exercitu.... Quanta ergo cure reverentia, quanto thnore, quantab illuc humilitate accedere debet, a palude sua procedens et repens ranuncula vilis? Quam tremebundus, quam suppler, quam denique humilis et sollicitus, et toto intentus animo majestati gloriae, in praesentia angelorum, in concilio justorum et congregatione assistere poterit miser homuncio?” — Bernard. Serm. de quatuor orandi modis. Ti>v oujk a[n ejkplagei>h kai< zauma>seie th GOTO NEXT CHAPTER - JOHN OWEN INDEX & SEARCH
 |
