A53678:1236
A continuation of the exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the…
A continuation of the exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews viz, on the sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, and tenth chapters : wherein together with the explication of the text and context, the priesthood of Christ ... are declared, explained and confirmed : as also, the pleas of the Jews for the continuance and perpetuity of their legal worship, with the doctrine of the principal writers of the Socinians about these things, are examined and disproved / by J. Owen ...
London: printed for Nathaniel Ponder, 1680
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
3. The Apostle obviates an Objection that might be raised against the sense of the Testimony produced by him and his Application of it. For it might be said, that after the Institution of the Levitical Priesthood there was yet mention of another Priest to rise, it might be some Eminent Person of the same Order, such a one as Joshua the Son of Josedec after the Captivity, who was eminently Serviceable in the House of God, and had eminent Dignity thereon, Zech. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7. So that the defect supposed might be in the Persons of the Priests, and not in the Order of the Priesthood. This the Apostle obviates by declaring that if it had been so, he would have been called or spoken of as one of the Order of Aaron. But whereas there were two Orders of the Priesthood, the Melchisedecian and Aaronical, it is expressly said that this other Priest should be of the former, and not of the latter.
3. The Apostle obviates an Objection that might be raised against the sence of the Testimony produced by him and his Application of it. For it might be said, that after the Institution of the Levitical Priesthood there was yet mention of another Priest to rise, it might be some Eminent Person of the same Order, such a one as Joshua the Son of Josedec after the Captivity, who was eminently Serviceable in the House of God, and had eminent Dignity thereon, Zech. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7. So that the defect supposed might be in the Persons of the Priests, and not in the Order of the Priesthood. This the Apostle obviates by declaring that if it had been so, he would have been called or spoken of as one of the Order of Aaron. But whereas there were two Orders of the Priesthood, the Melchisedecian and Aaronical, it is expressely said that this other Priest should be of the former, and not of the latter.
4. He hath yet a farther Design, which is not only to prove the Necessity of another Priest and Priesthood, but thereon also a Change and an Abrogation of the whole Law of Worship under the Old Testament. Hence he here introduceth the mention of the Law, as that which was given at the same time with the Priesthood, and had such a Relation thereunto, as that of Necessity it must stand and fall with it. And this may suffice for a view of the Scope of this Verse, and the force of the Argument contained in it. We shall now consider the particulars of it.