A53678:1734
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.
The Expositors of the Roman Church are greatly perplexed in the reconciling of this Passage of the Apostle unto the present Priesthood of their Church. And they may well be so, seeing they are undoubtedly irreconcilable. Some of them say that Peter succeeded unto Christ in his Priesthood, as Eleazar did unto Aaron; So Ribera: some of them deny that he hath any Successor properly so called. Successorem non habet, nec it a quisquam Catholicus loquitur, si been & circumspectè loqui ⟨p. 232⟩velit; saith Estius. But it is openly evident that some of them are not so circumspect as Estius would have them, but do plainly affirm that Peter was Christs Successor. A Lapide indeed affirms that Peter did not succeed unto Christ as Eleazar did unto Aaron, because Eleazar had the Priesthood in the same degree and dignity with Aaron, and so had not Peter with Christ. But yet that he had the same Priesthood with him, a Priesthood of the same kind, he doth not deny.
The Expositors of the Roman Church are greatly perplexed in the reconciling of this Passage of the Apostle unto the present Priesthood of their Church. And they may well be so, seeing they are undoubtedly irreconcileable. Some of them say that Peter succeeded unto Christ in his Priesthood, as Eleazar did unto Aaron; So Ribera: some of them deny that he hath any Successor properly so called. Successorem non habet, nec it a quisquam Catholicus loquitur, si bene & circumspectè loqui ⟨p. 232⟩velit; saith Estius. But it is openly evident that some of them are not so circumspect as Estius would have them, but do plainly affirm that Peter was Christs Successor. A Lapide indeed affirms that Peter did not succeed unto Christ as Eleazar did unto Aaron, because Eleazar had the Priesthood in the same degree and dignity with Aaron, and so had not Peter with Christ. But yet that he had the same Priesthood with him, a Priesthood of the same kind, he doth not deny.
That which they generally fix upon is, that their Priests have not another Priesthood or offer another Sacrifice, but are Partakers of his Priesthood and minister under him, and so are not his Successors but his Vicars: which I think is the worst composure of this difficulty they could have thought upon. For,