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
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
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.