Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	bishop_n	church_n	rome_n	17,242	5	7.2290	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53696	Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews also concerning the Messiah wherein the promises concerning him to be a spiritual redeemer of mankind are explained and vindicated, his coming and accomplishment of his work according to the promises is proved and confirmed, the person, or who he is, is declared, the whole oeconomy of the mosaical law, rites, worship, and sacrifice is explained : and in all the doctrine of the person, office, and work of the Messiah is opened, the nature and demerit of the first sin is unfolded, the opinions and traditions of the antient and modern Jews are examined, their objections against the Lord Christ and the Gospel are answered, the time of the coming of the Messiah is stated, and the great fundamental truths of the Gospel vindicated : with an exposition and discourses on the two first chapters of the said epistle to the Hebrews / by J. Owen ...	Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1668 (1668)	Wing O753; ESTC R18100	1,091,989	640

None of them give any Countenance unto it or intimate any Grounds of that supposition only Hierom affirms that there is some Similitude between the Style of this Epistle and that of Clemens which occasioned the suspition of his Translating of it whereof afterwards Erasmus hath since taken up that Report and seems to give credit unto it but hath not contributed any thing of Reason or Testimony unto its Confirmation A Worthy Holy Man was this Clemens no doubt and Bishop of the Church at Rome But none of the Antients of any Learning or Judgement ever laid weight on this Conjecture For what had he who was a Convert from among the Gentiles to do with the Churches of the Hebrews what Authority had he to interpose himself in that which was their peculiar concernment Whence may it appear that he had that Skill in the Nature Use and End of Mosaical Rites and Institutions which the Writer of this Epistle discovers in himself Neither doth that Epistle of his to the Church of Corinth which is yet extant though excellent in its kind permit us to think that he wrote by Divine Inspiration Besides the Author of this Epistle had a desire and purpose to go to the Hebrews chap. 13.22 Yea he desires to be restored unto them as one that had been with them before But as it doth not appear that this Clemens was ever in Palestine so what Reason he should have to leave his own charge now to go thither no man can imagine And to end this needless Debate in that Epistle which was truly his own he makes use of the Words and Authority of this as Eusebius long since observed § 8 Sixtus Sinensis affirms that the Work whose Author we enquire after was by some assigned unto Tertullian A fond and impious imagination and such as no man of Judgement or Sobriety could ever fall into This Epistle was famous in the Churches before Tertullian was born is ascribed by himself unto Barnabas and some passages in it are said by him to be corrupted by one Theodotus long before his time From the Vncertainty of these Conjectures with the Evidence of Reason and Circumstances whereby they are disproved two things we seem to have obtained First That no Objection on their Account can arise against our Assertion And Secondly that if St. Paul be not acknowledged to be the Writer of this Epistle the whole Church of God is and ever was at a total loss whom to ascribe it unto And it may reasonably be expected that the weakness of these Conjectures should if not add unto yet set of the credibility of the Reasons and Testimonies which shall be produced in the Assignement of it unto him § 9 The Objections that are laid by some against our Assignation of this Epistle unto St. Paul according unto the Order proposed are nextly to be considered These I shall pass through with what briefness I can so as not to be wanting unto the Defensative designed Dissimilitude of Style and manner of writing from that used by St. Paul in his other Epistles is pressed in the first place and principally insisted on And indeed it is the whole of what with any colour of Reason is made use of in this Cause This the Antients admitted The Elegancy propriety of Speech and sometimes Loftiness that occurr in this Epistle difference it as they say from those of St. Pauls writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius it seems not to be St. Pauls because of the Style or Character of Speech For this cause Clemens of Alexandria supposed it to be written in Hebrew and to be translated into Greek by St. Luke the Evangelist the Style of it as he sayes being like unto that which is used in the Acts of the Apostles and yet that is acknowledged by all to be purely Greek whereas this is accused to be full of Hebraisms so little weight is to be laid on these Critical Censures wherein Learned men perpetually contradict one another Origen also confesseth that it hath not in its Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Idiotism or propriety of the Language of St. Paul who acknowledgeth himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.6 rude in Speech and this Epistle is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the composition of its Speech Elegantly Greek in comparison of his which if we may believe him any one will discern who can judge between the difference of Styles And Hierom Scripserat autem ad Hebraeos Hebraice id est suo eloquio disertissimè ut eo quae eloquuntur scripta fuerant in Hebraeo aliquatenus verterentur in Graecum hanc causam esse quod a coeteris Pauli Epistolis discrepare videatur It seems to differ from the rest of St. Pauls Epistles because of its Translation out of Hebrew wherein he speaks not with his wonted confidence And elsewhere he sayes that the Style of this Epistle seems to be like that of Clemens Erasmus presseth this Objection Restat saith he Jam argumentum illud quo non aliud certius stylus ipse orationis Character qui nihil habet affinitatis cum Phrasi Paulina The Style and Character of Speech have no affinity with the Phrase of St. Paul This Consideration also drew Calvin into the same Opinion and it is insisted on by Camero and Grotius to the same purpose The summ of this Objection is that St. Paul was rude in Speech which is manifest in his other Epistles but the Style of this is pure elegant florid such as hath no affinity with his so that he cannot be esteemed the Penman of it As this Objection was taken notice of by them of old and the matter of it admitted § 10 as true so because they constantly adhered to the Assignation of it unto St. Paul they gave sundry Answers unto it Origen gives us his Judgement that the Sense or Subiect Matter of this Epistle was from St. Paul which are excellent and no way inferiour to those of the same Apostle in any other Epistles as every one exercised in the Reading of his Epistles will grant but the Structure and Phrase of it he supposeth to have been the Work of some other who taking the Dictates of his Master from thence composed this Epistle But this Answer can by no means be admitted of nor accommodated unto any Writing given by Divine Inspiration For not only the Matter but the very Words of their Writings were suggested unto his Penmen by the Holy Ghost that the whole might have no influence from humane frailty or fallibility which alone renders the Authority of their Writings Sacred and Divine But this intimation would resolve the Truth in this Epistle into the Care and Diligence of him that took the sense of St. Paul and thence composed it wherein he was liable to mistakes unless we shall vainly suppose that he also was inspired Wherefore generally they who admitted of this Objection

matter manner of writing and present usefulness between any of the books that being written by divine inspiration are given out for the Churches rule they are all equall as to their canonical authority being equally interested in that which is the formal reason of it so whatever usefulness or respect in the Church any other writing may have they can no way give them any interest in that whose formal reason they are not concerned in In the sense explained we affirm the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical that is § 10 properly and strictly so and of the number of them which the Antients called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every way genuine and Catholick In the confirmation whereof we shall first declare by whom it hath been opposed or questioned and then what reasons they pretend for their so doing which being removed out of our way the arguments whereby the Truth of our assertion is evinced shall be insisted on We need not much insist on their madness who of old with a sacrilegious licentiousness § 11 rejected what portion of Scripture they pleased The Ebionites not only rejected all the Epistles of Paul but also reviled his person as a Gre●k and an Apostate as Irenaeus and Epiphanius inform us Their folly and blasphemy was also imitated and followed by the Helescheitae in Eusebius Marcion rejected in particular this Epistle to the Hebrews and those also to Timothy and Titus as Epiphanius and Hierome assure us who adds unto him Basilides And Theodoret as to the Epistle unto the Hebrews joyns unto them some of the Arians also Now though the folly of those Sacrilegious persons be easie to be repelled as it is done by Petrus Cluniacusis yet Hierome hath given us a sufficient reason why we should not spend time therein Si quidem saith he redderent causas cur eas Apostoli non putant tentaremus aliquid respondere sorsitan satisfaciere lectori nunc vero cum haeretica autoritate pronunciant dicunt illa Epistola Pauli est haec non est ea autoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant qua ipsi non crubescant falsa simulare They did not so much as plead or pretend any cause or reason for the rejection of these Epistles but did it upon their own head and Authority so they deserve neither answer nor consideration It is of more importance that this Epistle was a long time though not rejected by § 12 yet not received in the Church of Rome Eusebius informs us that Cains a Presbyter of that Church whom he much commends for his learning and piety admitted but of thirteen Epistles of St. Paul rejecting that unto the Hebrews as Photius also affirms And the same Photius acquaints us with the same Judgement of Hippolitus another eminent member of that Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Among other things not exactly answering the truth he saith also that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Pauls And Eusebius adds unto his information of the Judgement of Cains that it was not generally received in the Church of Rome in his time Neither is it any way acknowledged as St. Pauls by either Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius or Macrobius Yea the same Eusebius affirms that some excepted against it upon this account because it was opposed as none of St. Pauls in the Roman Church Hierome grants that Latinorum consuetudo non recepit Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter Canonicas Scripturas The custome of the Latines that is the Roman Church did not receive this Epistle among the Canonical Scriptures And speaking elsewhere of it he adds the same words Licet eam latina consuetudo inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipiat And elsewhere also he confirms the same Assertion It cannot then be denied but that it was four hundred years at least after the writing of this Epistle before it was publickly received and avowed as Canonical by the Rom●n Church Nor will the quotation of it by Hilary and Ambrose prove any general admission of it as such it being their custome not to restrain the Testimonies they made use of unto Books absolutely Canonical § 13 Baronius ad An. 160 labours to take of this failure of the Latine Church The testimony of Eusebius he rejects because as he sayes he was Arianorum gregalis of the Arian faction and willing to call the authority of this Epistle into Question in complyance with them who some of them as we observed before refused it n. 42. The Judgement of Caius he resolves into the Testimony of Eusebius which because of his partiality as he pleads is not to be admitted And lastly opposeth the witness of Hierome as a person who had suffered himself to be imposed on by Eusebius whose words in his reports of Caius he makes use of n. 50. Concluding upon the whole matter that it was a meer false calumny of Eusebius against the Church of Rome which Hierome by too much facillity gave credit unto But I must acknowledge that these Answers of his which indeed are nothing but a rejection of as good witnesses in matters of fact as any we have upon the Roll of Antiquity are not unto me satisfactory no more than the testimony of its acceptance which he produceth in the Epistle of Innocentius to Exuperius which is justly suspected supposititious with the Council at Rome against Apollinaris under Damasus wherein no such thing appears Though I will not deny but that about that time it came to be publickly owned by that Church and was reckoned unto the Canon of the Scripture by Ruffinus § 14 But wherein doth it in the least appear that Eusebius reports the Judgement of Caius or the Roman Church in complyance with the Arians He himself evidently admits the Epistle to be Canonical and confirms it by the testimonies of Clemens Origen and others What would it advantage him or the cause which some pretend he favoured by reporting the opposition of others to a part of divine writt which himself accepted Besides they were not the Arians of the first rank or edition for an inclination unto whom Eusebius is suspected but some of their off-spring which fell out into such Sacrilegious opinions and practices as the first leaders of them owned not that are accused in this matter much less can he be thought to design the reproach of the Roman Church Nay these answers are inconsistent as any one may perceive He could not at the same time design the rejecting of the Epistle in complyance with the Arians and the calumniating of them by whom it was rejected and on whose Authority his intentions must be founded But indeed his words plainly manifest that he gives us a naked account of matter of fact without either prejudice or design It is yet more incredible that Hierome in this matter should suffer himself to be imposed on

the notions of their more antient Masters For a Close then of these considerations I shall add some of the confessions of the Jews themselves which the evidence of the Truth contended for hath at several seasons extorted from them And this I shall not do as though they were of great importance in themselves or unto us but only to discover their entanglements in contending against the light for the present Masters of their unbelief are more perplexed with the convictions of their Predecessors then with the plainest testimonies of the Scripture The Authority of their Predecessors being equal with them unto if not more sacred then that of the word of God its self First then Being pressed with the Testimonies before insisted on out of Haggai concerning the glory of the second Temple and the coming of the desire of all Nations thereunto they have a Tradition that the Messiah was born the same day that the second Temple was destroyed The story indeed which they make it up with is weak fabulous and ridiculous and he who is offended with the citation of such things out of their Talmudical Doctors is desired only to exercise patience until he shall be able himself to report from them things more serious and of greater importance and yet from them must we learn the perswasions and convictions of the Antient Jews or be utterly ignorant of them Be their stori●s what they will also the powerfull convincing Evidence of Truth and the miserable shifts that the poor wretches are put unto to keep off the Efficacy of it from their minds do sufficiently appear in them The Tradition mentioned they give us in Tractat. Bezaroth distinct Hajakorr in § 14 these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Joden in the name of Rabbi Ibbo said the Messiah was born in the day that the house of the Sanctuary was destroyed and the story they tell to this purpose is as followeth It came to pass that as a Jew was plowing his Ox before him lowed and there passed by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Arabian and he heard a voice saying O Jew the Son of a Jew loose thy Oxen for behold the house of the Sanctuary is destroyed the Ox lowed the second time and he said O Jew the Son of a Jew Yoke thy Oxen for behold Messiah the King is born he said unto him what is his name he answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menachem that is the Comforter And in Bereshith Rabba on Gen. 30. they have a long story to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rabbi Samuel the son of Nachman said as Elias of good memory was walking on the way on that very day that the house of the Sanctuary was destroyed he heard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the voice from Heaven crying unto him the house of our holy Sanctuary is brought unto destruction when Elias of good memory heard this he thought the whole world should be destroyed he went therefore and finding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men plowing and sowing he said unto them the holy blessed God is angry with the world or all this generation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will destroy his house and send his children into captivity among the Nations of the world and you are solicitous about this temporal life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came forth again and said unto him Let them alone for unto Israel is born a Saviour he said unto the voice where is he the voice said unto him in Bethlehem Judah he went and found a woman sitting in the door of her house and her Child lying in its own blood before her he said unto her my daughter hast thou born a Son she said unto him yea he said and why doth it lye so long in its own blood she said unto him because of the great evil for on this day wherein he is born the house of the Sanctuary is destroyed he said unto her my daughter be of good Courage and take care of the Child for great salvation shall be wrought by his hand and she was streightway encouraged and took care of him In the process of this story they tell us that this Child was carried away by the four winds of Heaven and kept in the great Sea four hundred years of which afterwards I doubt not but this Tale is hammered out of the second of Luke about the appearance of the Angels to the Shepheards and their finding his Mother in a stable All the use that I intend to put this confession of theirs unto is to urge the present Jews with a conviction and acknowledgement of their fore-fathers that the Messiah was to be born under the second Temple § 15 Again They have a Tradition out of the School of one Elias a famous Master amongst them of the Tannarei or Antetalmudical Doctors which they have recorded in the Talmud Tractat. Saned distinct Chelec about the continuance of the world which is as follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a Tradition of Elias that the world shall continue six thousand years two thousand void which the gloss of Rabbi Solomon Jarchi reckons from the Creation of the world unto the Call of Abraham two thousand to the Law from thence to the destruction of the second Temple and two thousand to the dayes of the Messiah It is incredible how the latter Rabbins are perplexed with this Tradition of their Masters which is recorded in the Talmud as sacred In the account they give in Shebet Sehuda of a Disputation they had with one Hierom a converted Jew before the Bishop of Rome they know not how to disintangle themselves from the Authority of it The summ of their answer is that the next words in the Tradition are that that time is elapsed because of their sins but as others have already manifested that that gloss is no part of the Tradition but an addition of the Talmudists so we shall immediately manifest the vanity of that pretence Others of them say that it sufficeth to maintain the truth and credit of the Tradition if the Messiah come at any time within the last two thousand years But besides that even they also are now drawing towards their period not a fifth part in their computation of that space of time remaining so this gloss is directly contrary to the very words of the Tradition For as two thousand years are assigned to the world before the Law and two thousand to the Law which they reckon from the Call of Abraham to the ruine of the second Temple so the two thousand years allotted to the time of the Messiah must begin with his coming as the other portions do one of them with the Creation the other with the Call of Abraham or else the space of time above sixteen hundred years between the expiration of the second two thousand years and the third must be left out of the computation And the time limited for the duration of the world extended