and open their Gates and for their MEETING which they had resolved before but were in care how to do it so as might move the Kings favour or compassion Let them go saith he the rest in White Garments but he with the Priests in those Vestments which the Law hath prescrib'd and be confident they shall suffer no evil for that God will provide for them Here is every word of the Revelation in which God that best knew what a Dream he had sent to Alexander before his coming out of Macedonia now orders Iaddus to put himself into that Dress in which Alexander had seen him in that Dream This was a likely way indeed to strike an awe into the Conqueror and to make him reverence the Priest of that God by whose Conduct he had gotten those Victories And it had that effect as Josephus tells us Alexander did acknowledge this was he that first invited him over into Asia I saw him then saith he in the same habit I never saw any other in such a Robe And now seeing him and remembring my Dream I am satisfyed it was God that sent me on this Expedition c. It appears that Jaddus had a direction from God in what manner he should meet Alexander so as not only to pacify his wrath but to recommend himself into his favour For the Command of Submission which is not in Iosephus there was no need of that for the People had determined to submit being not able to resist But if it had been as the Objector imagins yet it would do him no Service as I have sufficiently shewn And therefore after all that he hath said this Story of Iaddus affords us a very good unquestionable instance of the judgment of the Iewish Church in his Age that it is lawful to submit to a Prince that comes in by Conquest and that it is our Duty to pay Allegiance to him as his Subjects when he is setled by the general consent of the People notwithstanding an Oath to a former King who is yet living One thing the Objector hath to say against this which I think was put out of it's place and ought to come in here for a Reserve In case it appear'd that the Story of Iaddus was not only true but to our purpose then it had been time for him to tell us that all this is nothing to him and his party They care not what Iaddus did they know what they will do He saith this in effect in the following words The Practice of the High Priest in that corrupt State of the Jewish Church will not signify much to us and no more in this than in their other Immoralities This was frankly said but I think not very ingenuously First He speaks as if Iaddus were single in this Act of Submission when it is evident that the whole Church of God at that time went along with him And the Iews generally both Priests and People were Subjects to Alexander in the words of the Convocation Book He tells us of that corrupt state of the Jewish Church in Jaddus's time This is news All Ancient Writers speak of those times as the best that ever were under the second Temple The Church was much reform'd by those excellent Men that flourished in the Age next before namely by Nehemiah the Governour Ezra Priest and Scribe and Malachi the last of the Prophets At this very time beside Iaddus himself whom the Jews make the last of the Men of the great Synagogue there was also Bâ—nsira as they tell us a shining Light to the Israelites and one that much advanc'd the honour of our God After them was Onias the High-Priest and his Son Simon whose praise swells a Chapter in Ecclesiasticus His branding of those excellent Men and the Church of God in those times may teach us to bear the Characters he gives us the more patiently So likewise when he saith their Practice will signifie no more to us in this than in their other Immoralities The meaning is there must be other Immoralities in them that differ from him in his point So here we have a Test to try who are and who are not honest Men. Yet I dare be bold to say he never found Iaddus charged with any Immorality whatsoever Nor we have not found him in any Error but this that he thought himself bound to Darius while he was living This was an Error indeed if he meant as the Words strictly signifie For an Oath of Allegiance to any King can bind one no longer than while he is that King 's Subject It doth not bind saith the Objector in case of Cession or Submission Nor say other Divines in Case of Conquest And Iaddus when he became subject to Alexander was plainly of this later Opinion by which he explain'd or corrected what he said formerly Now Iaddus being a Man of that high place in the Church of so clear a Repute ever since in all Ages what should make the Objector and his Party which I hope is not great make so light of such an eminent and venerable Example He tells us Iaddus becoming a Subject to Alexander contrary to his Oath is no more a Pattern for us to follow than Eliashib ' s building a Chamber in the Temple for Tobia is an Argument for us to act contrary to the express Laws of God This is home to the purpose and being said at the first might have sav'd him and me all this trouble Now all the Question is whether Jaddus acted contrary to his Oath to Darius in becoming a Subject to Alexander To judge aright of this Question we must consider what Circumstances he was in at the taking of this Oath and how they were chang'd at the time of his submitting to Alexander First He was a Subject to Darius before the taking of this Oath and by it he gave no other right to Darius than what he had before he gave him only a greater assurance Secondly The right that Darius had over the Iews was no other than what descended to him from Cyrus And that was by his Conquest over the Babylonians that were their former Lords Thirdly That right of Conquest being descended to this Darius was won from him by Alexander that had overcome him in War and so made himself Lord of that Country and so Alexander now had the same right to their Allegiance which Darius had before Fourthly His right to their Allegiance being ceased their Oath to him was of no Obligation But they were as free and had as much reason to pay their Allegiance now to Alexander as they had formerly to Darius or Cyrus This seems to be the ground that Iaddus went upon And if it was he had reason to think he did not contrary to his Oath For he kept it to the last till there was no such King as he had sworn to And then having no Revelation to Guide him he yielded to the Providence of God in submitting
no difficulty in this or takes no notice of it for fear of reflecting upon Scripture ought not to call that Story in Josephus Suspitious because of the difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology But in vain do Men talk of reconciling Differences where there are none but of their own making They that take Ezra to have been born before the Captivity judge so for this reason because it is said That he was the Son of Seraia the High-Priest that was kill'd before the Captivity But in like manner Seraia is there made the 17th from Aaron that lived near a thousand years before The meaning of these words is that Seraia was descended from Aaron and so Ezra was from Seraia not immediatly but with others between that are not mentioned And so Johanan the High-Priest is called the Son of Eliashib who indeed was his Grand-Father and his Father was Jehoiada that is not there mentioned This is a common way of shortning Pedegrees which if the Objector had considered he would not have run himself into that difficulty of Ezra's Age which tho he takes no notice of it is much greater than those are of which he complains And yet these that he complains of are Difficulties of his own making and proceed only from an eager desire to find faults in that Story in Josephus If this had not blinded his Eyes he might have seen that admitting that Story to be true yet there was no necessity of making either Jaddus or Sanballat live to so great an Age. First for Jaddus who as he saith must have been 124 years old at the taking of Tyre the Objector proves his Age by these steps First he takes it for granted that Jaddus was High-Priest at the time when the Book of Nehemiah was written but he takes this only as probable and therefore by his own confession all can be but probable that he builds on it Next for the time when that Book was written it must have been before Nehemiah dyed that is certain But when did he dye The Objector tells us from Briet that he died the last year of Longimanus who reigned 41 Years But to what end doth he tell us this For he himself could not believe it as appears by his Words For saith he I think the least we can allow for the time of Nehemiah's living after he ended his Book is 30 Years and it is very probable it was much more Well say but 30 Years and account that upward from the time of his death according to Briet and then Nehemiah's Writing of his Book will be in the 11th Year of Artaxerxes that is his Book was written 9 Years before any of those things happened that are written in it Now this I think the Objector could not mean and therefore he doth but amuse us with that idle Quotation Howsoever as if he had prov'd something by this he infers from it I know not how that Jaddus was High-Priest the last Year of Artaxerxes Grant him this and he has no more to ask For then Jaddus being 30 years old to this add 94 which is the time from the death of Artaxerxes till Alexander's coming to Jerusalem and then Jaddus at that time Josephus fastens this Story must have been 124 years old Q. E. D. But tho I do not see which way he proves this I see very clear Reasons to the contrary which I think are unanswerable First That the Book of Nehemiah was not written till after the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus Secondly That Jaddus was not High-Priest at the Death of Artaxerxes nor probably born then nor long after till the end of Darius Nothus First That Nehemiah did not write in any part of Artaxerxes's Reign but either in or after the time of Darius his immediate Successor This is certain For in his Book he mentions the Reign of Darius the Persian I think none will say he did this by the Spirit of Prophecy But to come nearer the point I insist upon it that he writ after the Reign of Darius So the Hebrew words shew that he writ when that Reign was expired for there it is said That the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests were recorded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over or throughout the Reign of Darius It appears that the words are so to be understood by what followeth in the next Verse where it is said that the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Book of the Chronicles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the days of Johanan that is till he came to be High-Priest I take Nehemiah's meaning in those two Verses to be thus in short Having given account of the Heads of the Priests that were in the time of Jeshua the High-Priest and afterwards of them that were in the time of his Son Joiakim having also given account of the Heads of the Levites that were in Joiakim's time he thought some account would be expected of them that were in the days of the following High-Priests Therefore he inserted these two Verses wherein he tells us That as for the Levites that were in the days of Eliashib Joiada Johanan and Jaddua the Heads of those Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius Nothus were recorded in the Book of Chronicles but afterwards the Priests were not recorded but only the Heads of the Levites and those only during the High-Priesthood of Eliashib and Joiada who were then dead but not of Johanan who it seems was then newly come to be High-Priest when this Book was written As for Jaddua he is mentioned both here and before in this Chapter not as being High-Priest then how could he in his Fathers days but only as being then living and Heir apparent of the High-Priesthood so the words are understood by the most Learned Primate who was as well a great Chronologer as a good Textuary It may be said that if this Interpretation be true Nehemiah must have lived to a very great Age. No doubt he did so for he was Cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes in the 20th year of his Reign We may suppose Nehemiah to have been then about 25 years of Age after that he lived to see the High Priesthood pass from Father to Son for four Generations And he saw a fifth coming in view namely Jaddua whom we suppose to have been then about 30 years old All this might very well be if Nehemiah were born 470 years before Christ and writ in the year 347 before Christ Then he was about 104 years old according to our reckoning which is not so incredible an Age as that of Ezra's being 157 years old when he went in that clambering Procession according to the account of our Objector Secondly For Jaddus his being High-Priest at the time of Artaxerxes's Death which our Objector makes the ground of his Calculation I have shewn he has no ground for his affirming of this and
to him that had won the Kingdom from Darius The Objector having said because he will have it so that this Submission of Iaddus was contrary to his Oath goes on and compares it with that Fact of Elashib which the Scripture it self saith was contrary to express Laws of God And therefore he would have us take heed of following Iaddus for our Pattern as if we were as well assur'd of what he saith as we are of what we read in the Scripture He values his own Opinion too much that would impose it upon others at this rate And yet he that will not submit to it falls under all the heavy Censures of his Book They must be Deserters of Principles and guilty of Rebellion and Perjury and why not Should we think to come off better than Iaddus who is condemned already and with him all the Iewish Church of that Age. But all other Churches of God have done like them as oft as they have come into their Circumstances I do not except that which he fills his Book with namely the Iewish Church in Iehoiada's time for they were in much different Circumstances as I doubt not you will shew He cannot pretend to shew that any other Church hath done otherwise then that under Iaddus which he hath condemned already He will shortly see that they are all against him in this Cause and then we are to expect the like Judgment upon all Churches Iewish and Christian unless the Objector think better and change his mind or at least forbear such unjust and uncharitable Censures which I wish he may both for his own and for the Churches sake This I hope will be the Fruit of your Answer to his Postscript which is earnestly expected by SIR Your Friend and Servant F A Catalogue of Books sold by Thomas Jones at the White-Horse without Temple-Barr I. SIR John Chardins Travels into Persia c. Folio II. A Moral Essay upon the Soul of Man Containing 1. The Preference due to the Soul above the Body from the reason of it's Spiritual and Immortal Nature 2. Of our Duties of Religion and of Morality whether towards God whether towards our selves whether towards Man and of our Duty of all Gospel Self-denial which result from the manner how our Souls Are and Operate in our Bodies under the Visible Empire of God 3. Concerning our Duties of Time and Eternity of the present Life and of the Life to come of the present World and of the World to come which result from the manner how our Souls ought to be out of our Bodies first of all and then in our Spiritualiz'd Bodies after the Universal Resurrection Octavo III. A Pious Office for sick and weak Persons wherein many Directions and useful Instructions are given them with Supplications Prayers and Meditations proper for their Condition Octavo IV. Weeks-Exercise Twelves V. In the Press A choice Collection of Lessons for 2 and 3 Flutes With an Addition of Aires in Three Parts for Violins c. * Diodor. Sic. Edit 1559. p. 566. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * p. 11. * p. 17. * Ezr. 7. * Neh. 12. 36 37. * p. 8. * Ezr. 7. 1. c. * Neh. 12. 23. * 12. 10. * p. 7 p. 7. * Neh. 12. 22. * v. 22 23 * Neh. 12. 1 7. ‖ v. 12. 21. ‖ v. 8 9. 24 25 26. * v. 22 23. ‖ v. 22. ‖ v. 10. ‖ Vsser Ann. A. M. 3589. ‖ Neh. 12. 28. ‖ Neh. 13. 1. ‖ Neh. 13. 28. ‖ Vsser Annal. A. M. 3602 ‖ Jos Ant. xâ— ending a p. 9. b Jos An. 9. 7. c Jos An. 9. 14. d Ib. 9. 7. e Es 19. 5 Jer. 48. 3 5 34. f Neh. 11 10 19. c. g Neh. 13. 1 23. h Ib. 4. 28. ‖ Neh. 13. 1. â—â— 11. 2. ‖ ch 13. 28. p. 6. a Iohn iv 20. b p. 10. c Ios Ant. xiii 17. d Ganz p. 57. 64 e p. 59. f Ganz p. 58. g p. 10. h p. 60 6. Ganz p. 56 57 i Arrian de exp Alex ii k Ezek. 26. 2. 〈◊〉 * Jos Ant. xi 6. * Plâ—t in Alex. * Convâ—â— chap. 30. p. 63. * Convâ—â— can 30. p. 65. * chap â—â— p. 64. * Convoâ— chap. 31. beginniâ—g * Ib. ch 29. * Can. 31. p. 67. * Convoâ— c. 31. p. 67. * Can. 31. beginning * Mal. iv 3. * 1 Macc. ix 27. * Mal. iv 3. * p. 11. * Ganz p. 58. * Ganz p. 66. * Eccl. 50. * p. 19. 20 21.
A LETTER TO Dr. Sherlock In Vindication of that part of Iosephus s History Which gives an Account of Iaddus the High-Priest's submitting to Alexander the Great while Darius was living Against the ANSWER To the Piece Intituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government LONDON Printed for Thomas Jones at the VVhite-Horse without Temple-Bar M DC XCI A LETTER TO D R. SHERLOCK In Vindication of his late Book Entituled The CASE of ALLEGIANCE A LETTER TO Dr. Sherlock c SIR YOu desire to know what I have to say to the Objections that are made by a late Writer against the Authority of Josephus in what he says concerning the Submission that was made to Alexander the Great by Jaddus the High-Priest of the Jews and against the use that is made of it by some that have written in Defence of the Oath of Allegiance to Their Majesties First Against the Story it self the Objector saith It is very suspitious on two accounts First That no Author besides Josephus and his Followers mention any such thing Secondly He sets forth the difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology To which he adds That there are several Inconsistences in the Story it self Secondly The Objector saith That if the Story were true yet it would not prove the Point for which it is alledged To consider what he bringeth under these Heads we shall begin with what he saith of the suspiciousness of the Story To prove this charge his first Argument is because no Author besides Josephus and those that had it from him mentions or takes notice of any such thing This Argument lyes against all that Josephus has written of the Jewish Affairs within the Historical time of the Heathens except what he takes out of Scripture or out of the Books of the Maccabees for we have no other Ancient Jewish History If there had been any other Jewish Historian that had written the things of Alexander's time and said nothing of this Story of Jaddus nor of Jaddus himself for his living then is questioned by our Objector then indeed there had been great occasion to say that their silence had made this Story suspicious But when there is no Jewish Writer that pretends to write a History of those Times in this case to argue against the Authority of Josephus only from the silence of Heathen Historians this seems to be very unjust and unreasonable Who knows not that the Heathens generally contemned and hated the Jews as being not only Revilers of their Gods but Enemies to all the rest of Mankind Hence it came to pass that those Writers he mentions have scarce ever named the Jews in their Histories But Josephus design'd nothing more than to give us a History of the Jews How then should his Credit be impeacht by the silence of Heathen Writers Especially in a Matter which they would be sure to conceal for that very reason that he had to mention it namely because it made for the honour of his Nation It was the same reason that they had to pass by all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles Should we therefore grant the Story of these to be suspicious because the Heathen Writers of those times take no notice of any such thing We ought to take heed of such Arguments as an Adversary may make use of against the Gospel it self But if it were true that our Objector here says that those Heathens tell us the clean contrary to that which we have from Josephus there might be something in this contradiction tho not in the silence of Heathen Writers But perhaps the Objector might mean that the Account of those Historians is contrary to that of the Author against whom he writes For this Author as he cites him I know not how truly saith That from Tyre Alexander came directly to Jerusalem That indeed doth not agree with the account that is given us by the Historians he mentions But Josephus doth not say this He tells us That Alexander having besieg'd Tyre seven months and then taken it came forward to Gaza and took it after a Siege of two months and then hastened to Jerusalem which submitted to him as also did the Neighbouring Cities This consists very well with what we read in those Historians For tho they agree that from Tyre he went directly to Gaza yet after the taking of that City they do not say that he went presently into Egypt He might stay long enough to go to Jerusalem which was about Fifty miles distant and receive the Submission of that and the Neighbouring Cities before he went into Egypt I say he might well do this according to Diodor's Account who saith That having settled things about Gaza afterwards he sent away Amyntas with ten Ships for Macedonia and then went with his Army into Egypt This being not contrary but very consistent with the Account that we have from Josephus there is no farther cause of suspicion on this head The next is the difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology Nay this is not all the Objector tells us for he saith afterwards there are difficulties that have perplext all Chronologers And at last There are insuperable difficulties in this Story Where are they For I confess I do not see any difficulty He tells us in the Ages of the persons pag. 9. Mighty Ages not in the least mentioned by any Historian Namely that Sanballat lived to above 145 and Jaddus to above 124 years of age But doth Josephus say this Not in words nothing like it But it must come to this if the Objector reckon true And if he misreckons for Josephus he deals as ill with the Scripture only he doth not charge it with suspition on this account But according to the Scripture as he understands it Ezra must have lived to a much greater Age than either of those before mentioned The Objector will have Ezra born about six years before the Babylonian Captivity and to have seen the first Temple yet standing and 59 Years after this viz. in the first year of Cyrus to have return'd from the Captivity So that then Ezra was 65 years of Age by his reckoning From thence to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus are seventy nine years so that then Ezra must have been One hundred and fourty four years of age according to our Objectors account And yet it is certain that in that year of Artaxerxes Ezra made a Journey from Babylon to Jerusalem and it is as certain that he lived 13 years after that namely till the 20th of Artaxerxes and then according to our Objector he must have been 157 years of age and yet as old as he was that very year he led the Procession up Stairs and down Stairs about the Wall of Jerusalem He might live many Years after this as we may judge by his strength of Body in that Exercise But if he dyed that year being 157 years old as he must be by the Objectors reckoning he that finds
that might suffice for an Answer But besides that it is groundless it is also highly improbable For if this had been true there must have been living and dying no less than 5 High Priests in one direct Line from Father to Son in the space of two and twenty years First His Grand-Fathers Grand-Father Joiakim was High-Priest within the time while Nehemiah was Governour that is certain But his Government began in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes It appears that Joiakim dyed the same year for his Son Eliashib was High Priest at the time when the Wall of Jerusalem was building And he was High Priest in the 32d year of Artaxerxes Eliashib continued much longer as I understand it but suppose he dyed that very year there must be some time allowed for his Son Joiada after him and then for his Grand-Child Johanan for both these were High-Priests as has been already shewn But after the 32d of Artaxerxes there were but eight years more before the end of his Reign We have scarce known a Change of five Popes in the time that this Objector allows for so many to come and go in a Hereditary Succession And then the Age of Jaddus being considered of which our Objector saith when he came to be High-Priest The least we can allow is 30 years and it is very probable it was much more If it was but 30 years then the Age of Joiakim when he dyed must have been at least 90 years his Son Eliashib at least 62 his Son Joiada near 70 his Son Johanan near 60 and each of these as the Objector saith it is very probable much more and four of these must have been born when their Fathers were but 20 years old If any one of these things did not happen then our Objectors ground-work fails but that all things happen'd thus I think there is no probability But on the other hand there is nothing improbable in that Account which I offer'd before Jaddus might have been born any year before his Father Johanan came to be High-Priest at which time I conceive with very good ground the Book of Nehemiah was written and yet Jaddus might have been mention'd as he is in that Book But I supposed him born 30 years before in compliance with the most Learned Primate who reckons that Jaddus might be about 83 years old at his Death So he judged by comparing the Scripture together with Josephus's Antiquities I attribute very much to his judgment in these Matters But not to rest upon that only I have also consider'd the years of the High-Priests above-mentioned They are recorded in the Chronicon Paschale but I think better in Georgius Syncellus who tho he doth not quote his Author yet is reasonably presumed to have transcribed them from Julius Africanus an Author that lived little more than 100 years after Josephus and living in the same Country might have his Information from them that knew as well as Iosephus himself In placing the years of these Priests I begin from the Death of Jaddus who is said to have died about the same time with Alexander the Great Reckoning from thence upwards the Death of Joiakim will fall in the 20th year of Artaxerxes which exactly agreeth with the Account of his Death that I have given from Scripture And indeed there is nothing said of any of these Priests either in the Holy Scripture or in Josephus but what very well consists with the Account of their years that is given us in this Catalogue That you may the better judge of this I have given you a short view of their Years compared with those of the Kings of Persia as they are in Ptolomy's Canon Yaars before Christ Beginnings of Persian Kings and of Iewish High-Priests 445 In Nisan Nehemia came from Susa for Jerusalem After his coming thither Joiakim dies 444 His Son Eliashib High-Priest 34 y. 424 DARIUS Nothus 19 y. 410 Ioiada 36 y. 405 Iaddus born ARTAXERXES Mnemon 46 y. 374 Iohanan 32 y. Nehemiah writ his Book In Iohanan's time Bagoses was Governour 359 OCHUS 21 y. 342 Iaddus 20 y. 338 ARSES 2 y. 336 DARIUS Codomannus 4 y. He sent Sanballat to Samaria 332 ALEXANDER takes Tyre and Gaza Ierusalem yields to him 330 Darius dies 323 Alexander dies and Iaddus Having shewn that the Age of Iaddus has no difficulty in it we are next to consider what there is in the Ages of Sanballat and Manasses For the first of these he is spoken of by Iosephus with that care which one would have thought might have prevented this Objection For whereas the Objector proceeds upon a supposition that the Sanballat in Iosephus is the same that was the Adversary of the Iews in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes and if that were true then indeed he must have been as the Objector would have him much above 120 years old in Alexander's time to prevent all suspicion of this Iosephus described him by those Characters by which we may be sure he was not the same Sanballat However the Objector is pleased to say That Iosephus doth not intimate any such thing he doth more than intimate he tells us plainly in his Description First That this was a Chuthaean of that Race from which the Samaritanes came that is from Chutha beyond the river Euphrates and farther that this Man was sent to be Governour of Samaria by the last Darius who was driven out by Alexander the Great Now who would have thought that this Chuthaean should have been mistaken for the Moabite of Horonaim whom Nehemiah found there in Palestine 100 years before in Artaxerxes his time I call Nehemiah's Sanballat a Moabite for he is join'd with Tobia the Ammonite almos◠〈◊〉 oft as he is mentioned And as Nehemiah observeth Thâ—â— the Israelites were particularly forbidden to marry with Moab and Ammon so he gives instances of the breach of this command in the Priests marrying into the Families of Tobia and Sanballat That Horonaim was in Moab I have shewn above in the see e Margent For the strangeness of it that there should be two of a Name that would not have stuck with the Objector if he had considered that there were two Artaxerxeses and three Dariuses in his view But those were Kings and they might take Names from one another To go lower therefore he might have found two Ezra's and two Nehemiahs in those times one of each came up from Captivity with Zorobabel and again one of each was in the Government almost One hundred years after There is no strangeness in this but that any Man should be so senseless to think these two Pairs were but one Ezra and one Nehemiah Lastly For Manasses Brother of Iaddus Iosephus saith That he marryed a Heathen Woman Nicaso the Daughter of Sanballat the Chuthaean which occasioned a Breach between the Brothers and thereupon a Schism in the Church This Manasses setting up another Temple at Mount Garizim in