that he cannot answer all Objections The Question is concerning the Age of Nehemiah and our Authour proves it by supposing it if he was born 470 and wrote 374 years before Christ then all this might be that is to say if Nehemiah lived 104 years then he was 104 years old And that is the thing to be proved how does he prove that Nehemiah was 104 years old or that he wrote 374 years before Christ Why it is far easier to suppose some things than to prove them and if they will not prove themselves they must e'en doe as well as they can our Author can lend them no Assiance In the mean time it may be a little diverting to observe how our Author's Computation and Josephus's Account of this matter agree whom notwithstanding he pretends to vindicate Josephus's Account is Antiq. l. 11. c. 5. that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem the 25th of Xerxes and plainly intimates that he dyed in his Reign The Author's Account is that he wrote his Book 374 years before Christ in the beginning of Johanan's High Priesthood which according to his Calculation is in the 31st of Artaxerxes Mnemon and how long he might live after is uncertain Now from the Death of Xerxes to the 31st of Artaxerxes Mnemon is but 91 years thus computed Artaxerxes Longim reigned 41 Darius Nothus 19 Artaxerxes Mnemon 31 Â 91 This I suppose is but a small Difference with a Vindicator who can see no Difficulties In the mean time he that so palpably contradicts Josephus might one would think have been a little sparing and not have made such a terrible business of finding Faults in Josephus except he thinks that no Body may doe so but he that calls himself his Vindicator However that which I would draw from hence is That if our Author believes his own Account let him deny my Inference if he can That since Josephus 's Errours and Mistakes concerning these times Answ p. 11. are so many and gross any man that acted upon Principles of Sincerity would be very fearfull to use an Example taken out of him in Matters of Practice Our Author now and then gives some hard words but in the main is very obliging and I ought to be thankfull for though he does not like my way yet he proves my point as well as I can desire and his Premisses will fit my Conclusion as well as my own For our Author hath found a much greater Fault in Josephus's Chronology than I have done and my Argument returns upon him if Josephus was so notoriously out in the Times of Nehemiah and according to our Author at least 91 years then it plainly follows that he that owns him so wofully mistaken can never himself safely rely upon his sole Authority For I would fain see a good reason if Josephus was so notoriously mistaken in the time of Nehemiah he might not as well be mistaken in the time of Jaddus Nehemiah was the chief Governour of Judaea as well as Jaddus and 't is probable that his Reign was recorded in their Chronicles and publick Matters dated from it at least they were so as much in the Case of Nehemiah as in the Case of Jaddus and Josephus had the same opportunity and means to know the times of one as well as the other And therefore being so much mistaken concerning a Prince and Governour of his own Nation and one also who was reigning not long from those very Times about which is the Controversie for according to our Author Nehemiah wrote his Book but 41 years before the times of Alexander This is plainly argumentative against our Author and he himself if he will be consistent cannot safely depend upon his Relations of those Times and much less draw a practical Inference from an Example in those Times which stands upon nothing else but the Authority and Relation of Josephus Suppose an English Historian and especially such a one as was in the Post of Josephus that could examine all the Records of the Countrey should say that Archbishop Cranmer lived and dyed in the Reign of Edward IV. and the reason is yet stronger with respect to a chief Governour whether any Man would depend upon what he delivered about those Times which stood onely upon his single Assertion and Authority Vossius I know well enough that some to save the Credit of Josephus in this point say that the Times or Reigns of the Persian Kings during that Monarchy were not so well known then as they have been since but this is not only said without Proof but 't is manifestly false For we find in Scripture as far as the Scripture goes that the Names of the Persian Kings were recorded and there is no reason to think but they were so afterwards and it is ridiculous to think that in Judaea which was a Branch of the Monarchy and under the Government and Authority of those Kings the Times of their Kings should not be known but one King especially at our Author's distance of 91 years should be confounded for another Besides the Matter in Controversie is a demonstration of it which is the High Priest's taking an Oath of Fidelity to those Kings and which Josephus mentions too and probably enough all other great Officers in places of Trust and Importance and it would be very strange if the Reigns of those Kings could not be known to whom respectively they took an Oath of Allegiance Our Author flurts at Calvisius and tells me P. 18. I could not have found a fitter Man to take my part for he had a Quarrel against Josephus for writing such things as would not consist with his Chronology And it seems our Author hath the same Quarrel too onely he is a little more courtly than Calvisius and calls it Vindicating for Josephus writes such things as will no more consist with our Author 's Chronology than they will with that of Calvisius and to say the Truth our Author will fit my turn every jot as well as Calvisius and my Argument concludes as well from what our Author says as from what Calvisius says Our Author adds Secondly Jaddus being High Priest at the time of Artaxerxes 's Death is not onely groundless but highly improbable and his reason is For if this had been true there must have been living and dying no less than five High Priests in one direct Line from Father to Son in the space of 22 years And how does our Author prove this Why he does it by enumeration of Particulars and plain deduction thus as Joiakim Eliashib Joiada Johanan there are four and the fifth is Jaddus who was just come to the Priesthood and therefore there must needs be five High Priests living and dying in that space because one of the five was living and just entred upon the High Priesthood Now who would ever expect that our Author should see any Difficulties when he cannot see that he contradicts himself the very next Line But five High
of those that were present the Foreigners were far more numerous And yet forsooth a thing so remarkable in itself and as Josephus tells it so particularly remark'd and so notorious and publick our Author would have us believe to be Matter onely of National Record and could by no means get out of the Territories of Judaea And he talks of the Conquest of a Countrey as if it had been like their municipal Laws and particular Customs and known to none but the Natives and Inhabitants And accordingly he tells us 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 is then questioned by our Objector then indeed there had been great occasion to say that their Silence had made this Story suspitious 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 onely from the Silence of Heathen Historians this seems to be very unjust and unreasonable Now as to Jewish Historians writing of the Things of Alexander's Time the Author I think is a little mistaken for the Author of the History of the Maccabees 1 Maccab ch 1. who wrote much nearer the Time of Alexander than Josephus hath taken notice of the Things of Alexander's Time and makes it introductory to his Book and more particularly to the Affairs of Judaea and yet he takes as little notice of Alexander's coming to Jerusalem or his subduing it as the Heathen Historians themselves And Julius Africanus who as our Author saith lived in that Country and wrote some time after Josephus and says nothing of this Story neither P. 9 10. and our Author says that living in the same Countrey he might have his Information from them that knew as well as Josephus himself So that if our Author thinks it so very material the Jewish Historians also are perfectly silent in this Matter But why Jewish Historian Could no body take notice of the Conquest of Judaea by Alexander but a Jew and a Conquest more considerable than all the rest as being attended with such wonderful and stupendious Circumstances I grant him that neither Diodorus Siculus nor Plutarch c. were Jews nor did they undertake to write the Jewish History but they wrote the Life and Expedition of Alexander and this is a considerable part of that and I wonder what Reason can be given why they should pretermit the extraordinary Conquest and Submission of Judaea any more than they did the Conquest of Tyre Egypt Persia or India for neither were these Authors Tyrians Egyptians Persians nor Indians And it is unaccountable that those who descend to such minute Circumstances to his Sleep Dreams taking Physick should yet silently pass over the most remarkable Passage of the whole and which deserved the Notice and Record of an Historian as much or more than the Battel at Issus or at Gausomela Answ p. 6. or any other matter whatsoever This I had said before and I am sorry I am forced to repeat it but the force of the Argument lies in it and our Author was not pleased to take the least notice of it He speaks here by way of diminution and abatement to their Credit of the Silence of Heathen Historians But why Heathen Historians The Question is a Matter of Fact and no Article of Religion and I did not know before that a Right Faith was necessary to make a good Historian and if that would make any alteration in the Case Josephus himself was a Jew But let us hear his Reason Who knows not that the Heathens generally contemned and hated the Jews as being not onely Revilers of their gods but Enemies to all the rest of Mankind Why truly to answer that Question I doubt Josephus himself did not know it for he hath taken a great deal of Pains to prove the contrary and to represent the great Honour and Respect that was paid to the Jews by the Heathen Nations as the Author may find in several places of his Antiquities and more especially in his Book against Appion And I am somewhat in doubt whether our Author knows it for to solve an Inconsistency in this Story noted by Salian he tells us The Chaldaeans who after so long acquaintance as they had with the Jews in their Captivity were kinder to them than any other People and have continued so ever since Now as I take it these Chaldaeans were Heathens as well as other People He tells us farther That excepting the Phoenicians who might doe it upon a point of Interest upon the score of Trade no other Nation could be so intent upon the Spoils of Jerusalem but only for spite And adds of all the Nations in the World none so likely as the Samaritans So then it seems by his own reckoning this Hatred to the Jews was not so general as he would here insinuate and though a spiteful Samaritan might be suspected of Partiality or Malice either in declaring or omitting matters relating to the Affairs of Judaea there is no reason to extend this to all the rest of the Heathen World and Diodorus and the other Authors before mentioned were not Samaritans no more than they were Jews But the truth is this Business of the general Hatred of the Heathens to the Jews is meer Imagination and hath no Foundation but in the Author's Fancy for however it may have been since the Destruction of Jerusalem and their general Dispersion and which as a just Judgment of God is fallen upon them for their crucifying the Lord of Life and concerns Heathens no more than it does Christians yet before and Diodorus wrote 160 Years before no Nation in the World was so much admired and sought to and particularly with respect to their Rites and Religion the very Reason our Author gives of their Hatred to them and besides the many Instances of it in the Scriptures and in Josephus the infinite number of Proselytes both of the Gates and Justice is a demonstration of it and which is not less considerable the Eastern and the European Learning was derived from them and the Greeks who set up for Learning and Improvement in Philosophy particularly Pythagoras Plato Josephus against Appion Clem. Alex. 1 lib. 2. strom 1. Theoph. ad Autol. Tatian paren ad Gr. Orig. contr Cels Euseb praep l. 9. c. 6. and the rest of the great Men among them travelled far and near to fetch home the Treasures of other Nations and particularly of the Jews to enrich themselves as is made evident by Josephus Clemens Alexandr Theoph. Tatian Origen and Eusebius and that which makes their Testimony the more considerable and rescues them from the Suspition of Partiality is the Acknowledgment of the Heathen Writers themselves whose Fragments they have preserved and made use of them to prove That Moses and the Prophets and the wise Men
but to gratifie him I will tell him once again how I infer it Nehemiah in his Book intimates Jaddus being High Priest Nehemiah according to Briet dyed the last year of Artaxerxes and his Book was written some time before he dyed and therefore according to Briet's Account Jaddus must have been High Priest at least the last year of Artaxerxes and whether our Author knows it or no this Inference was plain enough before and it is impossible for any Man besides our Author to make any other But this is idle and amusing and therefore our Author tells us again Though I do not see which way he proves this I see very clear Reasons to the contrary which I think are unanswerable Now I wish I could see them too for I confess that unanswerable Reasons are certainly Reasons But I doubt he hath turned the Prospective and looks upon his own Reasons with the magnifying end as he did mine with the other for that his Reasons as he calls them are no clear Reasons at all much less unanswerable ones will appear upon considering them they are these 1. That the Book of Nehemiah was not written till after the death of Longimanus 2. 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 But why this Disjunctive in or after and after in great black letters too And he says he insists upon it that it was after the Reign of Darius and therefore to return him his Observation the page before I suppose there is not more difference in saving if I had said it That I take it for granted and yet I take it onely as probable than there is in saying that it is in or after and yet immediately to insist upon it that it is after Well But our Authour does insist upon it that it was after And how does he prove this Why truly by a Hebrew Criticism for he adds 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 follows in the next verse where it is said that the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Books of the Chronicles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the days of Johanan that is till he came to be High Priest Now all our Author's Proof depends upon this Hebrew Criticism and upon the difference between Hhal and Hhadh in that Language and to which I answer 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does generally signifie super or supra upon or over But then those Senses are determin'd by the subject Matter as Exod. 29.20 21. Thou shalt kill the Ram and take of his Blood and put it upon the Tip of the Right Ear of Aaron and upon the Tip of the Right Ear of his Sons and upon the Thumb of his Right Hand and sprinkle the Blood upon the Altar in all which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used so likewise for over 2 Kings 18.18 〈◊〉 who was over the Houshold there also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used and it signifies praâ—â—situs over by way of Authority or Government But for our Author 's over i. e. as he interprets it throughout is I suppose a Mistake throughout i. e. from one end to the other And I desire our Author to shew me where it means so either in Scripture or is so interpreted by any Hebrew Lexicon and I hope there is some difference between over a Household and throughout a Reign And I wonder what sense he will make of being recorded over a Reign He found that would not doe and therefore he must put in his own word throughout though he hath no manner of Authority for it onely it would signifie nothing to his purpose except he had done so And therefore 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and means as much as ad or usque ad to or till and so Vatablus would have it rendred in this very place usque ad Regnum Darii to or till the Reign of Darius and to say no more so all Interpreters that I have met with render it And does our Author think that his little Criticism and singular Interpretation is sufficient to bear down the Authority of all Interpreters P. 22. He tells me afterwards and he may now take it to himself He values his own Opinion too much who would impose it on others at this rate However 3. If this was granted him it will by no means serve his turn for suppose the Heads of the Levites c. were recorded throughout the Reign of Darius the Persian why then Jaddus must have been high Priest in the Reign of that Darius which notwithstanding is directly contrary to our Author 's Chronology who places his Grandfather Joiada in that Reign and Jaddus himself 68 years after in the Reign of Ochus for thus it is in Nehemiah Ch. 12. ver 23. The Levites in the days of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded chief of the Fathers also the Priests to the Reign of Darius the Persian Now suppose to the Reign meant throughout the Reign then Jaddas must have been High Priest in the Reign of Darius Nothus for otherwise the Levites could not be recorded in his days throughout that Reign But this will serve our Author's turn as little as if Jaddus had been High Priest in the Reign of his Predecessor Artaxerxes and so he might be too though his Criticism was allowed him But for that Our Author tells us I take Nehemiah's meaning in two verses to be thus in short Ver. 22 23. Neh. 12.1.7 V. 12 21. V. 8 9 24 25 26. Having given Account of the Heads of the Priests that were in 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 Very well He had given account of the Heads of the Priests in Jeshua's time and he had given account of the Heads of the Priests and Levites in his Son Joiakim's time and he thought some account might be expected of them that were in the days of the following High Priests but I hope no body expected that he should give an account of more than he knew or of more than was in his own time or if they did I suppose he neither could nor would offer to doe it to humor any Man's Expectation except he did it by the Spirit of
Hatred to it might prevail upon all the rest to speak less than Truth of them Now I can tell our Author that it is no new Complaint that Josephus hath been a little too carefull of the Honour of his Nation and it is not very accountable how so many several Authors and of divers Ages and Nations undertaking to give account of the whole Expedition of Alexander should all of them combine to omit a most famous and remarkable Submission to him out of pure Spight and Malice to the Inhabitants But the truth is our Author is so very tender of the Credit of Josephus that he cares not what he says nor how much he reflects on the Reputation of other Historians every way as good or better than him and to support Josephus's Authority they must be represented by odious and abominable Characters and as designedly and malitiously concealing plain Matter of Fact and all this without any manner of Proof either from the Authors themselves or from any other Reason but onely out of pure charitable Conjecture and Supposition P. 3. This Author tells me We ought to take heed of such Arguments as an Adversary may make use of against the Gospel it self and I say so we ought And though the Comparison is not equal yet there is great reason to take heed of such Insinuations as destroy the Credit of all History for if a Man without direct and plain Proofs may fasten such Imputations upon Historians the same Conjectures may as well affect what they deliver as what they do not and so we may quickly conjecture the Truth of all History out of the World 'T is but boldly charging them with Hatred and Malice and the Work is done and a Testimony from History will signifie no more than the Authority of a Romance And if Josephus's Credit in this point cannot be maintained any other way in my poor Opinion it had better shift for itself as well as it can than to sit thus hard on the Reputation and Vertue of as good Historians perhaps as the World hath seen And therefore to conclude this point and as a farther Confirmation of my Assertion I shall consider these two things 1. The general Credit and Reputation those Historians have always had among learned Men. 2. The particular Advantages they had of informing themselves of the true Account of the History and Expedition of Alexander 1. Their general Credit and Reputation among learned Men. Now this is a copious Argument and a great deal may be said of it but to save the Readers Pains and my own and not to transcribe more than is necessary any Man may be satisfied what Opinion the learned World hath always had of them by those excellent Characters given of them published and annexed to their respective Writings and more particularly in Vessius de Historicis Graecis Latinis where the Reader may find such Encomiums of their Diligence Skill and Fidelity as will not easily be match'd by the Characters given by learned Men of any other Historians One of them Diodorus tells us In Praf he spent thirty Years in compiling his History And Vossius remarks of him 〈…〉 p. 167. that he was so great a lover of Truth that he travelled into Asia and Europe and was discouraged by no Trouble and Dangers from personally visiting those Places concerning which he was about to write Tâ—â—â—â—orus Gaza Another of them Plutarch was of that Repute that he was no inconsiderable Man who said That if all the Books in the World were to be burnt but one his was that one that should be saved And to say no more these Writers are the most eminent Persons that have escaped the great Shipwrack of Learning and to whom we owe more of the Knowledge we have here in the West of antient times than to all the Authors in the World excepting the Penmen of the holy Books And their Reputation as Historians hath always been not onely so clear but so great and august that a Man would wonder what should make our Author treat them so coursly and give such a scandalous Account of them as if they were acted by irregular and undue Passions and in the writing their Histories were directed by Hatred and Malice and not according to the truest state of things they were able to come to the knowledge of Such things as these one would think especially from a Man that pretends to vindicate an Historian should not onely have been barely suggested but proved at least offered to be proved for a Man that writes Paradoxes against the Sense and Judgment of all the World is bound in Justice to himself to give some Reason for it if he have any to give and I dare be bold to say that no Man besides our Author ever charged these Historians with such a scandalous Imputation but on the contrary speak of them not only with all imaginable Candour but Veneration also with respect to their Character of Historians 2. The particular Advantages these Historians had of informing themselves of the true Account of the Expedition of Alexander And that was an opportunity of consulting those Authors who were followers of Alexander and Eye-Witnesses of his Actions and those we have an account of are Aristobulus Clitarchus Onesicritus and Ptolomaeus Lagi which last was one of Alexander's great Captains and after his Death King of Egypt These were personally acquainted with the Story of Alexander and had consign'd it to Writing whose Writings these Historians consulted and from whom respectively they extracted their Histories Diodorus mentions Clitarchus Diod. lib. 11. Plut. in Alexandro Plutarch very often Aristobulus and all the rest Curt. l. 9. Curtius mentions Clitarchus and Ptolomy and Arrian plainly tells us Arrian Praef. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he made use of and collected his History from Aristobulus and Ptolomy and that what they had written of Alexander he would write also as being most true and adds a weighty Reason why the Truth of Ptolomy's Relation ought not to be called in question for that he was not onely a Soldier under Alexander but when he wrote these things he was a King in whom an untruth would be more foul than in any other Person These then were the Authors our Historians consulted and they compiled their respective Histories out of the Writings of those very Men who were Eye-Witnesses to what they delivered and were all of them Companions to Alexander in his Expedition and one of them in a most eminent Station and Place of Trust under him And now I will appeal to all the World and to the Author himself if such a joint Omission of a single Story vouched but by a single Author be not sufficient to make that Story suspitious for otherwise one of these three things must follow Either that Josephus who wrote 400 Years after knew better what was done than those that were Eye-Witnesses or that several Eye-Witnesses undertaking to write
that one is serviceable to our Author's Purpose but not the other But our Author hath made a far greater breach in the account of Josephus in the Case of Nehemiah as we shall see immediately He adds Those that he complains of are Difficulties of his own making and proceed onely from an eager desire to find Faults in that Story of Josephus If this had not blinded his Eyes he might have seen that admitting that Story to be true yet there was no necessity either of making 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 1. He takes it for granted that Jaddus was High Priest at the time the Book of Nehemiah was written but he takes this onely as probable and therefore by his own Confession all can be but probable that he builds on it Now as he represents this our Author would persuade his Reader that I am as forgetfull as he is and that in one page I took that for granted as a certain and undoubted Truth which in the next page I take onely as probable whereas there is no such difference in what I deliver I say indeed Answ p. 6. That Nehemiah ch 13. v. 21. intimates Jaddus his then being High Priest But I think saying Nehemiah intimates is not saying I take it for granted but that it seems to be implied or denoted by what Nehemiah there delivers i.e. 't is probable Nehemiah's words were so to be understood But I did not peremptorily affirm and take it for granted that he did so and accordingly I say afterwards page 7. that 't is probable Jaddus was then High Priest And therefore our Author is in the right when he says by his own Confession all can be but probable that he builds upon it for I do confess it and desire to build no more on it that being sufficient for my purpose And if our Author's Account was but probable likewise it will serve my purpose as well as my own for I hope bare Probabilities are not sufficient for to make Examples and Presidents in Matters of the highest Importance But which of the two is most probable we shall see upon examining what our Author offers in opposition He adds 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 dyed the last Year of Longimanus who reigned forty one Years But to what end doth he tell us this for he himself could not believe it And I pray mark his Reason it follows as appears by his Words for says he I think the least we can allow for the time of Nehemiah 's living after he ended his Book is thirty Years and it is very probable it was much more These indeed I own to be my own Words but as the Author hath placed them the sense is mine no more than black and white are one colour The whole Sentence is this Answ p. 7. I think the least we can allow for the time of Nehemiah's living after he ended his Book and for the marriageble Age of Manasses and then for Jaddus's Age as elder than him the least we can allow is thirty Years and it is very probable it was much more And now does not any Man see the Fairness and Ingenuity of our Author's Answers and how purely he proves that according to my words Nehemiah lived thirty years after he ended his Book whereas all that I allow is that Nehemiah lived some time after he ended his Book and which I suppose our Author will not deny but for the thirty years they plainly refer to the age of Jaddus and which is prov'd by a complicancy of Circumstances as the time Nehemiah lived after he ended his Book the marriageable age of Manasses who was then actually married and the age of Jaddus as elder than he from all these together it is reasonable to conclude Jaddus was then thirty years old at least and probably much more and consequently that he was at least of that age according to this Calculation the last year of Longimanus But nothing at all of Nehemiah's living thirty years after he ended his Book which I never thought of and it is impossible for any Man but our Author to conclude so But who can expect otherwise from an Author who pulls Sentences to pieces and joins the beginning and end together and leaves out the middle and then draws Inferences and Proofs from it as if it had been the sense of the Person against whom he disputes at this rate he may make me say and confess what he pleases And which is yet more pleasant he applies this very Sentence to the age of Jaddus P. 9. and then saith he for the age of Jaddus which our Objector saith the least we can allow is thirty years and it is very probable it was much more But then how comes this to be applied to Nehemiah and to prove as our Author undertakes to much purpose that then Nehemiah wrote nine years before any of those things happened which are written in his Book But when Men dispute in this manner and take one piece of a Sentence and argue against it in one place and take another piece of the same Sentence and argue against it in another and draw Conclusions from a part which ought to be drawn from the whole it is no great Wonder that as they misrepresent their Adversaries so they contradict themselves And after such a curious strain of answering our Author thus gravely concludes Now this I think our Author could not mean i. e. that the Book of Nehemiah was written nine years before the things happened that were written in it and he may be sure of it and therefore he doth but amuse us with that idle Quotation Now indeed the Quotation out of Briet was mine but the Reason is the Author's and if that be idle and amusing it is no bodie but his own But why I pray is a Quotation out of Briet idle Is he an Author so very trifling that it is a Reproach to quote any thing out of him But our Author hath the most expeditious Method of clearing his hands of Authors that are not for him that ever I met with Diodorus Plutarch and the rest are a company of Heathens and malitious and there is an Answer for them to quote out of Briet is idle and there is an end of that And if Authors will not be turned off in this manner they are importunate and troublesome for our Authour is not at leisure to give them any other Answer He adds Howsoever as if he had proved something by this he infers from it I know not how that Jaddus was High Priest the last Year of Artaxerxes Now I thought I had expressed it plain enough Ch. 12. ver 22.
Prophesie which our Authour tells us in the Case of Darius he thinks no Man will say He immediately adds And therefore he inserted these two Verses i. e. He inserted these two Verses to give an account of the Heads of the Priests and Levites that were in the days of the following High Priests that is of the following High Priests that were in own his time for 't is ridiculous to expect from him account of the heads of the Priests and Levites that were in the times of High Priests who were after his time But then it follows that Jaddus was High Priest in the days of Nehemiah and before he ended his Book for the Words are these The Levites in the days of Eliashib Ch. 12. ver 22. Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded chief of the Fathers also the Priests to the Reign of Darius the Persian And what account I pray is this but an account of the Levites in the days of all those High Priests even in the days of Jaddua as well as of the rest But this as plain as it is our Author is not for and therefore tells us that he inserted these Verses wherein he tells us That as for the Levites which were in the days of Eliashib Joiada Johanan and Jaddua the Heads of these Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius were recorded in the Books of the Chronicles but afterwards the Priests were not recorded but onely the Heads of the Levites and those onely 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 Now here is such an Interpretation of Scripture that I desie all the World to shew me the Fellow of it For 1. The Text saith The Levites in the Days of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded And our Author says the Levites in the days of Johanan and Jaddua were not recorded but onely in the days of Eliashib and Joiada that is he expounds Scripture by downright contradicting it and in express Terms 2. He tells us that 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 the Chronicles But afterwards i. e. after the Reign of Darius Nothus the Priests were not recorded but onely the Heads of the Levites and those onely during the High Priesthood of Eliashib and Joiada who were then dead Now we are to take notice that our Author page 8. and in his Scheme page 10. makes Eliashib High Priest at least twenty years before the Reign of Darius Nothus and that he dyed in his Reign and Joiada was High Priest some years before the death of that Prince And does not our Author begin to see what woeful Work he hath made on 't That is to say the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests in the days of Eliashib and Joiada were recorded in the Book of the Chronicles but afterwards i. e. in the days of the same Eliashib and Joiada the Priests were not but onely the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Chronicles And that is to say again That the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests were recorded in the Books of the Chronicles during the whole Reign of Darius and that the Priests were not recorded but onely the Heads of the Levites during the same Reign and in the same Book And that is to say yet again that the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius Nothus were recorded but afterwards onely the Heads of the Levites and not the Priests during the High Priesthood of Eliashib which was twenty years before the Reign of the same Darius And yet he tells us in this matter that he thinks his Reasons unanswerable Now I cannot tell what Opinion our Author may have of his own Reasons but heretofore Men did not use to take plain Contradictions for unanswerable Reasons ver 22. He adds As for Jaddua he is mentioned both here and before in this Chapter not as being High Priest then how could he in his Father's days but onely as being then living and Heir apparent of the Priesthood And here we have another curious vein of Interpretation For I wonder where our Author finds either in Scripture or any where else that where any Things or Actions are dated in the Days of a Person of publick Station that it is not to be understood of the Days i. e. during the time of his publick Station but of the Days of his Life as when it is said in the Days of King Charles it means the Days of his Reign and publick Administration and not of his Life But suppose it might mean otherwise how comes the very same Expression to signifie one thing with respect to Jaddua and another with respect to all the rest mentioned in the same place The words are in the days of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua that is according to our Author's Interpretation in the days of the High Priesthood of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan but in the days of the Heir apparentship of Jaddua Just as if a Man should say in the days of Queen Elizabeth King James Charles the first and second he should mean the actual Reigns of the three first but the other onely as living and Heir apparent to the Crown And yet in this fine manner does our Author interpret Scripture and Jaddua must be mentioned as next Heir contrary both to all Rules of Interpretation and even to common sense But in truth as our Author has handled the matter it is impossible to know what Jaddua was mentioned at all for or Johanan either for our Author tells us that the ground and Reason of the adding these two Verses by Nehemiah was for that having given account of the Heads of the Priests in the times of Jeshua and Joiakim and of the Heads of the Levites in Joiakim 's time he thought some account would be expected of them that were in the days of the following High Priests Very well and to satisfie that Expectation Nehemiah according to our Author gives account of the Priests and Levites that were in the days of Eliashib and Joiada but not of Johanan nor Jaddua who it seems was onely Heir apparent But then what are Johanan and Jaddua mentioned for Why truly for just nothing at all For if the reason of inserting these two Verses was to give account of the Priests and Levites that were in the times of the following High Priests then there was reason for mentioning Eliashib and Joiada but no reason at all for the mentioning of Johanan and Jaddua for according to him they are not recorded during their time nay one of them was not then High Priest And so if our Author
time of Possession must consequently be the less as he is so much older when he comes into Possession And therefore I cannot tell for my Life what our Author means when he adds And then the age of Jaddus being considered P. 9. of which our Objector saith when he came to be High Priest the least we can allow is 30 years and it is 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 it is probable much more and four of these must have been born when their Fathers were but 20 year old Now at first sight a Man would imagine the Inference was clean contrary and that because Jaddus came to be then High Priest therefore those before him his Father and Grandfather did not live to so great ages and if they must live to so great ages if Jaddus came to be High Priest the last of Longimanus what ages must they be of if he came to be High Priest as our Author intimates the 17th of Ochus and which was according to his account 83 years after And if they must be of such ages if Jaddus came to the Priesthood at 30 what must they be if he came as according to our Author to be High Priest at 63 years of age But this I suppose he did not think on and what was in his Head when he writ this I cannot devise and methinks the Author should have been so kind to his Reader to have proved the Consequence that he charges here upon my Assertion and not have left him to have made it out himself especially when it requires such extraordinary Skill to make it intelligible not only to a common but to any Reader at all for I am affraid it would puzzle all the Arithmeticians in Christendom to make any account of it as our Author hath laid it For suppose Joiakim dyed at 90 and the other four born when their Fathers were but 20 the state would be thus When Joiakim at the time of of his Death was 90 at the same time his Son Eliashib being born when his Father was 20 would be 70 his Son Joiada 50 Johanan 30 and Jaddus 10. But then what is the meaning of his Son Eliashib being 62 when he dyed when according to this account he must be 70 when he came to the Priesthood In like manner our Author says Johanan must be near 60 when he dyed when yet according to this account he could be but 50 for if Jaddus was born when Johanan was 20 years old then when Jaddus was 30 Johanan was 50. These therefore are mystical Inferences and Riddles and so must remain till our Author explains them In the mean time if there were any Difficulties in the ages of these High Priests as our Author by consequence from my Hypothesis calculates them they are plainly greater from his own For according to him Jaddus lived to be 83 years old he was High Priest 20 years according to him then when he came to the Priesthood he was 62 and then supposing his Father Johanan 26 when Jaddus was born Johanan when he dyed must be 89. In like manner take the same course upwards to the rest of the High Priests Johanan according to him was High Priest 32 years then when he came to the Priesthood he was 57 and to this add 26 as his Father's age when he was born then Joiada when he dyed must have been 83. Joiada was High Priest 36 deduct that from 83 and when he became High Priest he was 47 add to this 26 as his Father's age at his Birth and then Eliashib his Father when he dyed must have been 73. Eliashib was High Priest 34 deduct that from 73 and then when he became High Priest he was 39 to this add 26 as his Father's age when he was born and then Joiakim at his death must have been 65. And now on which side is the Difficulty Which is greater to say that Joiakim when he dyed must have been 90 Eliashib 62 Joiada near 70 Johanan near 60 or that which is the Consequence of our Author's account Joiakim when he dyed must be 65 Eliashib 73 Joiada 83 Johanan 89 and Jaddus 83 And 't is probable if this account be true it was much more for if any one of these Priests had not Children at the age of 26 if their eldest should prove a Daughter or infirm and unfit for the Priesthood or should dye or in short if each of them had not at that age the very Son that succeeded him then still the whole account must be proportionably lengthned And to conclude this in our Author's words If any one of these things did not happen then our Author's groundwork falls but that all things happened thus I think there is no Probability Our Author having said this to disprove my Account comes to make good his own and suppose for Quietness sake that I should grant him all that he has said how indifferently soever he hath proved it that there are Difficulties in my Account and it is not probable What then Why then I ought not to establish any Doctrine upon it nor draw any practical Inference from it nor confirm or prove a Point of Conscience from any such difficult and suspitious Stories Nor do I but however that is the Case I dispute against And if our Author could shew as many Difficulties and Improbabilities in my account as he pretends What is that to the purpose Do the Difficulties in my account clear the Difficulties that are in another account That indeed is an Argument against my Account but 't is none at all against my Inference and Deduction which stands good against him except he can clear up his own account as well as find faults in mine And what does he say for that On the other hand saith he P. 9. there is nothing improbable in that Account which I offered before And suppose I should grant him that too What then Is every account true that is not improbable Or may a Man deduce Consequences for Practice in high and important Duties from every Story that is not improbable How easie is it in Matters of difficult and abstruse History to frame Schemes to our selves that have no Improbability in them But is that a Reason to argue from thence to Practice But let us see how probable our Author makes his account He tells us Jaddus might have been born any year before his Father Johanan came to be High Priest at which time I conceive with good ground that the Book of Nehemiah was written and yet Jaddus might be mentioned as he is in that Book but I supposed him born thirty 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
Samaritans would certainly disprove him if this had not been true and therefore I take it for certain by their account as well as his But 1. How does our Author know whether they did disprove him or no has he any Samaritane Authors that wrote about those Times And methinks he that will not admit the Silence of Heathen Historians to be a Proof concerning a Matter that mightily related to their History cannot himself conclude from the Silence of Samaritane Writers and especially when there are no such Writers to be found 2. The Dispute between the Jews and Samaritanes was not concerning the building or destroying their Temple but concerning their Worship or the Place of it but not the Structure and it made no manner of difference as to that whether their Temple was built at the time of Alexander or 100 years before Antiq. l. 15. Josephus tells a Story of a Contest between the Jews and Samaritanes at Alexandria concerning their Worship and which came to be debated before Ptolomy by Advocates on each side and he that undertook the Cause of the Jews proved the Holiness of the Temple from the Law and by a continued Succession of High Priests and the propagation of the Priesthood to that very time and the Honours and Gifts conferred on that Temple by the Kings of Asia but not a word which of the Temples was first built or insisting upon the late building of the Temple of Girizim So that it seems let that be sooner or later it made no difference in the Question And it is plain enough the Dispute and Schism lasted after the Temple of Girizim was destroyed nay after both the Temples were destroyed it was not therefore either the Building or the Destruction of the Temple was matter of Dispute between them And so with respect to the time of that which is the Matter now before us if our Author could find they had not disproved Josephus in that it would not signifie much there being no great need to be so very critical in that which was not the main point in Controversie and whether it was built or destroyed 100 years before or after it was all one in respect of that nay if our Author could find that they had disproved Josephus in this it would have signified nothing neither for our Author hath a small Argument that would wipe out the Testimony of all the Samaritanes in the World for who knows not that the Samaritanes hated the Jews and had a particular Quarrel against Josephus for talking such hard things of them And therefore though our Author brings their not disproving Josephus as an Argument to confirm what he says it is plain enough that if they had disproved him a thousand times over it would signifie nothing at all by our Author's way of arguing 3. Our Authour proves the Temple of Girizim must be built in the time of Alexander by calculating from the Destruction of it which according to Josephus was 200 years after the building of it and that being soon after Antiochus Pius's Death which was 130 years before Christ reckoning upwards the Building of it will fall in 330 before Christ which is the time of Alexander But 1. Suppose it What is that to the Controversie between us which is not concerning the Building of that Temple but the Age of Sanballat I have no Dispute with him about that let it be built when he pleases it is all one to me but if he will needs have Sanballat to build it as Josephus affirms I doubt it must be built before Alexander's time 2. Suppose Josephus says this why then this proves that Josephus in this point is consistent with himself but this does not prove but that he may be out in his Account which is the onely Question from the time of Alexander to the Death of Antiochus Pius is suppose 200 years and so far Josephus reckons right but if the ground of this Calculation be wrong how equally soever he may reckon from thence the whole is a Mistake He had placed the building of this Temple in the Time of Alexander and speaking of the Destruction of it 200 years after he could not without contradicting himself say otherwise And the utmost that this proves is that Josephus did not contradict himself Josephus in the same place saith it was built by the Permission of Alexander and refers to what he had said of it before and it is every jot as good an Argument to prove the Temple was built by the Permission of Alexander because he mentions it again in another place of the same Book This proves indeed that Josephus did not forget himself but proves the Point no more than if he had said it onely once For the second Assertion is of no more Validity and Authority than the first and especially when the first is plainly and particularly referred to as if Josephus his Authority concerning the same thing was more cogent in his Thirteenth than it is in his Eleventh Book With respect to this matter our Author adds Answ p. 10. He tells us from David Ganz that the Jewish Chronologers affirm that the Temple on Mount Girizim was built long before the time of Alexander and that at the time of Alexander Simeon Justus was High Priest and which Simeon was Grand-son of Jaddus And to this our Author adds out of the next Page The Objector tells us afterwards that Calvisius and not only he but all Chronologers find Josephus 's Errors and Mistakes concerning those times so many and so 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 Now I do not know for what purpose our Author added this last Citation here for it does not concern the immediate matter our Author argues against nor was it used by me with reference either to the building of the Temple of Girizim or to the Jewish Chronologers but a general Inference from the whole except it was for an Introduction to the Reflection that follows I believe says he the Objector acts upon Principles of Sincerity in other things notwithstanding that he seems to forget them in his Quotations P. 14. 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 when our Author does give that we shall see whether there is from thence any reason for such great suspicion of my Sincerity in my Quotations What our Author adds about excepting all the best of Chronologers from among those who find fault with Josephus I shall consider presently in the mean time with respect to the Citation out of Ganz he tells us I allow him the Jewish Chronologers who are as much the Enemies of Josephus as he himself for they have the like quarrel against him because he breaks all their measures
and so I suppose will any Man else that considers the Learning and Care of this Author But that he did not say this inconsiderately and out of Negligence or Forgetfulness is plain for in a few Lines after and in the very next Paragraph speaking of the Fact of Sanballat and the building the Temple in Mount Girizim and the place he refers to is page 60 61. concerning Sanballat building that Temple by the permission of Alexander and making his Son-in-law Manasses his High Priest he quotes the very Book and Chapter where these things are now in Josephus and plainly says Flavius Josephus has nothing of these things in the eighth Chapter of the eleventh Book of his Antiquities Nihil de his Flavem in Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 8. Ibid. pag. 246. which is the very Book and Chapter where all these things are now extant I am not now at leisure to read over the whole Book but I remember somewhere he complains of the Corruption of these Books of Josephus which are abroad And if he had another Copy or ancient Manuscript in which this Story is not it would vindicate Josephus much better than any thing our Author hath said And if he had not it will be very hard considering the Man to give any tolerable Account of these Passages But let that be as it will his Argument is the same and the stronger if it be also related in another manner by the genuine Josephus for if the Variety and Discrepancy in the Relation of a Story be an Argument of the Vanity of it then the greater Variety still more confirms it And Josephus relating it yet differently strengthens the Inference that therefore it is but a Fable and hath no Truth in it And here it may not be amiss to add a Remark of a very Learned Author of our own which comes home to the purpose 2 vol. p. 100. it is Dr. Lightfoot who speaking of this very Story says The Talmudists own the Story but alter the Name c. And then adds Let those indeavour to reconcile Josephus with the Talmudists who believe any thing of the Story and thing it self And therefore as an Addition to this I shall yet give a further remarkable Instance And that is that the Samaritans themselves lay claim to this very Story It is to be found in Chronico Samaritano brought over by Dr. Huntington and by him given to the University Library in Oxford and which is very ancient and ends about the time of Mahomet I give it according to the Translation of the Learned Doctor Barnard * Anno ante Christum 331. Mundi 4094. Alexandro M. cum per Neapolin Samariae in Aegyptum contenderet in genua decumbenti benedixit Hezekia pontificatus sui anno 15. qualem hominem halitu Sacerdotali per quietem nuper viderat Macedo de Bello Persico prospera ei omnia pollicentem Hunc ergo antistitem gentem Samaritanam donis magnis cumulavit Alexander item hoc Elogio jam certe novi Deum vestrum Diis cunctis esse majorem Item Hezekia hymnos sacros composuit Hosanna When Alexander the Great went through Neapolis of Samaria into Aegypt Hezekiah in the fifteenth year of his High Priesthood blessed him kneeling upon his knees The Macedonian having in his Sleep seen such a Man in Priestly Habit promising him all prosperity in the Persian War And therefore Alexander gave great Gifts to the High Priest and to Samaria and moreover with this Testimony Now I know certainly that your God is greater than all Gods and also Hezekia composed sacred Hymns and sung Hosanna And it is yet further to be observed from this Chronicle that there is an exact and particular Succession of their Schismatical High Priests together with the years each of them held that Office and this far higher than the Days of Alexander and yet no such name as Manasses to be found amongst them A particular Account of this Chronicon together with the thing it self I hope that profoundly Learned Man before-mentioned from whose Excerpta I transcribe this will one time bless the World with In the mean time it is not only very ancient but seems to be the Work of several Ages and a Succession of publick Memoirs kept up by the Body of the Sichemites like the many continued Chronicles of our Monasteries and those of the Chineses The last known Author is Abulphelacus who brought it down no lower than the year 1492. And some things are so particular as could hardly have been preserved otherwise than by Coaeval Observations And there are several particulars of time so well connected as that they could hardly have been the Inventions of later Ages The Samaritans are frequently mentioned in the Roman Histories and Laws as still in a Body in the very place of Sichem even till the Hegira So that they had the same convenience of preserving their Memoirs as the Jews themselves excepting what is mentioned in Scripture Our Author having considered the Difficulties in Chronology and which he tells us he hath proved to be none how well let the Reader judge comes now to consider the several Inconsistences in the Story it self noted by Salian To which our Author answers That Jesuit was an Enemy to the very name of Josephus for Scaliger 's sake Well! it must be confessed that that is a good Answer indeed which will serve all Purposes Nations Times and Persons The Heathens they hated the Jews and the Jewish Chronologers hated Josephus and Salian was an Enemy to his very Name and who would matter what such malicicus Folks as they said And if this be not enough to silence all Men that speak against Josephus or question any thing that he says it is a very hard Case But our Author tells us He will take the Inconsistencies as they lie The first is that Josephus saith the Phenicians and Chaldaeans who followed Alexander when he came against Jerusalem thought to have plundered the City Now saith the Objector how should he have Chaldaeans in his Army when as yet he had not taken Babylon nor came near to Chaldaea He answers He might have Chaldaeans of those whom he had taken at Issus many of whom turned over to Alexander and served him as he told Darius in his Epistle For the proof of this our Author quotes in the Margent Arrian de Exped Alex. 2. Now indeed in that Letter Alexander tells him that as many of his side who were saved at the Battel and fled over to him he took care of them and they fought for him willingly And what then How many were these in all And how many of them were Chaldaeans Certainly not likely to be so many and to make such a Figure in Alexander's Army that their Desires of Booty and Plunder should be particularly taken notice of and therefore this may still go for an Inconsistency But our Author does not much trouble himself with this but hath found an
that he bid him ask what he would and he asks him to build this Temple Now according to Josephus the Siege of Tyre lasted seven Months and the Siege of Gaza two Months in all nine Months and from thence Alexander comes to Jerusalem Now in this same Chapter Josephus tells us that the Samaritans met Alexander almost at Jerusalem upon his going from thence and taking the Soldiers of Sanballat with them besought him that he would visit their City and honour their Temple with his presence Then it seems their Temple was built when Alexander went from Jerusalem that is to say it was built in nine Months after leave obtained for the building it And yet Josephus tells us over and over that this Temple was built after the manner of the Temple at Jerusalem which notwithstanding all the assistance and encouragement from the Kings of Persia was building as many years And I will leave it with our Author or any Man else to make it credible that such a Temple could be built in nine Months especially when Sanballat and his Soldiers were all that time attending in the actual Service of Alexander And this I must leave for another Inconsistency till our Author reconcile it But that which is yet more considerable is 3. That this wonderful Vision should never be heard of before that Critical Time to do the Jews such mighty Service As Josephus tells the Story Alexander had this Vision at Dio some years before when he was but deliberating on the Persian Expedition and which mightily encouraged him to undertake it And how came Alexander to conceal it all this while This certainly had been very good Doctrine to his Army and would have done him service if he could have made them belive it whether it were true or no. How full are Histories not only of Heathen but even of Christian Princes who have invented a Divine Conduct and Impulse and industriously spread it abroad to justifie their Cause and to animate their Followers Alas a Little Creeping Manuscript tho never so foolish cannot escape the having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affixed to it And I 'll warrant you Alexander having so fair and just an opportunity to magnifie himself and encourage his Soldiers would lock it up as a Secret and never make any use of it Let any Man who considers the temper and ambition of Alexander and even human nature it self and the universal Experience of Mankind believe this if he can The Vision as Josephus represents it was equally strange and glorious and of which he had no former Idea for he could not frame to himself any Conception of the Jewish High Priest in his Sacerdotal Attire by any thing he had seen before And according to the Story he did not for then when he is supposed actually to have seen it the sight would not have been so astonishing and affecting and so consequently and especially considering Heathenish Superstition he could not conclude otherwise than that it was from God and Josephus tells us that he did so and yet to say not one word of it nor make any advantage of it is certainly one of the strangest things in the world But instead of that we hear no more of it neither before nor after his subsequent Progress is as much a stranger to it as his former and certainly had he forgot it which is not very likely yet when it was revived by such an extraordinary Occurrence it would have been no inconsiderable Topick to have heartened himself and his Soldiers and I challenge any Man to believe that Alexander would have neglected it But for all that there is a profound silence in this matter even to the end of his Life and tho we hear of Jupiter Hammon and Hercules and the Gods of the Nations yet there is not one single word of the God of the Jews nor of those Visionary Encouragements and Promises of Success It saved the Jews indeed as Josephus tells us and got them Honour Privileges and Immunities and there is the beginning and end of it but for Alexander he made no manner of use of it And in plain Terms this Story seems calculated only for the Meridian of Jerusalem and the Service of the Jews which plainly denotes it to be a Jewish Fable And to say no more such things were but too common among the Jews in the Age foregoing Josephus and frequent among the Hellenists of those times as is evident from the Book of Tobit Judith the Prophecy of Enoch the Assumption of Moses the Prophecy of Eldad and Medad in Hermes's Pastor and many more And what if such a Legendary Tale should pass traditionally in Josephus's time and he take it up and insert it in his History for a truth tho it hath no other Foundation than the Figments and Fancies of those Hellenists and Josephus himself gives us no Author for this And I think this is a better Vindication of Josephus than any thing our Author hath said for him The Truth is this whole Story seems like other Fictions to be grounded on false Reasonings on true History like the History of S George and the Dragon which of an original Truth is made a meer Legend and Romance There was such a Man as S. George and there were such persons as Sanballat Jaddus and Alexander and a little Hellenistical Fancy of which that Age was full might easily jumble them together and confound differing times to frame a Romantick Story that never had any real being And what wonder is it if Josephus took a Story upon trust which made for the Honour of his Nation and was already invented to his Hands And it is plain enough that whatever our Author does Josephus himself gave no such great credit to it for in his Book against Appion which was purposely writ to vindicate his Antiquities wherein with great Pains and Learning he hath endeavoured to confirm the Antiquity and Honour of his Nation from the Testimony of Foreigners And yet he has not one word of this glorious Testimony of Alexander which notwithstanding his Argument and Method directly led him to and was as fit at least for his purpose as any thing he hath said and which he could not reasonably pretermit without injury to his Cause Joseph contra Appion l. 1. if he had believed it unexceptionable and not liable to Objection He plainly and copiously speaks of Alexander's kindness to the Jews at Alexandria and of the great Privileges he granted them when he placed them there but not the least intimation of his Acknowledgment and Adoration of Jaddus and at Jerusalem and the mighty things he there did for them which certainly had been a far greater Testimony and more to his purpose Ibid. He tells us upon the same design that Ptolomy Euergetes upon the Conquest of Syria that he did not sacrifice to the Aegyptian Gods but coming to Jerusalem he sacrificed to God according to the Custom of the Jews But there is
Author may be satisfied that He was a little too hasty in charging me with Insinctrity for not quoting what makes against me in my own Authors For I did not quote these Authors for their opinion of this Story but for the general judgment they give of Josephus and his History of those times and which judgment of theirs is certainly true and our Author cannot deny it without denying also the foundation of his Vindication which makes good my Inserence what opinion soever they might have of that Story And as our Author says and which he intends for an answer it will serve as well for that purpose and tho Calvisius intended them for things wherein Josephus differs from him yet the Reader may apply them and honestly too for they are as applicable to that Story wherein he agreed with him But after all what does our Author say to two other famous Chronologers whom I had mention'd who do not only give the same account of Josephus but come home to the very Story and plainly intimate their suspition of it to say no more Answ page 10. And those are our Lydiat and Temporarius whose words I had at large recited and because our Author will not take any notice of them De Emend Temp. page 65. I must be forc'd to repeat them Lydiat speaking of Sanballat saith either this was another from him who was Father-in-law to one of the Sons of Iciada whom Nehemiah mentions and by the way Lydiat never thought of our Authors difference between the Horonite and Chulhaean or else Josephus is equally false and contrary to himself in determining the Age in which Sanballat lived as he is in almost all the Chronology of the Persian Monarchy Demonstr Chronol l. 3. p. 232. And Johannes Temporarius is yet more full And after having prov'd the Inconsistency by Chronology says It is necessary that the Sanballat and Jaddus in the History of Josephus either they are diverse from them whom Ezra mentions or which I rather suspect they are the most vain Fictions of Josephus himself concerning Jaddus and Sanballat Now here we have two very learned and considerable Authors and both of them as great and skilful in Chronology as perhaps any Age hath had who not only deliver the same account of Josephus but make the same Inference of the suspiciousness of this Story The one with respect to Sanballat and the other with respect both to Jaddus and Sanballat and that which makes their Testimony yet more considerable is as I said that they were not at all concern'd in the present Controversie and consequently could have no byass on their Judgments on that account And what did our Author say to all this Why truly not one single word nor so much as vouchsafe them the least notice I fansie our Author suspected his Answer would not hold out any longer and hatred and malice and particular quarrel had quite spent it self on the Heathens and Jews on Salian and Calvisius and having not another ready or perhaps not knowing how to fit that fine Character to Lydiat and Temporarius He e'en let them alone and has nothing to say to them tho if I mastake not their Censures are as hard on Josephus as Calvisius or any man else and my quotations out of them come home to the very Case He tells me before I call'd in Calvisius to be my Second and that I could not have found a fitter man to take my part and yet there were two others almost in the same place and neither of them inferiour to Calvisius who are much more fit for my purpose and yet our Author I suppose because he could not prove any malice upon them has not one word to say to them tho at the same time he charges me with Suspition of Insincerity for omitting those words that make against me in my own Authors But if it be an argument of Insincerity in me to omit words that make against me I pray what is it to omit two intire quotations that make against him Our Author now comes to the Convocation Book Pag. 19. and begins If our Author dealt candidly in this i. e. the quotation out of Calvisius and the inference from it He doth not so always We have a great instance of the contrary in his shuffling and cutting with the Convocation Book Well! To shuffle and cut which the Convocation Book is not fairly done nor yet is it very fair to charge a Man with doing so and not be able to prove it But in order to that our Author says He against whom he writes had urg'd the Example of Jaddus for something which the Objector doth not like and to give the more Credit to it he saith as here he is quoted that whether the Story be true or no the Convocation seems to believe it he gives very good reason to judge so because they have inserted part of it into the Convocation-Book Now all this business which our Author puts into such a spruce Form is nothing else but an Objection which I had rais'd and which it was necessary for me to speak to considering the Subject matter of the Discourse there is not one single word nor intimation of all these fine Things of urging the Example of Jaddus and to give the greater Credit to it because it is in the Convocation and after that a good reason to judge so but an Objection barely and nakedly propos'd so that if our Author had pleas'd he might have let all this Flourish alone for I do not know any great need of proposing an Objection in Mood and Figure and making a long business of that which may be dispatch'd in few words The Objection in the Answer is thus If it be said That whether the Story be true or no the Convocation seems to believe it Answ pag. 11. and have inserted part of it into the Convocation book And it is not matter of Fact but their sence we are enquiring into And to which I thus answer I say so too but I say likewise that their sence is not to be extended beyond their words nor are they to be made Parties to any more of the Story than they have inserted in their Book And accordingly I shew what they have inserted and consequently to what part of it they can only be presum'd to be Parties And what does our Author say to this Why truly he tells us They have taken in all that the Objector hath thrown out concerning Sanballat Manasses and Jaddus which is the pleasantest answer in the World for it is the very Objection and granted in my Answer and this we get by flourishing Things over and we must have the same thing in Reply to an Answer to an Objection which is the Objection it self Well! Convoc Ch. 30. p. 63. but they expresly quote Josephus for it as their Author Right and I wonder whom else they should quote for it He adds Tho by making his Sanballat