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.
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
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
Priests living and dying in 22 years would make a great wonderment whether it were true or no. And just such another is the Case of Joiakim of whom our Author says that it appears that he dyed the same year i. e. in the first of Nehemiah and that is again any time even in the beginning of the same year For he tells us immediately that His Son Eliashib was High Priest at the time when the Walls of Jerusalem was building and that is yet again very soon after Nehemiah came to Jerusalem So that according to our Author's account by living and dying when it respects Joiakim one of the five it means dying and not living when another Jaddus it means living and not dying And if a Man will not take these for unanswerable Reasons he is querulous and unreasonable and as our Author says is angry and greedy of Objections against Josephus P. 18. and did not regard what might be said in his Vindication However at last as to this Matter of living and dying the five High Priests are come to three and whether that was onely in the space of 22 years we come now to examine For the Proof of this our Author adds First His Jaddus 's Grandfather's great Grandfather Joiakim was High Priest within the Time while Nehemiah was Governour and adds farthermore that is certain but gives us no proof of it onely refers in the margin to Nehem. 12.28 the 26. it should be And what is said there for our Author's purpose Why the Text saith that These i. e. the chief of the Levites mentioned the verses before were in the days of Joiakim the Son of Jeshua and in the days of Nehemiah the Governour and of Ezra the Priest And therefore it plainly follows by unanswerable Reason that Joiakim and Nehemiah were contemporaries as if it were impossible for them that were chief of the Levites in the time of Joiakim though he dyed some years before Nehemiah to be also chief of the Levites in the times of Nehemiah who was Governour some time after He might as well have made Zerubbabel and Nehemiah contemporary for in the same Chapter v. 27. it is said All Israel in the days of Zerubbabel and in the days of Nehemiah gave the Portion of the Singers c. This is just such another reason as because Bp. Bilson was Bp. of Winchester in the days of Q. Eliz. and K. James therefore Q. Eliz. and K. James were contemporaries in their Government Well I perceive when Men are once set upon unanswerable Reasons there is no end of them But however as to the time of Joiakim's dying our Author can say nothing to but it is plain that his Son Eliashib was High Priest when the Wall of Jerusalem was building and that is when it first began to be built and that is plainly soon after Nehemiah came to Jerusalem Compare Neh. 3.1 with 2.11 and he might be High Priest long enough before that for any thing our Author saith to the contrary However Josephus whom our Author vindicates and contradicts as he finds it for his purpose plainly places Eliashib in the time of Xerxes and as plainly says that Joiakim was dead and Eliashib was High Priest before Nehemiah came up to Jerusalem And then our Author 's 22 years for three High Priests might have been 62 or at least 52 and that would not have been such a wonderfull Matter Or however suppose Josephus mistaken and that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem as it is plain he did in the 20th of Artaxerxes Eliashib was then High Priest and he might have been so for any thing our Author knows some at least if not many years before and then his 22 years may be 25 or more and no body knows how many more Well but our Author proves it Eliashib was High Priest when the Wall of Jerusalem was building i. e. the 20th of Artaxerxes And he was High Priest the 32d of Artaxerxes Eliashib continued much longer as I understand it but suppose he dyed that very year But before we proceed any farther how does our Author prove that Eliashib was High Priest in the 32d of Artaxerxes Why he refers us again in the Margin to Nehem. 13.28 Now this proves his point very extraordinarily The Words are And one of the Sons of Joiada the Son of Eliashib the High Priest was Son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite From whence our Author concludes that Eliashib was at that time High Priest Now we are to remember that our Author tells us that Nehemiah wrote his Book immediately after Johanan came to be High Priest i. e. the Son of Joiada and the Grandson of this Eliashib i. e. according to his own account about 37 years after Eliashib dyed and that is again about 60 years after the 32d of Artaxerxes And yet forsooth upon the closing up his Book and ending it because he mentions the Son of Joiada the Son of Eliashib the High Priest it must needs be concluded that then Eliashib was High Priest though it perfectly contradicts all that our Author hath said upon this Argument But this I suppose we are to take for one of our Author 's unanswerable Reasons Now for my part I should be glad to see Reasons and let unanswerable alone for of all the Reasons that ever I met with unanswerable Reasons are the worst For all that as if our Author had punctually prov'd his Point he adds Suppose he Eliashib dyed that very year the 32d of Artaxerxes there must be some time allowed for his Son Joiada after him and then for his Grandchild Johanan but after the 32d of Artaxerxes there were but 8 years more before the end of his Reign And then adds We have scarce known a Change of five Popes in the time that he allows for so many to come and go in a Hereditary Succession As for five coming and going I have told him already they are but three and therefore the allowance of five is his own allowance but none of mine and I hope even in our own memories not onely three but three times three Popes have sat in the Chair in the space of 26 or 30 years But as to his comparison 't is true according to present Custome they chuse only such Persons to be Popes who are of very great Age but this is accidental But if we consider the nature of the thing 't is much more reasonable that Persons who are successively elected into an Office should for the generality continue longer in that Office than when it goes by hereditary Succession and the Reason is plain for the Childrens Life is concurrent with the Parents and so much as is added to the Father's time of Possession is substracted from the next Heir and his Life though not his Possession wears out concurrently with his Predecessor and if at any time in hereditary Successions a Predecessor lives to so great an age so much of his Son's age is worn out too and his
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
right 2. Why might not the Chuthaeans at least some of them be translated to Moab upon the Conquest of that Country as well as to Samaria upon the Conquest of that this was usual in the Eastern Conquests to transplant their own People and remove the Natives and the Case of Samaria is sufficient proof of it and then Sanballat might be called an Horonite with respect to his Birth and last Habitation in the Scripture and Josephus might call him a Chuthaean with respect to the Nation or People from whom he was descended This is usual in Josephus especially with respect to them who calls the Samaritanes Chuthaeans though they had lived in Samaria for several Generations He calls them so in Alexander's time which was about 400 years after their Planting there and he does so often afterwards when he is angry tho' he wrote his Book near 800 years after their being settled in that Country which is just to as much purpose as to call Englishmen Saxons Danes or Normans And I wonder why he might not for the same reason call Sanballat a Chuthaean though neither he nor any of his Ancestors for five or six Generations had ever seen that Countrey And Josephus himself plainly favours this for all that he says is that he was of the Race of the Chuthaeans from which the Samaritanes eame and which he might be well enough and yet a Horonite by Birth and his Ancestors might have been Inhabitants of Moab for some Generations And the same angry reason which made him generally call the Samaritanes Chuthaeans might make him say the same of Sanballat though he might come no more immediately from Chutha than the Samaritanes themselves However the Force of the Objection does not lie in the Names being the same which yet is more than our Author can fairly answer but that join'd with other considerable Circumstances There is not onely an Identity of Name but of several other material Things The Sanballat in Scripture and the Sanballat in Josephus was Prefect of Syria and had a Daughter married to the Son of the High Priest who was obstinate and would not forfake his forbidden Marriage and for which he was deprived of his Priesthood These are the Characters of the Case of Sanballat in the Scriptures and they are the very same of Josephus's Sanballat and where there is both the same Name and also a harmony of such and so many extraordinary Circumstances to dispute whether they are the same Person is to strain upon the Ingenuity and common Reason of Mankind I had told him before Answ p. 9. Such a Concurrence of all Circumstances is like the Platonick year and is not likely to return sooner or if such a strange thing should happen is it probable that all Histories would have been silent of it But of this our Author takes no manner of Notice but talks of the strangeness that there should be two of a Name as if the Objection consisted in that and then he takes some pains to prove that there may be two Persons of the same Name and tells me it would not have stuck with me if I had considered that there were two Artaxerxes and some others he there mentions and then gravely concludes There 's no strangeness in this P. 12. but that any Man should be so senseless to think these two Pairs he mentions were but one Man each Now I grant our Author that it is senseless to think that two Persons may not have the same Name but withall it is a little senseless too to pretend to answer an Objection and yet never consider that wherein it consists There might be two Sanballats as well as two Artaxerxes tho' not so easie neither if it was as our Author would have it of two such differing Countries and Originals as Chutha and Moab but that each of these Sanballats should be a Lieutenant in the same Country that each of them should have a Daughter that each of these Daughters should be married to a Son of the High Priest against the Laws of their Countrey that each of these Sons should be obstinate and persist in such unlawfull Wedlock and for which each of them was deprived of his Priesthood and of all Honour in his own Countrey And with our Author 's good leave these I suppose are not Matters of such ordinary Occurrence as having two Men of the same Name and for my part I can liken it to nothing else than as I have already to the Platonick Year And such a Conjunction of all Circumstances is likely to fall out when the Platonick Revolution shall have set every thing in the same Order Place and Station as it was before Lastly Our Author comes to consider the Age of Manasses Brother of Jaddus and here he saith The Objector to find a Fault in this Story makes many For first he confounds this Brother of Jaddus with his Vncle that is mentioned by Nehemiah in the end of his Book Ch. 13.28 Nehemiah there calleth him one of the Sons of Joiada the Son of Eliashib the High Priest which is plain enough to shew that he was younger Brother of Johanan the Father of Jaddus Now I own that I take Manasses to be the same that is mentioned by Nehemiah I own likewise that Nehemiah does not call him the Brother of Jaddus but one of the Sons of Joiada But has our Author forgot what he says about the common way of shortening Pedigrees in the Case of Ezra P. 5. and tells me farthermore that the want of considering it run me into that Difficulty of Ezra's Age and particularly instances in this very Book of Nehemiah where Johanan is called the Son of Eliashib Neh. 12.23 who indeed was his Grandfather and his immediate Father was Joiada And why I wonder will not this serve in the present Case and when it is said one of the Sons of Joiada it may be understood that he was his Grandson and not his immediate Son as is very usual both in this Book and in other places of Scripture as our Author has observed though I think not so pertinently applied to the Case of Ezra for the Reasons before But notwithstanding this Answer of our Author himself he tells me very magisterially No matter for that the Objector to make Josephus a Lyar makes bold with the Scripture it self And what is this Boldness I pray Why truly supposing that when the Scripture calls such a Person the Son of another he may be the Grandson and not the Son in propriety of Speech And if this be to make bold with Scripture 't is what is very allowable and our Author hath the least reason to charge me with it who uses the very same boldness and insists upon it and intimates me guilty of Inconsiderateness for not minding it This therefore is a plain Answer to what our Author here cites out of Nehemiah and he that is call'd one of the Sons of Joiada might
AN ANSWER TO A Letter to Dr. Sherlock WRITTEN IN Vindication of that part of Josephus's History which gives the Account of Jaddus's Submission to Alexander against the Answer to the Piece entituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government By the same Author LONDON Printed in the Year M.DC.XCII AN ANSWER TO A LETTER to Dr. SHERLOCK c. THE present Controversie concerning the Case of Jaddus consists of these two parts as it respects the Story it self and as it respects the Convocation's Sense of it I. As it respects the Story it self Answ p. 5 and here I had urged two Things 1. That it is suspitious And 2. If it were true it would not prove what it is alleadged for 1. That the Story it self is suspitious And here it is sufficient to observe that what I designed to prove was that the Story of Jaddus and Alexander as it is represented by Josephus is doubtfull and suspitious and not that it is absolutely false P. 12. the Doubtfulness of it being sufficient to my purpose which was to shew That no Argument can be drawn from the Example of Jaddus to justifie Submission to a Possessour of Power notwithstanding an Oath to a lawfull King who is alive and insists upon his Right This is the use which some Men make of it and which our Author vindicates And the Vncertainty of the Story is a good Argument against that though it be not charged with direct Falsehood For if it be onely suspitious it may be true or it may be false but if it be onely suspitious it cannot be argumentative and no regular Inference can be drawn from it in reference to Practice and accordingly that which I draw from thence is P. 9. That it is very unreasonable to make an Argument or draw any Inference in reference to Practice from such a doubtfull and suspitious Story The Suspition affects the Exemplariness of it as much as the direct Falshood and a doubtfull Example is as unserviceable to make a Precedent as one that is notoriously false So that in this Controversie there is some Difference between this Author and my self It is not necessary for me to prove the Story false but it is necessary for him and all that urge this Example or act upon it or produce it to countenance their Practices to prove it true and to clear it from those Doubts and Difficulties with which it is encumbred which notwithstanding our Author is so far from doing that if possible he hath made it more intricate and difficult than it was before In order to make this Charge good against him I shall onely premise and which he does not deny That this Story stands purely upon the Credit and Authority of Josephus now if this Author himself notwithstanding his pretending to vindicate Josephus does give as little Credit to Josephus's Chronology as I do if the Account that he hath given makes Josephus as much mistaken as that which I have given then he himself for all his fair Words of him reflects as much upon Josephus and in the Civility of his own Language makes him a Lyar and that I hope is no extraordinary Reason to relie upon his Authority P. 12. nor to draw a practical Inference from an Example that stands upon nothing else but the Relation of Josephus And this is plainly the Case in the Account this Author gives of the times in which Ezra and especially Nehemiah lived which differs from Josephus's Account but ninety and odd Years as we shall see presently so that for any thing I can see the Authority of Josephus though the Author lays it down as the Foundation of the Controversie is in truth no Dispute between us for he himself regards his Authority as little as I do onely he differs from him in one Instance and I in another but that I think is not much with respect to the Authority of Josephus The Author indeed to smooth the business calls his Book A Vindication of Josephus and if he had pleased he might have called it A Confutation of Josephus and it would have done as well for it is but a scurvy kind of Vindication when to vindicate one Passage in an Author a Man is forced to impeach his Credit as much in another So that if our Author has any thing to say for the Story I desire him for his own sake hereafter not to tell his Adversary That his Complaint of Difficulties proceeded onely from an eager desire to find faults in that Story of Josephus P. 5. except he himself could vindicate that Story without finding as many and as great Faults in another Story of the same Josephus I desire him likewise not to build too much on the Authority of Josephus except he can give us a Reason why the Authority of Josephus is unquestionable in the Case of Jaddus but of no value at all in the Case of Nehemiah But to doe our Author Justice he hath as little to say for the Story it self as he hath for the Authority of Josephus and this will appear upon Examining what he says in the Vindication He begins with what I say of the Suspitiousness of the Story P. 2. and my first Argument he tells us was That 1. No Author besides Josephus and those that had it from him mentions or takes notice of any such thing Now this our Author does not deny and an indifferent Man at first sight would be apt to imagine that this was a considerable Prejudice against any Story vouched by a single Author especially if the Matter of it be of extraordinary Remark and eminently merits the notice of an Historian as is the Case before us And when I mentioned such grave Authors and of undoubted Credit as Diodorus Siculus Plutarch Quintus Curtius Arrian and Justin who have transmitted to us the whole Progress of Alexander none of which have the least word or intimation either of Jaddus or Jerusalem though if the Story be true it is the most famous and memorable part of Alexander's History one would have thought there should have been some plain and clear Reason given of their Pretermission before such a Story be admitted for authentick and more especially before it be insisted on to justifie Practice in a most high and important Case But all this is nothing with our Author and he wipes it out with a wet Finger For says he this Argument lies against all that Josephus has written of the Jewish Affairs within the Historical Time of the Heathens except what he takes out of Scripture and out of the Books of the Maccabees for we have no other antient Jewish History And why so I pray Was the History of Alexander a History of the Jewish Affairs Or was the Conquest of Judaea confined to the Countrey and a Secret to all the World besides As Josephus tells the Story the whole Scene was acted in the Face of a foreign Army and to their great wonderment and
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
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
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
Authors have taken a liberty and have varied the times of these High Priests and have made them more or less according as it might serve their respective Hypotheses and might reconcile them to the respective Computations of Chronology they thought most reasonable But this it seems our Author thought most for his purpose he is for clearing the Difficulties of a Story by Proofs as difficult as the Story it self And therefore before he had gone any farther he ought to have proved that Syncellus's Account of the times of those High Priests is a true Account and which we ought to rely on against all Mankind and he may yet prove it if he can and if he could prove it it would plainly destroy all his Book as we shall see presently In the mean time 3. Our Author hath not onely pitch'd upon such a precarious Proof as the time of the High Priests respectively before mentioned but has arbitrarily and of his own head fixed and determined the times of those High Priests to certain Kings of Persia without any manner of Proof and Authority He takes the times of the High Priests out of Chronicon Paschale or as he says better out of Syncellus and then to make up his Computation he compares them with the Kings of Persia in Ptolomy 's Canon although Ptolomy's Canon takes no notice of the High Priests nor yet do the Authors from whom he takes the Account of the High Priests take notice of Ptolomy's Canon and which is yet more nor do they place the respective High Priests as our Author hath placed them according to Ptolomy's Canon and to shew our Author 's excellent way of proving things I shall give the Reader the Schemes before him Our Author's Account Years before Christ   445 In Nisan Nehemiah came to Jerusalem   After his coming Joiakim dyes  444 His Son Eliashib High Priest 34 y. 424 Darius Nothus 19 410 Joiada 36 405 Jaddus born   Artaxerxes Mnemon 46 374 Johanan 32  In Johanan's time Bagoses Governor  359 Ochus 21 342 Jaddus 20 338 Arses â—2 336 Darius Codomanus 4 y. 332 Alexander takes Tyre   Jerusalem submits to him  330 Darius dyes  323 Alexander dyes and Jaddus  Account in Chr. Pasch p. 142 to 146. Olympiads Years 70 Xerxes 38 71 Joiakim High Priest 30 77 Artaxerxes Longimanus 41 78 Eliashib High Priest 40 87 Darius Nothus 19 88 Joiada High Priest 16 92 Sogdianus 07 94 Artaxerxes Mnemon 40 97 Jannaeus High Priest 32 104 Ochus 28 105 Jaddus 20 110 Onias Son of Jaddus 21 111 Arsiochus 4 y. 112 Darius 6 113 Alexander took Babylon and the Persian Monarchy destroyed  And now does not any Man see how our Author's account and that of the Chr. Pasch do agree He determines the High Priesthood of Jaddus about the Death of Alexander and the Chron. Pasch determines it in the Reign of Ochus and plainly asserts that not Jaddus but his Son Onias was High Priest at the latter end of Ochus and during the Reign of Arses Codomanus and Alexander which is as fair a Proof of my Point as I could desire But our Author is for taking the Priests from one Author and the Kings from another and then putting them together as he finds occasion which is such a way of proving things as is not ordinary to be met with And at this rate he may if he please make Archbishop Cranmer contemporary with William the Conquerour But if it was allowed him it will by no means serve his turn for I defie any Man that can but tell an hundred who by comparing these High Priests in the Chron. Pasch and Syncellus with the Kings of Persia in Ptolomy's Canon can make the time of Jaddus Priesthood contemporary with Alexander And for the clear manifestation of this I shall set and compare them together High Priests in  Chr. Pasch Syncellus 1 Jeshua 32 60 2 Joiakim 30 36 3 Eliashib 40 34 4 Joiada 36 36 5 Johanan 32 32 6 Jaddus 20 20   190 218 Kings in Ptolomy's Canon Cyrus 09 Cambyses 08 Darius primus 36 Xerxes 21 Artaxerxes primus 41 Darius secundus 19 Artaxerxes secundus 46 Ochus 21 Arses 02 Darius tertius 04  207 After these Alexander the Great 08  215 Now to state these Accounts exactly here are two things to be observed 1. As to the Time of Cyrus his Reign whether it is to be computed from the time of his being fully possessed of the whole Persian Empire and also as to his making the Edict to release the Jews in Captivity But as to that Point it is indifferent to me let our Author or any Man else take what time they please for it the Scripture says it was the first of Cyrus and let that first be dated at what time they please of his Reign t is all one in the present Case I had before by the modestest Computation I could make assigned 3 years before his death and if our Author does not like that he may assign it 2 or 1 year before It is certain it was some time before and if but 2 years before the Computation will stand thus That the whole time of the Persian Monarchy or from the time of the Edict of Cyrus and the Return of the Jews from Captivity to the last of Darius is 201 and Alexander's 8 years Reign being added to it is 209. And this if I mistake not is a Concession more than needs and I believe more than our Author can demand but at present suppose it and it will doe him no service for 2. The next thing to be observed is concerning the Account of Syncellus which first is manifestly false for he attributes to Jeshua 60 years to his Son Joiakim 36. Now according to the Account of Cyrus's Reign or Edict to restore the Jews which according to Syncellus is contemporary with the beginning or Jeshua's Priesthood then if this Edict was but two years before his Death Joiakim's Priesthood must determine and he must dye the 29th of Artaxerxes Longimanus when according to the Scripture and to our Author himself his Son Eliashib was High Priest the 20th of the same Artaxerxes And therefore 2. Syncellus's Mistake plainly arose from confounding the first year of Cyrus's Principality with the first year according to Scripture Account which is generally supposed to respect not the first year of his Principality but the first year of his Monarchy over Persia But be that as it will 't is all one for Syncellus attributing to Cyrus 31 years and for that Reason reckoning the High Priesthood of Jeshua as contemporary and concurrent with it it comes all to the same purpose and if we reckon according to Syncellus instead of computing from two years before Cyrus's Death we must compute from 31 and this brings the Matter to the same Issue and according to that Compute Jaddus's High Priesthood must determine in the days
notwithstanding be the immediate Son of Johanan i. e. he might be Manasses whom Josephus mentions And as there is no reason so our Author being consistent with himself can never except against it But I have one thing more to observe and that is That there is all the Reason in the World to conclude even from Josephus himself that he who is mentioned in Nehemiah as marrying the Daughter of Sanballat could be no other than Manasses the Brother of Jaddus though at the same time it will appear that he hath misplaced them as to the time of it Ch. 5. Now Josephus in his Eleventh Book of Antiquities undertakes to give account of the Affairs of the Jews Ch. 7. during the Persian Monarchy and among other observable things he particularly takes notice of Nehemiah and of matters relating to the time of his Government but not one single word either of Sanballat or of any Marriage of the High Priest's Son or Grandson with his Daughter or of any such Marriage at all He likewise particularly takes notice of Jesus the Son of Joiada of his Friendship with Bagoses and by whose assistance he hoped to gain the High Priesthood and lastly of his Death being killed by his elder Brother Johanan in the Temple but not the least Intimation of his Marrying with the Daughter of Sanballat nor any thing like it And all that Josephus does mention with respect to that Matter is That Sanballat was Governour of Syria and sent by Darius who was conquered by Alexander and that Manasses the Brother of Jaddus married his Daughter and for which he was expelled by Jaddus From whence 't is very plain 1. That there is not the least Foot-step in Josephus for two Sanballat's being Prefects of Syria at two differing times 2. That Josephus takes no manner of notice of two Marriages of the High Priest's Son with the Daughter of a Governour of Syria but onely of one 3. That this one is the Marriage of Manasses the Brother of Jaddus to the Daughter of Sanballat Governour of Syria And therefore 4. As to the Matter the Scripture account and Josephus's perfectly agree Josephus indeed hath added the Name of the Man Manasses and of the Woman Nicaso in which the Scripture is silent And therefore I will appeal to any unprejudiced and impartial Reader whether fairly laying things together he can possibly believe that this account in Josephus was not designed for the same account we have in Nehemiah onely he hath mistimed it for Josephus all along giving us the account of Scripture and which he himself intimates if there were two Sanballats why did he not name them If two such Marriages how came he to omit them But if there was but onely one and he must have good Eyes that can find any more in Josephus then it is plain that Josephus is mistaken and the Question is whether the Scripture account is to regulate Josephus or Josephus's account to regulate the Scripture and which will require no difficulty to determine Our Author adds P. 13. But Josephus knew what he writ as appears by his fixing the time of this Story There was no date of Time better known among the Jews than that of the Building their Temple at Jerusalem nor among the Samaritanes than that of the Building the Temple of Girizim They remembred nothing more than the Destruction of their Temples 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 Josephus 's time that the Temple at Mount Girizim was destroyed by Johannes Hircanus it happened at a memorable time soon after the Death of Antiochus Pius which was in the year before Christ 130 Antiq. l. 13. c. 17. then that Temple was destroyed saith Josephus 200 years after the building of it How long that Temple stood none knew better than the Samaritanes themselves And as they were Enemies to the Jews so they must be particularly to that Author who provokes them as oft as he mentioneth them How then durst he have put it into their power to disprove him I take it therefore for certain by their account as well as his accounting 200 years upwards from the Destruction that their Temple was built in the year before Christ 430 it should be 330 which falls in the time of Alexander the Great and not as the Objector would have it in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus But 1. Where does our Authour find that I would have it that the Temple of Girizim was built in the time of Longimanus I say no such thing nor was there any need of it I quote indeed the Jewish Chronologers who affirm it was built long before the times of Alexander but I do but barely quote it and draw no Argument from it or if I had it would not follow that therefore I would have it built in the time of Longimanus nor does it follow from any thing I say for suppose Sanballat built the Temple for his Son-in-law that might very well be and it could not reasonably be otherwise than several years after Longimanus But 2. Our Author tells us Josephus fixes this Story at a time well known as the Building the Temple no date of time better known among the Jews than the building the Temple at Jerusalem nor among the Samaritanes than the building the Temple of Girizim But I pray was not likewise the coming up of Nehemiah to Jerusalem and building the Walls of it and filling it with Inhabitants a date of time also well known And no doubt as our Author argues if they had any Records or any Histories the times of these things were chiefly remembred in them But for all that Josephus fixes the time of that in the Reign of Xerxes which is contrary to our Author 's own account who fixes it in the Reign of his Successour So that for any thing I can see the date of time well known is no security against Errour and Mistake and I suppose there was as much Reason for Josephus to know the date of the Building the Walls of Jerusalem as of a Temple in Samaria But this concerned the Affairs of his own Countrey in which there was no need to be so exact for his Country-men and Friends would not be so ready to find fault For our Author tells us the Samaritanes were Enemies to the Jews and particularly to Josephus and how durst he put it in their power to disprove him As if a Man who durst mistake in the Affairs of his own Countrey durst not also mistake in those of his Neighbours there is reason indeed that a Man should not tell that for truth which is not but if Men are mistaken and take one thing or time for another I think there is no need to prove that Men are not affraid to publish these Mistakes let them concern either Friend or Foe But our Author confirms his Point The
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
the Convocation arising from a Story true or false which they have inserted in their Book to do with his Compositions Provisoes Conditions and Limitations If Dr. Sherlock had the handling of this He could have told him 2. Vind of the Case pag. 71. I desire he would keep to my words for I will answer for none of his Sences unless I were better satisfied I shall not add the rest it being a strain of Elocution peculiar to the Dr. and which I have no delight to Transcribe from him In the mean time all I shall observe is that no body knows the vertue of Prefaces and Paraphrases which with a little Art will make a man say any thing in the World and whatsoever his Answerer pleases After this Introduction our Author at length comes my Answer And says he therefore he tells you they of the Convocation mention and thereby approve Jaddus 's answer to Alexander That he had sworn Allegiance to Darius and therefore could not violate his Oath so long as Darius lived From hence the Objector infers that their sence is That an Oath of Allegiance was binding to a Prince so long as he lived and had not given up his Right tho he was beaten in the Field and fled before his Enemies To this he answers This is what the Objector would have Very well if this be what I would have why did not our Author answer it is the mentioning of this answer of Jaddus an Evidence of their approbation of it or no But not a word of that which notwithstanding is the foundation of my Answer And is not what they say in their Canon a further confirmation of it Gan. 30. pag. 65. If any Man shall affirm that Jaddus having so sworn he might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have sollicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto He doth greatly err This I think is as fair a proof of their sence of this Matter as need to be and consequently that the Doctrine before is their sence But tho our Author will not answer this yet he doth not think so and therefore tells us The sence of the Convocation will best appear by their own words And thus they go on with the Story Alexander by Gods Providence having vanquish'd the Persians that is having overthrown Darius the King of the Persians upon which the Monarchy of the Grecians began These words within the Parenthesis are our Authors not the Convocations The Jews among many other Nations became his Subjects He dealt favourably with them releas'd them of some Payments and granted them Liberty to live according to their own Laws Our Author adds These last are the words of Josephus in that very Chapter which was quoted before in the convocation-Convocation-book and the things here spoken were done by Alexander then when he was at Jerusalem two years before the Death of Darius In Consequence hereof the Convocation declare in their Canon That if any man shall affirm That the Jews generally both Priests and People were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them as they had been before the Subjects of the King of Babylon and Persia He does greatly err In answer to this I have these things to observe 1. That which our Author cites here out of the Convocation is not from the Chapter in which the answer of Jaddus is mention'd and thereby approv'd nor yet from the Canon of that Chapter but from another and which is of a distinct Consideration and which plainly concerns quite another state of affairs than what they consider in the foregoing Chapter and Canon Now in the foregoing Chapter they mention Jaddus's answer to Alexander and approve of it They likewise take notice of Darius's over throw by Alexander and particularly at the end of Jaddus's answer they add as their own Remark Darius being by flight escaped when his Army was discomfited i.e. Darius was alive tho beaten and overthrown and therefore Jaddus could not agree to the Request of Alexander without violating his Oath And if any Man can make any other sence of it I should be glad to see it And this is the plain state of this Matter in this Chapter and then in the latter end of the Canon to the same Chapter they intimate that Jaddus having so sworn it was unlawful for him to take up Arms against Darius or to persuade others thereunto Now if this Canon refers to the Chapter and 't is ridiculous to think otherwise then 't is as plain as the Sun that the Convocation thought his Oath bound Jaddus not to take up Arms himself against Darius nor to persuade others when he was overthrown and discomfited but yet so as he himself by flight had escaped But here according to Promise I must consider what Dr. Sherlock says Case of Alleg. p. 8. who makes some answer to this tho our Author doth not and he saith The Convocation in their Canon take no notice that Jaddus having sworn to Darius could not submit or swear to any other Prince while Darius lived They do not say so indeed in so many words but they are very particular in the Chapter and in the Canon they intimate that by vertue of this Oath he was not to take up Arms himself against Darius nor to sollicit others Jews or Aliens And if there be any Connexion between the Canon and the Chapter it is plain this refers to what they had said concerning Jaddus and his answer in the Chapter and the sence is that notwithstanding the overthrow and discomfiture they mention in the Chapter yet Darius being himself escaped The Obligation of his Oath to Darius held him so as it was not lawful for him to take up Arms against Darius nor sollicit others i.e. in the Circumstances mention'd in the Chapter when he was escaped by flight and his Army discomfited And this is plain and natural and the Chapter and Canon are all of a piece and the Contexture uniform but to suppose that what they say relative to the Oath in the Chapter and what they say relative to the same Oath in the Canon of the same Chapter That they are of a distinct nature and Consideration is to suppose that the fairest way of interpreting Men is in contradiction to themselves Well but the Doctor says It is plain Jaddus himself did not mean this by it for he immediately submitted to Alexander before the last fatal overthrow of Darius The meaning then of Jaddus 's Answer to Alexander was no more but this That the having sworn Allegiance to Darius Dr. Sherlocks Alleg consid p. 2. could not make a voluntary Dedition of himself to Alexander which was the thing desired This hath already been very well answered by a learned Pen and thither I shall refer the Doctor and the Reader and shall only add that what the Doctor gives as the Reason and meaning of Jaddus's answer why he could not submit to Alexander was notwithstanding
is reasonable so to interpret it for the Text plainly respects and refers to a great Affliction of the Jewish Nation and such as was Superiour to that Condition they then were in and which cannot well be assign'd to be any other than their general Captivity for there was no such extraordinary change of their Affairs in the times of the Persian Monarchy and especially at that time that Malachy the last of the Prophets is suppos'd to live But however suppose these words respected the last of the Prophets and when there were no more succeeding in the Jewish Church What then might there not be an inferiour degree of Prophecy and God might communicate his Will in an extraordinary manner and upon extraordinary Occasions and that so communicated be a sufficient Warrant and Direction to them And therefore suppose they in that extremity took meer human Counsels the Jews did that very often when they had constant and standing Prophets among them and not only so but even contrary to God's express Revelations delivered by those Prophets As besides other places is manifest in the Prophecies of Ezechiel and Jeremiah and particularly in the Case of Zedekiah and of the People flying into Aegypt And what meer human Counsels were these that they took Why truly after the killing of Judas Maccabaeus they chose Jenathan his next Brother to be their Captain and Ruler And what difficulty was there in that Or what need was there of Divine Revelation Or what Reason had they to expect it in such a Case This was natural and proper and there needed no especial Direction in that matter when they were in distress before under their own Kings and when they had Prophets among them when one King was dead they did not apply themselves to a Prophet or wait for express Revelation to set his Son or Heir on the Throne Nor was there any need here when it was in their own power to chuse whom they pleased to wait for Divine Direction for the Theocrasie was long since ceased and they were at their Liberty But it had been much more for our Author's purpose if it could have been but prov'd that while Judas had been living and insisted on his Right to the Government they had chose him too they should have chose another against his Consent This indeed would have been to take meer human Counsels i.e. contrary to Divine Laws and which indeed would have needed a Divine Revelation to justifie But what need of such a Revelation in an ordinary and standing Case and in which they had sufficient means to direct themselves But after all the main point in question is not in the least spoken to and our Author gives no Answer to it And that is That when there were no more Prophets yet there was an inferiour degree of Prophecy in the Jewish Church as the Bath Kol and probably some other way as by Dreams c. This our Author repeats and then leaves it as if it did not concern the Question and falls upon another thing concerning their Applications to God in extremity for some express Revelation and answers even that mystically and obscurely that they did not know it or not think of it in a particular instance And what then might there not be such a thing in the Jewish Church for all that And the Question is plain before him after the ceasing of the Prophets was there such an inferiour Degree of Prophecy in the Jewish Church or no This he cannot deny but yet will not own it and seems to insinuate as if he would have his Reader believe there was no such thing It was not indeed constant and standing to the Jewish Church after the ending of the Prophets And therefore could not ordinarily be applyed to as the Urim and Thummim and the Prophets But that it was some times and God in some Cases did in an extraordinary manner manifest his Will to them as far as I know is disputed by no Learned Man And this is sufficient for the purpose I mentioned it And the plain Question is whether such a Manifestation of the Divine Will when ever and upon what occasion soever it was was not a sufficient Warrant for Practice and would justifie their acting in such Cases against ordinary and standing Rules Which I think no Man will deny I shall apply this presently And accordingly I asserted that Josephus tells us here were all preparations to it they fasted and prayed Our Author answers In distress to fast and pray and to seek to God for Deliverance hath been used in all Ages of the Church Right but what follows The next night God appeared to Jaddus and ordered him so to do I had added that As we have the Story from Josephus so we must have it all from him and he tells us so expresly and God's Appearing and Command stands upon the same Authority with all the rest of the Story Our Author answers Here he would make us believe we have a Wolf by the ears for whether we admit or deny this we are in his danger either way Now the Argument I had urged tho it was not in Mood and Figure was a Dilemma and to liken it to a Beast with ears is an Allusion a little unphilosophical But our Author I suppose doth not mean with respect to the ears but to the danger for a Wolf is a dangerous Creature especially if a Man hath him by the ears and do not hold him fast And therefore he goes on If we deny this part of the Story why may not the Objector deny all the rest But if we admit it then it is wholly besides the purpose for adds our Author says he with his usual Civility If these Gentlemen will shew us any express Revelation for what they do as Jaddus had then they say something but 'till they can shew that this Example if true will do them no service Our Author answers He hath obliged me so much with this Complement that I cannot chuse but admit that there was an express Revelation Well I am glad I have obliged our Author so as to admit of any thing that I say This is the first time and therefore I will not be behind hand but give him thanks and should be glad if I could meet with any other occasion for it before his Book is ended But these Obligations upon Complements are of very short continuance For he immediately adds But I cannot grant him his Consequence 'till I see how it follows from the Premisses Now a Man would have imagined at first sight that the Consequence was as clear as the Sun for if Jaddus acted by Revelation and They by ordinary and standing Rules it plainly follows that his Example neither reaches their Case nor is for their purpose But this our Author will not admit for he adds In order to this he should have told what Revelation it was Jaddus had and what use it was for and then have shewed that we
it and not only so but have left out a great part of it when notwithstanding 't is all of a piece and the strength of it appears when 't is united But of all the Disputers I ever met with I never saw such a one as our Author who is for snatching and catching and in the whole of his Answer hath not taken one single Paragraph scarcely one Reason intire and yet talks as magisterially and dogmatically as if he had answer'd every word And besides what hath been observ'd before the Reader may have yet a further taste of our Author's faculty in the matter before us now what he here pretends to dispute against is a summary Conclusion from one part of the Discourse and it lies thus in my Answer Answ p. 11. An Argument from Example is at best but a poor one but it must be very poor indeed when the Example it self is doubtful The practice of the High-Priest in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church will not signifie much to us and no more in this than in their other Immoralities And Jaddus 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 Tobiah is an Argument for us to act contrary to the express Law of God But then it must needs signifie much less when that practice wants sufficient clearness and evidence to prove it Now if our Author had put this altogether and taken it as he found it his Animadversions of putting this out of its place would have appear'd very pleasant for where I wonder could this have been so pertinently brought in as to confirm my Inference from the suspiciousness of that Example And it would have been very proper indeed to talk of an Example according to ordinary Rules after the consideration of the peculiar and exempt Case of Divine Revelation For let the Practice be evident or not evident let that state of the Jewish Church be corrupt or not corrupt if they acted by Divine Revelation it does not come under common and ordinary Consideration and consequently does not at all affect that Argument And by his favour that ought to have been spoke to when I was speaking of ordinary Cases It is plain enough therefore that our Author's Animadversion was not to correct my Method but to make way for his own he could not tell how to speak to this in its proper place for then he must either have answered it all or at least have mention'd it and therefore forsooth it is put out of its place that is to say our Author hath put it out of its place for his own purpose and not only so but out of its sense too for the force of it lies in the Connection An Argument from Example is a poor one especially a suspicious Example and this confirm'd by an Instance The Practice of the High-Priest in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church signifies no more than their other Immoralities and Jaddus 's Submission no more than Eliashib 's building a Chamber in the Temple for Tobiah c. And if this had been mention'd together our Author's Answer would have been much to the purpose for he tells us He speaks as if Jaddus were single in this act of Submission p. 29. when it is evident that the whole Church of God at that time went along with him and suppose it what then Is an Example from a corrupt state of a whole Church a better Argument for practice than the Example of the High-Priest To prove his Point he might if he had pleas'd have produc'd the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf But to shew our Author the Vanity of his Method I answer as Josephus tells the story they acted by Divine Revelation and therefore let it be Jaddus himself or the whole Church 't is all one neither of them are an Example for us when their Case and Circumstances were peculiar and extraordinary And by this time I suppose our Author sees who hath put this out of its place Well! Our Author adds he tells us of that corrupt state of the Jewish Church in Jaddus's time Our Author answers This is News that is to say our Author never heard of it before I am sorry for that for I thought that the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah the minor Prophets yea and Josephus too might have a little inform'd him about that matter Well but our Author says All ancient Writers speake of these times as the best that ever were under the second Temple Now methinks our Author should have oblig'd his Readers with one of these antient Writers at least But no such matter if you will have them you must look them your self for he has not named one no not so much as refer'd to one in the Margent and yet to tell us all antient Writers speake so is somewhat extraordinary Now I must earnestly desire our Author for the credit of this peremptory Assertion that he will be pleased to name one antient Writer that ever said so or any thing like it and if he cannot do that as I am bold to say I utterly despair of that he will name some modern Writer and if he cannot do that neither this must go for a bold Stroke For when a Man calls in All Writers to his assistance the incredulous World are apt to think themselves impos'd upon if he has not so much as one single Writer ready at hand to justifie what he says And therefore once again I must press our Author for his own sake to make this out by plain proof from any one Writer besides himself in all the World I confess our Author's Assertion is stout and generous that the Times of Jaddus were the best with respect to the Virtue of the Jewish Church and not only so but more superlatively the best that ever were under the second Temple And here to speak plainly I doubt our Author cannot only not produce one single Writer that ever asserted it but not one single Man that heretofore or now ever believ'd it Well but our Author proves it The Church was much reform'd by those excellent Men that flourished in the Age next before namely by Nehemiah Ezra and Malachi Very good and therefore I hope the Age next before that was reform'd by these Excellent Men was the best that ever was under the second Temple and not the Age that follow'd and yet if any Man looks into the Books of Ezra Nehemiah or Malachi he will find sufficient reason to believe that notwithstanding the Care and Endeavours of those Excellent Men the Jewish Church was very corrupt in their Practices in those times and there is much more reason to believe it when the Authority and Perswasion of those Excellent Men were ceased with their Persons Ganz p. 58. Id. p. 66. But our Author adds At this very time beside Jaddus himself whom the Jews make the last of the Men