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
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
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
opposition to that at Ierusalem The Objector to find a fault in this Story makes many For First He confounds this Brother of Iaddus with his Uncle that is mentioned by Nehemiah in the end of his Book Nehemia there calleth him one of the Sons of Ioiada the Son of Eliashib the High-Priest which is plain enough to shew that he was younger Brother of Iohanan the Father of Iaddus But no matter for that The Objector to make Iosephus a Lyar makes bold with the Scripture it self He is pleas'd to give this Uncle of Iaddus the Name of Manasses which â—â—â—hemiah never thought of And he will have this Man to be Brother of Iaddus he calleth him so as oft as he mentions him And the Wife that he marryed who was Daughter of Sanballat the Horonite must be the same with Nicaso the Daughter of Sanballat the Chuthaean And in consequence of all this Iosephus must be a Liar who writes of things as done in the time of Darius Codomannus which were done long before as our Objector saith in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus But with his leave Iosephus knew what he writ as it appears by his fixing the time of this Story There was no date of time better known among the Iews than that of the building of their Temple at Jerusalem nor among the Samaritans than that of the building of the Temple of Garizim They remembred nothing more than the destruction of their Temples It was a thing in every ones mouth Our Fathers worship'd in this Mount said the Woman of Samaria to our Saviour And no doubt if they had any Records or any Histories the times of these things were chiefly remembred in them But it was within 200 years of Iosephus his time that the Temple at Mount Garizim was destroyed by Iohannes Hyrcanus It happen'd at a memorable time being soon after the Death of Antiochus Pius which was in the year before Christ 130 then that Temple was destroyed saith Iosephus 200 years after the building of it How long that Temple stood and when it was destroyed none knew better than the Samaritans themselves And as they were Enemies to the Iews so they must be particularly to that Author who provokes them as oft as he mentions them How then durst he have put it in their power to disprove him as they certainly would if this had not been true I take it therefore for certain by their account as well as his accounting 200 years upward from the destruction that their Temple was built in the year before Christ 430 which falls in the time of Alexander the Great and not as the Objector would have it in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus What saith the Objector to this He tells us from David Ganz That the Iewish Chronologers do affirm That the Temple on Mount Garizim was built long before the times of Alexander and that all the time of Alexander Simeon Justus was High-Priest which Simeon was the Grandson of Iaddus The Objector tells us afterwards That Calvisius and not only he but all Chronologers find Iosephus ' s Errors and Mistakes concerning those times so many and gross as would make any Man that acted upon Principles of Sincerity very fearful to use an Example taken out of him in Matters of Practice I believe the Objector acts upon Principles of Sincerity in other things notwithstanding that he seems to forget them in his Quotations In these I must needs say he gives great suspicion of the contrary by omitting those words that make against him in his own Authors Of which I shall give a clear proof by and by and I doubt not you will find the like in other places of his Book But whereas he bringeth all Chronologers on his side against Iosephus he should have excepted all the Best both Ancient and Modern and among them particularly our excellent Primate who followeth Iosephus in every part of this Story I allow him indeed the Iewish Chronologers who are as much the Enemies of Iosephus as he is himself for they have the like quarrel against him because he breaks all their Measures But yet the Iewish Chronologers will not help the Objector in his Cause They will not make Iaddus live to 124 years of Age and Sanballat to 145. They are so far from that that they scarce allow either of them any Age. For they make the whole time of the second Temple at Ierusalem 'till the sixth year of Alexander the Great to be but 34 years And in that sixth year of Alexander they say that he came up against Ierusalem and that Iaddus the High-Priest and all the Elders of Israel came forth to him and that they made a Covenant with Alexander tho' Darius was then living This Story fills up most of that very page that our Obiector quotes in his Margent Only there the High-Priest is called Simeon the just But that this makes no difference in the Story he might have seen in the passage next before where Ganz tells us of this Simeon the just that his name was Iaddua And for the building of the Temple at Mount Garizim which as the Objector saith The Jewish Chronologers affirm to have been built long before Alexander ' s time His Ganz tells us that some of their Writers have said so but he disproves them and affirms of a certainty that it was built in Alexander's time and by his permission He doth indeed confound the two Sanballats the Chuthaean and the Horonite and makes Manasses to be the Priest that was deposed in Nehemiah's time This might be excused in a Iew that reckons that Act of Nehemiah but 4 years before the Reign of Alexander the Great But is not to be allow'd one that reckons one hundred years between and takes upon him to correct Iosephus by Christian Chronology But besides these difficulties in Chronology which I have proved to be none the Objector saith there are several Inconsistencies in the story it self noted by Salian That Iesuit was an Enemy to the very name of Iosephus for Scaliger's sake But without engaging in the quarrel between them I take the Inconsistencies as they ly here before me Object The first is that Iosephus saith the Phoenicians and Chaldaeans who followed Alexander when he came against Ierusalem thought to have plunder'd the City Now saith the Objector How should he have Chaldaeans in his Army when as yet he had not taken Babylon nor come near to Chaldaea Answer He might have Chaldaeans in his Army of those whom he had taken at Issus many of whom turn'd over to Alexander and served him as he told Darius in his Epistle But I confess I know not why these Chaldaeans should be named together with the Phoenicians as if these two Nations should be eager for the spoils of Ierusalem above all the rest that were in Alexander's Army There must be some particular reason for this eagerness in these two Nations above
that Men that have any care of their Souls will hardly venture to act upon one single Example and that also voucht but by a single and suspicious Author They may do well to think of this that go in untrodden ways and yet damn all them that will not follow them But it is upon the single Example of Jaddus having sworn to Darius that the Convocation saith that the Jewish High-Priests were bound to the Kings of Persia by an Oath when they were made High-Priests And they add this judgment upon it that if any Man affirm that Jaddus the High-Priest did amiss in binding his Allegiance to King Darius by an Oath or that he had not sinn'd if he had refus'd being thereunto requir'd so to have sworn he doth greatly err It is plain that they affirm this upon one single Example and that also voucht but by a single Authority They do indeed profess they do not hold it Canonical no more than the Books of the Maccabees and other ancient Historiographers but neither did they judge it as our Objector doth to be of Suspicious Authority He was aware how much their judgment would be preferred before his where he differs from them And therefore finding them against him in all he hath said of the suspiciousness of this Story he is now for compounding the Matter As far as this Story will make on his side he is content they should believe it provided they will give up that part of it for which he hath rejected the whole That is he is content they should take Josephus for a good Author only as far as his Authority makes for the not-swearers An easy Reader may be persuaded to this but not without some shew of proof And therefore he tells you they of the Convocation mention and thereby approve Jaddus his Answer to Alexander That he had sworn Allegigiance to Darius and therefore could not violate his Oath so long as Darius lived From hence the Objector infers that their sense is That an Oath of Allegiance was binding to a Prince so long as he lived and had not given up his right tho he was beaten in the Field and fled before his Enemies This is what the Objector would have But the sense of the Convocation will best appear by their own words and thus they go on with the Story Alexander by Gods Providence having vanquisht the Persians that is having overthrown Darius the King of the Persians upon which the Monarchy of the Graecians began the Jews amongst many other Nations became HIS SUBJECTS He dealt favourably with them releast them of some Payments viz. from paying Tribute on the Sabbatical years and granted them liberty to live according to their own Laws These last are the words of Josephus in that very Chapter which was quoted before in the Convocation Book and the things here spoken were done by Alexander then when he was at erusalem two years before the Death of Darius In consequence hereof the Convocation declare their Canon That if any Man shall affirm That the Jews generally both Priests and People were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia he doth greatly Err. What the Convocation did mean by the setling of an Authority they shew in these words viz. when it is either generally received by Subjects or setled by continuance The Disjunctive is as plain in these words as it is in those of Bishop Buckeridge's which are fairly quoted by the Objector p. 27. but not fairly repeated in the bottom of that page It was plainly their Judgment that both these were not necessary but that either of the two might suffice for the setling of an Authority But Alexander had one of the two that is the general subjection of the People whereupon without the other they were his Subjects according to the Convocation-Book as much as they had been before the Subjects of Darius though he was yet living But this will not go down with the Objector He saith For the other part of the Story of Jaddus submitting to Alexander while Darius was living the Convocation take no notice of it They do not name Jaddus indeed But what saith he to these words that the Jews generally both Priests and People were the Subjects of ALEXANDER Those words seem to be intended chiefly of Jaddus at least they take him in among the Priests and People But then saith the Objector it doth not any where appear That they the Convocation thought Darius was then living No Doth it appear that they thought what they writ Their Book saith He by flight escaped when his Army was discomfited And tho they do not say he was living when Alexander came to Jerusalem yet no Learned Man can be ignorant That he lived two years after this But the Convocation were not concern'd whether he were living or no any longer than while the People of God were under his Dominion The Changes of Governments over the Jews was the thing which the Convocation were to consider And now upon this Change of Government they tell us That the Jews both Priests and People being Subjects of Alexander whether Darius was living or dead they were bound to pray for the long life and prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire as they had been bound before to pray for the long life and prosperity of the other Kings and their Kingdoms while they lived under their Subjection Therefore when they were no longer in subjection to Darius it was all one to them whether he were living or dead From what hath been said the Answer is plain to his Question concerning Submission to a Possessor of Power notwithstanding an Oath to a lawful King who is alive and insists upon his right whether it be argued from the Story or from the Convocation-Book It may be from either or both for ought that he hath said to the contrary The Story hath been clear'd from all suspicion of Falshood That he hath endeavour'd to fasten upon it The Convocation-Book hath spoken for it self and hath much more to say but this little is enough to shew our Objector that he might better have let it alone than brought it into this Controversy After all he comes to this that grant the Story true it is not to the purpose it is urg'd for How so Because this of Jaddus is a singular and exempt Case What he did was by especial Revelation from God who as Josephus says appear'd to him in a Dream and warn'd him to submit to Alexander and to meet him in that solemn manner as he did He is aware that there is a prejudice against this namely That Prophecy was then departed from the Jewish Church This is certainly true Malachi having given them warning that the next Prophet that should come would be Elias But the Objector shifts off this by telling us That