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
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
Prophesie which our Authour tells us in the Case of Darius he thinks no Man will say He immediately adds And therefore he inserted these two Verses i. e. He inserted these two Verses to give an account of the Heads of the Priests and Levites that were in the days of the following High Priests that is of the following High Priests that were in own his time for 't is ridiculous to expect from him account of the heads of the Priests and Levites that were in the times of High Priests who were after his time But then it follows that Jaddus was High Priest in the days of Nehemiah and before he ended his Book for the Words are these The Levites in the days of Eliashib Ch. 12. ver 22. Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded chief of the Fathers also the Priests to the Reign of Darius the Persian And what account I pray is this but an account of the Levites in the days of all those High Priests even in the days of Jaddua as well as of the rest But this as plain as it is our Author is not for and therefore tells us that he inserted these Verses wherein he tells us That as for the Levites which were in the days of Eliashib Joiada Johanan and Jaddua the Heads of these Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius were recorded in the Books of the Chronicles but afterwards the Priests were not recorded but onely the Heads of the Levites and those onely during the High Priesthood of Eliashib and Joiada who were then dead but not of Johanan who it seems was then newly come to be High Priest when this Book was written Now here is such an Interpretation of Scripture that I desie all the World to shew me the Fellow of it For 1. The Text saith The Levites in the Days of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded And our Author says the Levites in the days of Johanan and Jaddua were not recorded but onely in the days of Eliashib and Joiada that is he expounds Scripture by downright contradicting it and in express Terms 2. He tells us that the Levites that were in the days of Eliashib Joiada Johanan and Jaddua the Heads of those Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius Nothus were recorded in the Book of the Chronicles But afterwards i. e. after the Reign of Darius Nothus the Priests were not recorded but onely the Heads of the Levites and those onely during the High Priesthood of Eliashib and Joiada who were then dead Now we are to take notice that our Author page 8. and in his Scheme page 10. makes Eliashib High Priest at least twenty years before the Reign of Darius Nothus and that he dyed in his Reign and Joiada was High Priest some years before the death of that Prince And does not our Author begin to see what woeful Work he hath made on 't That is to say the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests in the days of Eliashib and Joiada were recorded in the Book of the Chronicles but afterwards i. e. in the days of the same Eliashib and Joiada the Priests were not but onely the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Chronicles And that is to say again That the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests were recorded in the Books of the Chronicles during the whole Reign of Darius and that the Priests were not recorded but onely the Heads of the Levites during the same Reign and in the same Book And that is to say yet again that the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests all that were in the Reign of Darius Nothus were recorded but afterwards onely the Heads of the Levites and not the Priests during the High Priesthood of Eliashib which was twenty years before the Reign of the same Darius And yet he tells us in this matter that he thinks his Reasons unanswerable Now I cannot tell what Opinion our Author may have of his own Reasons but heretofore Men did not use to take plain Contradictions for unanswerable Reasons ver 22. He adds As for Jaddua he is mentioned both here and before in this Chapter not as being High Priest then how could he in his Father's days but onely as being then living and Heir apparent of the Priesthood And here we have another curious vein of Interpretation For I wonder where our Author finds either in Scripture or any where else that where any Things or Actions are dated in the Days of a Person of publick Station that it is not to be understood of the Days i. e. during the time of his publick Station but of the Days of his Life as when it is said in the Days of King Charles it means the Days of his Reign and publick Administration and not of his Life But suppose it might mean otherwise how comes the very same Expression to signifie one thing with respect to Jaddua and another with respect to all the rest mentioned in the same place The words are in the days of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua that is according to our Author's Interpretation in the days of the High Priesthood of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan but in the days of the Heir apparentship of Jaddua Just as if a Man should say in the days of Queen Elizabeth King James Charles the first and second he should mean the actual Reigns of the three first but the other onely as living and Heir apparent to the Crown And yet in this fine manner does our Author interpret Scripture and Jaddua must be mentioned as next Heir contrary both to all Rules of Interpretation and even to common sense But in truth as our Author has handled the matter it is impossible to know what Jaddua was mentioned at all for or Johanan either for our Author tells us that the ground and Reason of the adding these two Verses by Nehemiah was for that having given account of the Heads of the Priests in the times of Jeshua and Joiakim and of the Heads of the Levites in Joiakim 's time he thought some account would be expected of them that were in the days of the following High Priests Very well and to satisfie that Expectation Nehemiah according to our Author gives account of the Priests and Levites that were in the days of Eliashib and Joiada but not of Johanan nor Jaddua who it seems was onely Heir apparent But then what are Johanan and Jaddua mentioned for Why truly for just nothing at all For if the reason of inserting these two Verses was to give account of the Priests and Levites that were in the times of the following High Priests then there was reason for mentioning Eliashib and Joiada but no reason at all for the mentioning of Johanan and Jaddua for according to him they are not recorded during their time nay one of them was not then High Priest And so if our Author
time of Possession must consequently be the less as he is so much older when he comes into Possession And therefore I cannot tell for my Life what our Author means when he adds And then the age of Jaddus being considered P. 9. of which our Objector saith when he came to be High Priest the least we can allow is 30 years and it is probable it was much more if it was but 30 years then the age of Joiakim when he dyed must have been at least 90 years his Son Eliashib at least 62 his Son Joiada near 70 his Son Johanan near 60 and each of these it is probable much more and four of these must have been born when their Fathers were but 20 year old Now at first sight a Man would imagine the Inference was clean contrary and that because Jaddus came to be then High Priest therefore those before him his Father and Grandfather did not live to so great ages and if they must live to so great ages if Jaddus came to be High Priest the last of Longimanus what ages must they be of if he came to be High Priest as our Author intimates the 17th of Ochus and which was according to his account 83 years after And if they must be of such ages if Jaddus came to the Priesthood at 30 what must they be if he came as according to our Author to be High Priest at 63 years of age But this I suppose he did not think on and what was in his Head when he writ this I cannot devise and methinks the Author should have been so kind to his Reader to have proved the Consequence that he charges here upon my Assertion and not have left him to have made it out himself especially when it requires such extraordinary Skill to make it intelligible not only to a common but to any Reader at all for I am affraid it would puzzle all the Arithmeticians in Christendom to make any account of it as our Author hath laid it For suppose Joiakim dyed at 90 and the other four born when their Fathers were but 20 the state would be thus When Joiakim at the time of of his Death was 90 at the same time his Son Eliashib being born when his Father was 20 would be 70 his Son Joiada 50 Johanan 30 and Jaddus 10. But then what is the meaning of his Son Eliashib being 62 when he dyed when according to this account he must be 70 when he came to the Priesthood In like manner our Author says Johanan must be near 60 when he dyed when yet according to this account he could be but 50 for if Jaddus was born when Johanan was 20 years old then when Jaddus was 30 Johanan was 50. These therefore are mystical Inferences and Riddles and so must remain till our Author explains them In the mean time if there were any Difficulties in the ages of these High Priests as our Author by consequence from my Hypothesis calculates them they are plainly greater from his own For according to him Jaddus lived to be 83 years old he was High Priest 20 years according to him then when he came to the Priesthood he was 62 and then supposing his Father Johanan 26 when Jaddus was born Johanan when he dyed must be 89. In like manner take the same course upwards to the rest of the High Priests Johanan according to him was High Priest 32 years then when he came to the Priesthood he was 57 and to this add 26 as his Father's age when he was born then Joiada when he dyed must have been 83. Joiada was High Priest 36 deduct that from 83 and when he became High Priest he was 47 add to this 26 as his Father's age at his Birth and then Eliashib his Father when he dyed must have been 73. Eliashib was High Priest 34 deduct that from 73 and then when he became High Priest he was 39 to this add 26 as his Father's age when he was born and then Joiakim at his death must have been 65. And now on which side is the Difficulty Which is greater to say that Joiakim when he dyed must have been 90 Eliashib 62 Joiada near 70 Johanan near 60 or that which is the Consequence of our Author's account Joiakim when he dyed must be 65 Eliashib 73 Joiada 83 Johanan 89 and Jaddus 83 And 't is probable if this account be true it was much more for if any one of these Priests had not Children at the age of 26 if their eldest should prove a Daughter or infirm and unfit for the Priesthood or should dye or in short if each of them had not at that age the very Son that succeeded him then still the whole account must be proportionably lengthned And to conclude this in our Author's words If any one of these things did not happen then our Author's groundwork falls but that all things happened thus I think there is no Probability Our Author having said this to disprove my Account comes to make good his own and suppose for Quietness sake that I should grant him all that he has said how indifferently soever he hath proved it that there are Difficulties in my Account and it is not probable What then Why then I ought not to establish any Doctrine upon it nor draw any practical Inference from it nor confirm or prove a Point of Conscience from any such difficult and suspitious Stories Nor do I but however that is the Case I dispute against And if our Author could shew as many Difficulties and Improbabilities in my account as he pretends What is that to the purpose Do the Difficulties in my account clear the Difficulties that are in another account That indeed is an Argument against my Account but 't is none at all against my Inference and Deduction which stands good against him except he can clear up his own account as well as find faults in mine And what does he say for that On the other hand saith he P. 9. there is nothing improbable in that Account which I offered before And suppose I should grant him that too What then Is every account true that is not improbable Or may a Man deduce Consequences for Practice in high and important Duties from every Story that is not improbable How easie is it in Matters of difficult and abstruse History to frame Schemes to our selves that have no Improbability in them But is that a Reason to argue from thence to Practice But let us see how probable our Author makes his account He tells us Jaddus might have been born any year before his Father Johanan came to be High Priest at which time I conceive with good ground that the Book of Nehemiah was written and yet Jaddus might be mentioned as he is in that Book but I supposed him born thirty years before in compliance with the most learned Primate who reckons that Jaddus might be about 83 years old at his Death so he judged by
comparing the Scriptures with Josephus I attribute much to his judgment in these Matters but not to rest upon that onely I have also considered the years of the High Priests above mentioned they are recorded in Chronicon Paschale but I think better in Syncellus who though he doth not quote his Author yet is reasonably presumed to have transcribed them from Julius Affricanus an Author that lived little more than an hundred years after Josephus and living in the same Countrey might have his Information from them that knew as well as Josephus himself In placing the years of these Priests I begin from the Death of Jaddus who is said to have dyed about the same time with Alexander the Great reckoning from thence upwards the Death of Joiakim will fall in the 20th of Artaxerxes which exactly agrees with the account of his Death I have given from Scripture And indeed there is nothing said of any of these Priests either in the holy Scripture or in Josephus but what very well consists with the account of their years given us in this Catalogue That you may the better judge of this I have given you a short View of their years compared with those of the Kings of Persia as they are in Ptolomy's Canon And then he subjoins the Catalogue which will be considered presently In answer to all this I observe 1. That our Author is mistaken when he says there is nothing said of any of these Priests in Josephus but what very well consists with the account of their years in this Catalogue For 1. Josephus places the beginning of Eliashib's High Priesthood in the Reign of Xerxes and our Author in the Catalogue places it in the 20th of Artaxerxes the Successor of Xerxes which I think is not very consistent as our Author would make us believe 2. Our Authour makes his Calculation from the times of the High Priesthood of the several High Priests which is a very doubtfull and uncertain Ground to proceed on and if possible more suspitious than the Story our Author endeavours to prove by it He indeed intimates that it was transcribed from Africanus who lived in Judaea and might know as well as Josephus but he hath no proof of this And he tells us Syncellus doth not quote his Author onely it may be reasonably presumed But Presumptions are but Presumptions let them be never so reasonable and not sufficient to determine a Man in a Matter of this nature however let that account be either Syncellus's own or Africanus's or any other's this I have to say 1. That there is no substantial Ground for the Account it self the Scripture hath nothing at all of it nor yet Josephus They name the High Priests indeed but give no account how long each of them were so And our Author's Reason is none at all That Africanus lived in the Countrey of Judaea and might have his Information from them that knew as well as Josephus himself for though he did live at Emmaus yet he was no native of the Countrey but an Africane and that is collected to be the reason of his Name Africanus and when he did live there it was a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem when the Temple was burnt and the Town sack'd and by reasonable Presumption our Author's Argument all their publick Records burnt or lost when many Millions of them were killed infinite Numbers dispersed especially at the time of Africanus who lived about 140 years after he was like to receive from a poor remnant an excellent account of the Times of the High Priests that were 6 or 700 years before And where is it said in Syncellus that the account that was given of the High Priests is what was taken by Tradition from the Jews Any that reads Syncellus will find it clear other wife that he adjusts his Chronology of the times of the Priests not by Tradition or Records but by Inference and Deduction as in the Case of Jeshua the first High Priest after the Return from the Captivity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Syncellus P. 240. for he plainly argues against some body who had said that Jeshua was High Priest 31 years And he endeavours to prove the contrary for that Jeshua's High Priesthood commenced the first of Cyrus according to Ezra 11.2 where he is set in conjunction with Zerubbabel and that Jeshua dyed the 20th of Darius and from thence infers that the Continuance of Jeshua's High Priesthood was 60 years Here is nothing at all of Tradition or receiving Information from the Jews but an Account made out by chronological Computation and which Computation is also false So that this matter of receiving Information of the Inhabitants of Judaea is nothing else but our Author's Fancy However how does this appear that this account of the High Priests in Syncellus was transcribed out of Africanus That needs another Reason or what methods will our Author give us to distinguish between what is Syncellus's own and what is taken out of Africanus A Man must have very good Eyes that can see the difference Goar indeed the last Editor of Syncellus hath fairly offered at it but 1. No Man will take all his Conjectures for plain Proofs especially when it concerns a Matter of Practice And 2. Goar himself doth not assign the account of the High Priests continuance in their Priesthood to Africanus From all together these two things plainly follow 1. That no substantial Reason can be given that the Account of the High Priests in Syncellus was transcribed out of Africanus And 2. If it were transcribed from Africanus notwithstanding no substantial Reason can be given of the Account it self And this will yet farther appear if we consider 2. The great Variety and Discrepancy that is in all sorts of Authors and Chronologers concerning this very Matter and as far as my Reading serves I do not find two who are of any repute and have made it their business to consider it that are of the same mind about it I shall give the Reader a short Scheme and then draw my Inferences from it The Account of the High Priests continuance in their respective Prieststoods are thus according to different Authors  Syncollus Chr. Pasch Salian Wolphius Mercat Funcius Genebr 1 Jeshua 60 32 51 00 28 56 28 2 Joiakim 36 30 22 28 48 36 42 3 Eliashib 34 40 40 41 21 41 21 4 Joiada 36 36 20 25 44 25 24 5 Johanan 32 32 40 00 47 24 24 6 Jaddus 20 20 41 27 18 27 10 And I could add many more where there is the same or a greater disagreement but this is sufficient to shew what an excellent Method our Author hath taken to prove the truth of a fuspitious Story by a Medium that is every way as suspitious as the Story it self And the Truth is any Man that is conversant in these kind of Studies will plainly perceive because there is no certain account of these things that all
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
Samaritans would certainly disprove him if this had not been true and therefore I take it for certain by their account as well as his But 1. How does our Author know whether they did disprove him or no has he any Samaritane Authors that wrote about those Times And methinks he that will not admit the Silence of Heathen Historians to be a Proof concerning a Matter that mightily related to their History cannot himself conclude from the Silence of Samaritane Writers and especially when there are no such Writers to be found 2. The Dispute between the Jews and Samaritanes was not concerning the building or destroying their Temple but concerning their Worship or the Place of it but not the Structure and it made no manner of difference as to that whether their Temple was built at the time of Alexander or 100 years before Antiq. l. 15. Josephus tells a Story of a Contest between the Jews and Samaritanes at Alexandria concerning their Worship and which came to be debated before Ptolomy by Advocates on each side and he that undertook the Cause of the Jews proved the Holiness of the Temple from the Law and by a continued Succession of High Priests and the propagation of the Priesthood to that very time and the Honours and Gifts conferred on that Temple by the Kings of Asia but not a word which of the Temples was first built or insisting upon the late building of the Temple of Girizim So that it seems let that be sooner or later it made no difference in the Question And it is plain enough the Dispute and Schism lasted after the Temple of Girizim was destroyed nay after both the Temples were destroyed it was not therefore either the Building or the Destruction of the Temple was matter of Dispute between them And so with respect to the time of that which is the Matter now before us if our Author could find they had not disproved Josephus in that it would not signifie much there being no great need to be so very critical in that which was not the main point in Controversie and whether it was built or destroyed 100 years before or after it was all one in respect of that nay if our Author could find that they had disproved Josephus in this it would have signified nothing neither for our Author hath a small Argument that would wipe out the Testimony of all the Samaritanes in the World for who knows not that the Samaritanes hated the Jews and had a particular Quarrel against Josephus for talking such hard things of them And therefore though our Author brings their not disproving Josephus as an Argument to confirm what he says it is plain enough that if they had disproved him a thousand times over it would signifie nothing at all by our Author's way of arguing 3. Our Authour proves the Temple of Girizim must be built in the time of Alexander by calculating from the Destruction of it which according to Josephus was 200 years after the building of it and that being soon after Antiochus Pius's Death which was 130 years before Christ reckoning upwards the Building of it will fall in 330 before Christ which is the time of Alexander But 1. Suppose it What is that to the Controversie between us which is not concerning the Building of that Temple but the Age of Sanballat I have no Dispute with him about that let it be built when he pleases it is all one to me but if he will needs have Sanballat to build it as Josephus affirms I doubt it must be built before Alexander's time 2. Suppose Josephus says this why then this proves that Josephus in this point is consistent with himself but this does not prove but that he may be out in his Account which is the onely Question from the time of Alexander to the Death of Antiochus Pius is suppose 200 years and so far Josephus reckons right but if the ground of this Calculation be wrong how equally soever he may reckon from thence the whole is a Mistake He had placed the building of this Temple in the Time of Alexander and speaking of the Destruction of it 200 years after he could not without contradicting himself say otherwise And the utmost that this proves is that Josephus did not contradict himself Josephus in the same place saith it was built by the Permission of Alexander and refers to what he had said of it before and it is every jot as good an Argument to prove the Temple was built by the Permission of Alexander because he mentions it again in another place of the same Book This proves indeed that Josephus did not forget himself but proves the Point no more than if he had said it onely once For the second Assertion is of no more Validity and Authority than the first and especially when the first is plainly and particularly referred to as if Josephus his Authority concerning the same thing was more cogent in his Thirteenth than it is in his Eleventh Book With respect to this matter our Author adds Answ p. 10. He tells us from David Ganz that the Jewish Chronologers affirm that the Temple on Mount Girizim was built long before the time of Alexander and that at the time of Alexander Simeon Justus was High Priest and which Simeon was Grand-son of Jaddus And to this our Author adds out of the next Page The Objector tells us afterwards that Calvisius and not only he but all Chronologers find Josephus 's Errors and Mistakes concerning those times so many and so gross as would make any man that acted upon Principles of Sincerity very fearful to use an Example taken out of him in matters of Practice Now I do not know for what purpose our Author added this last Citation here for it does not concern the immediate matter our Author argues against nor was it used by me with reference either to the building of the Temple of Girizim or to the Jewish Chronologers but a general Inference from the whole except it was for an Introduction to the Reflection that follows I believe says he the Objector acts upon Principles of Sincerity in other things notwithstanding that he seems to forget them in his Quotations P. 14. In these I must needs say he gives great suspicion of the contrary by omitting those words that make against him in his own Authors Of which I shall give a clear proof by and by And when our Author does give that we shall see whether there is from thence any reason for such great suspicion of my Sincerity in my Quotations What our Author adds about excepting all the best of Chronologers from among those who find fault with Josephus I shall consider presently in the mean time with respect to the Citation out of Ganz he tells us I allow him the Jewish Chronologers who are as much the Enemies of Josephus as he himself for they have the like quarrel against him because he breaks all their measures