the Command of God in the Revelation and it is not there that God commanded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and afterwards upon Jaddus's actual Meeting he expresses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is both a differing Expression and a differing Sence for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to meet another Honoris gratiâ out of deference and honour to him and supposes Duty and Submission And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the contrary However I build nothing upon the Criticism But the Expression being varied by Josephus himself is a plain proof that he meant two things and it is not very accountable how he should alter his Words and yet mean the same thing 2. That which further confirms this Interpretation is that Josephus says Jaddus was in an agony how he should meet not Alexander but the Macedons in the plural number whereas had the Business been as our Author and the Dr. fancy Attonement and Supplication it should have been how he should meet Alexander or the King for I hope Jaddus did not intend to supplicate the whole Army But when it is said to meet the Macedons it plainly means the Army of Macedons in the same sense Josephus says before that Darius determined to meet the Macedons i.e. their Army and to stop their Progress And indeed in this sense there was reason enough for Jaddus to fear how he should hinder the Approaches of a victorious Army and defend himself and the City from them that had beaten Darius in the Field and but just before had made such terrible Work at Tyre and Gaza And acccordingly as Josephus tells it they took a proper course and applyed themselves to God by Fasting and Prayer and besought him for Protection and Deliverance and not as our Author would fain have it that their Submission which they had resolved on before might be acceptable in the Eyes of Alexander or that they might be recommended to his favour Well but does not Josephus tell us that the King was angry at his former Disobedience or rather impersuability or stiffness in not yielding to Alexander to become his Tributary c. when he sent to him for that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will bear and is more agreeable to the Story Right and therefore there was the more reason of fear apprehending himself not able to resist But as our Author hath handled the matter all this terrible Fright was for nothing else but lest his Submission should not be accepted and so as our Author represents him Jaddus had made a fair Game on 't he sends a foolish Answer to Alexander and then was at his wits end how to attone and make amends for it Well I perceive this very Cluthaean Sanballat took a much better course for as Josephus hath it he went early to Alexander and carried with him eight thousand Men and was received with Honour and Favour and yet Josephus does not speak very commendably of that Action and can hardly forbear calling him a Traitor for his pains But it seems as our Author interprets Josephus he must be much the wiser yea and the honester Man For it seems Sanballat took time by the foretop and did his Duty early but Jaddus was forced to an after-reckoning and at his wits end how to heal up the Disobedience of his former Answer I wonder what Notions some Men have of Virtue Honour or Conscience is it agreeable to any of these for a Governour of a Town and especially for such a one who hath taken an Oath of Fidelity to his Prince to deliver it up so soon as the Enemy appears before it and not only so but to be in extreme Agonies and Perplexities for not having done it before And I would appeal to all the World whether Batis who so gallantly defended Gaza against Alexander tho he lost his life in the Attempt was not more faithful to his Master and perform'd his Duty with more Honesty as well as Courage than Sanballat as Josephus delivers it who made a plain defection from him or than Jaddus either according to the Account that our Author and Dr. Sherlock have given of him I know Doctor Sherlock says Case of Alleg. p. That Jaddus by his Answer meant no m ore but that he would not make a voluntary Dedition of himself that is to say he performs all the parts of an honest and faithful Governour that does not give up himself to an Enemy that is fifty Miles off and only sends a Message to him but if he comes himself with an Army 't is honourable and faithful and the Town and People are all his own And yet as ridiculous as this is if it were granted him it will not solve the business For he tells us Vindic. p. 20. That Jaddus his Care was how he might attone for his former Contumacy i. e. the Contumacy of his former Answer Now to attone for any Action implies the renouncing it and so Jaddus it seems renounced his Answer as the Dr. hath some of his Principles and took care to make timely Satisfaction by an early Submission But then what becomes of Voluntary Dedition Why perhaps the Doctor might mean he would not go of himself till he was sent for And so we have an admirable Character of a good Governour his Oath and his Honour oblige him to keep the City or Country till he is asked the Question and Conquerors must be cruel and hard-hearted indeed if they will not vouchsafe to send for a Surrender And yet at this fine rate do these Gentlemen treat Jaddus and to magnifie his Example and to fit it to their purpose make him one of the meanest and most contemptible Persons in the World 2. I come now to consider how our Author proves Jaddus was resolv'd to submit to Alexander before the Revelation from the Report Josephus makes of that Revelation and here our Author tells us that after the Sacrifice when he was gone to bed in his sleep God bad him be of good courage and let them crown the City and open their Gates And for their Meeting which says our Authour they had resolv'd before but were in care how to do it so as might move the King's Favour or Compassion Let them go the rest in white Garments and he with the Priests in the Vestments the Law hath prescrib'd c. Now here we have a pure strain of Interpretation and plainly shews how our Authour can say any thing that makes for his purpose The whole stress of our Author's Argument is to make it appear that according to Josephus Jaddus had resolv'd to submit to Alexander before he had any Revelation from God commanding him so to do And then to make Josephus say so he turns his words upside down and puts in what he please and places them as he sees good without either Order or Truth and then indeed it is somewhat hard if upon such a Liberty a Man cannot make Josephus
least mentioned it therefore if this be admitted the Gospel is in danger For an Adversary may say that the Heathen Historians of those times took no notice of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles and therefore if their Silence be an Argument of Suspition 't is equally so in both Cases because those Heathen Historians neither undertook to write the Life of Christ nor of his Apostles nor if they had were they of equal Credit with them that did nor is humane Testimony to stand in competition with divine Testimony And now let any Heathen Turk or Jew Friend or Foe provided he be a rational Creature make such an Argument if he can which notwithstanding is the true state of the Case And by the way if our Author had no more to say to prove the Authority of the Scriptures than he has for the Authority of this Story of Josephus he would make the Scriptures themselves as suspitious as this Story and he may consider his own Caution for as we ought to take heed of such Arguments so we ought to take heed of such Parallels as an Adversary may make use of against the Gospel it self For as our Author hath handled the Matter he makes the Authority of Josephus equal with the Scriptures for if the Silence of Heathen Historians be no Argument against Josephus because it is no Argument against the Scriptures I doubt he must make both of the same Authority or else own that his Answer is nothing to the purpose But after all our Author is not so apprehensive of what an Adversary in this Case may make use of against the Gospel for he tells us immediately following But if it were true that our Objector here says that these Heathens tell us the clean contrary to that which we have from Josephus there might be something in this Contradiction though not in the Silence of Heathen Writers Very well Then suppose the Heathen Writers as Porphirie and Celsus for Instance should expresly say that Christ and his Apostles did no Miracles according to our Author's way of answering there might be something in that though nothing at all in their Silence and then I doubt if an Adversary had the handling of it he would go near to make a much stronger Argument against the Gospel upon our Author's Principles than if he argued from their meer Silence But our Author's Business was to answer me and that is enough at one time and not to consider the consequences of his own Answers which more palpably run him into those very Inconveniences he is willing to charge me with for if he will stick by his Answer it inevitably turns upon him and he will never be able to avoid it Well! but there might be something in this Contradiction though not in the Silence of Heathen Writers But then what becomes of our Author's Reason before for their Silence viz. their Hatred and Contempt of the Jews For if that be a Reason for their Silence of this Story why is it not also as good a Reason for their Contradicting it And if Malice prompted them to omit a Passage that made for the honour of the Jewish Nation the same Malice I suppose might as well prompt them to say the clean contrary For if Historians write by their Passions and not according to plain Truth that Character equally extends to what they say as to what they do not provided there be but the same Reason that is Malice to the Persons about whom they write So that had our Author so pleased this might have been as good a Reason against their Contradicting this Story as their Silence in it and he might with the same Truth and Justice have charged them with malitious Inventing as well as with malitious Omitting But the Author I suppose did not think it necessary for his purpose now he thought they did not contradict this Story and therefore though his Reason be the same against both is contented to allow that there may be something in this Contradiction Well let us take what he will allow us and I believe he had better have kept to his Reason and have charged them with Malice in all Points and there had been an end and there is no Credit to be given to what they say and this though no body could have believed it it would have served however for an Answer For if our Author will admit their contradicting this Story to be something I doubt they have said that which is very near contradicting it and our Author must have an extraordinary Faculty if he can reconcile this Story to what they deliver as we shall see upon examining what our Author says He adds Perhaps the Objector might mean that the account of those Historians is contrary to that of the Author against whom he writes for this Author as he cites him I know not how truly saith that from Tyre Alexander came directly to Jerusalem That indeed doth not agree with the account given us by the Historians he mentions But Josephus doth not say this he tells us that Alexander having besieged Tyre seven Months and then taken it came forward to Gaza and took it after a Siege of two Months and then hasted to Jerusalem which submitted to him as also did the neighbouring Cities Now our Author seems to insinuate to his Readers that my Answer to the Objection was this That whereas it is in the Objection that Alexander from Tyre came directly to Jerusalem I assert from the Historians that he came from Tyre directly to Gaza and not to Jerusalem but this is neither my Answer nor can be made out from my Words I cited the Objection indeed as I found it whether our Author thinks I cited it truly or no and he that made the Objection put it in that manner but I knew well enough Josephus did not say that Alexander came directly from Tyre to Jerusalem and therefore I took no advantage of that Mistake but suited my Answer to the Objection in the full latitude and as it ought to have been and accordingly I say that these Historians tell us Answ p. 6. That from the Siege of Tyre Alexander went directly to Gaza and so on into Egypt Now Alexander's going directly from Gaza to Egypt as much contradicts the true Objection and the account of Josephus as his going directly from Tyre to Gaza does the Mistake of the Objector But saith our Author this consists very well with what we read in those Historians for they agree that from Tyre he went directly to Gaza yet after the taking that City they do not say that he went presently into Aegypt He might stay long enough to go to Jerusalem which was about fifty Miles distant and receive the Submission of that and the neighbouring Cities before he went into Aegypt Now I do not know what our Author means when he says these Historians do not say that Alexander went presently into Egypt They say he went from Gaza
say what he hath a mind to And here as he hath placed the Words and put in his own Additions he would make his Reader believe that Josephus represented it as if he had already concluded to meet Alexander in a posture of Submission whereas there is no such thing in Josephus nor any thing like it Here he says And for their Meeting and from thence infers they were resolv'd to do it before whereas both for their meeting and the placing of it which plainly alters the Sense is purely his own all that Josephus says is that God bad him be of good courage and to crown the City and open the Gates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest in white Garments but him with the Priests in the Vestments which the Law prescrib'd or legal Vestments to meet him And where now I wonder is this And for their Meeting which our Author begins the matter with tho Josephus placed it last and from whence he would fain conclude that this Meeting was resolv'd on before whereas 't is plain enough by the placeing of these Words in Josephus and by the connecting the Sentence by Conjunctives that the same Command that bad him be of good courage bad him also to meet him But this would not serve our Author's turn and therefore he is for beginning at the latter end and not only so but for putting in Words of his own He tells indeed here is every word of the Revelation Right and somewhat more to even some Words of our Author and these very Words of the Revelation are put out of their order which make a new Sense of them and the very thing in controversie is plainly if not industriously perverted Is there no difference with our Authour between God's commanding them to be of good courage and to meet him and bidding him be of good courage and for their meeting But if Josephus is not for our Authour's purpose he hath an Art to make him 't is but slipping in a Particle and placing his Words to the best advantage and then he may do very well and whether he speaks his own Sense or no he shall be sure to deliver our Author's Sense The Sum of all this matter is contain'd in these two Questions 1. Whether a Divine Revelation be not a sufficient warrant to practise contrary to ordinary and standing Rules 2. Whether as Josephus tells the Story Jaddus had not a Divine Revelation authorizing and appointing his and the Peoples particular Behaviour in this matter it is plain enough that the whole Action as Josephus relates it was directed by God himself the Habit the Solemnity the Meeting all were of Divine Appointment But these Gentlemen would fain confine the Revelation to the Manner only and not to the Meeting it self as if the same Revelation that directed them to meet Alexander in their Pontificalibus and in that solemn manner did not as well direct the Meeting as the Manner of it And it is a pure Consequence God directed them to meet in such a Manner and therefore he directed the Manner and not the Meeting Just as if a Master should command a Servant to put on such a Habit and attend on another Person why truly he commands him to put on his best Cloaths but as for his Attendance he may do as he sees good his Master's Command does not extend to that And therefore I would ask these Two Authors Whether Meeting be not in the Revelation And then I would fain see a reason why the Revelation does not extend to the Meeting as well as to all the rest Well Dr. Sherlock hath one thing yet behind and he tells us Vindic. p. 20. that When God is said to appear to him Jaddus in his Dream he answered no Question about the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander which is a very pleasant Reason to come from Dr. Sherlock My Answer is that Jaddus as Josephus relates it acted by Divine Revelation and not by ordinary and standing Rules and the Dr. tells us God answered no Question about the Lawfulness that is to say God did not declare it to be an ordinary and standing Rule for practice for to answer the Question about the Lawfulness of a thing is resolving a Case of Conscience which hath respect to an antecedent Law And therefore I must needs own that God answered no Question about the Lawfulness of Submitting which indeed would have been declaring it to be lawful and either making it or else referring to an ordinary Rule but for all that God by revealing it to be his Will made it lawful to them When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his Son he answer'd no Question about the Lawfulness of such Sacrifice when he commanded the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians he answered no Question about the Lawfulness of their taking their Jewels and Goods from them when notwithstanding by virtue of a Divine Revelation those respective Actions were lawful and a Duty to them which otherwise would have been utterly unlawful And it is very pleasant to talk of a Revelation answering the Question about the Lawfulness when the Lawfulness it self depends upon the Revelation At last our Author comes to another Objection which he tells me p. 28. He thinks it was put out of its place and ought to have come in for a Reserve and such like Reflections Now I will not stand with our Author upon this Point if he does not like my placing my own Objections let him place them himself according as he can best answer them all that I desire is that he will answer them and as to his Method first or last it is all one to me I will not quarrel with him in Dr. Sherlock's Language Vindic. p. 1. and tell him of more Art than Honesty in altering my Method and Order For I am contented to take Answers let them come in what Method they will Part of the Objection as our Author repeats it is this Answ p. 11. 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 upon which our Author thus animadverts This was frankly said but I think not very ingeniously And why so I pray Did not I give an Instance immediately of Eliashibs building a Chamber in the Temple for Tobiah Nehem. 〈◊〉 4. and where is the frankness or disingenuity That which is frankly said is without proof and that which is disingeniously said is without truth But here I had prov'd the Point and in an Instance our Author cannot deny But he is not for mentioning that and taking things altogether but he likes cutting an Objection into halves nay into quarters as we shall see presently and then disputing upon it Now tho our Author likes his own Method best in answering my Objections yet methinks he might have taken all the Objection along with him and not have minc'd it and divided
truth is these Men who talk at this rate understand the word grammatically as if it meant nothing but beating and Victory which is nothing else but betraying their ignorance instead of disputing the Question and interpreting Terms of Art and Expressions in Law by Grammatical construction and the derivation of words whereas the same word oftentimes varies its meaning in every Art or Science Now in the present Question Conquest whereby a right and Title to a Government is supposed to be acquired besides mere Victory which as far as I can perceive is all our Author here means by it there are several other necessary Conditions and Qualifications and where they are not any Person what success and Force soever he may have hath not the Title of a Conqueror but only the Possession of an Usurper I shall not run into the whole of this Question It will be sufficient here to observe 1. That that is not a Conquest where is not a just cause of War preceding By this I do not mean every just cause of War but such a one only as will justifie the taking away the Prince and Peoples Right i. e. when all things considered the taking away that Right is a Reparation equivalent to the Injury for what is above that is Robbery and Rapine and can no more give one Prince a Title to another Princes Dominion than he that takes a thousand Pound for the injury of six pence hath a just Title to the overplus I know these things cannot be adjusted by Mathematical measures but for all that there are Rules of Justice to be observed tho in such Cases they may admit of some Latitude and what exceeds them is plain wrong and it is Nonsence to say that wrong creates Right 2. That is not a Conquest where the Subjects of a Prince are not Conquered tho he himself should be overcome or taken Prisoner And this is as clear as any Proposition in Euclid King Richard the First was taken Prisoner by Leopold Duke of Austria and did he by vertue of that acquire a Right and Title to the Crown and People of England and it is a pleasant Business to say that People are absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance and from the duty of Subjects because they are not conquered and it is a pure Argument to dissolve the Obligations of Oaths and to transfer Allegiance because they may keep them if they please and have power to do their Prince Right whenever they have a mind to it This is to prove a Conquest by denying it And to suppose that a Right to a Government and People is conveyed by Conquest when at the same time that People is not conquered is neither more nor less but to suppose all People out of their wits and such Doctrines are fit for any thing rather than an Answer I know well enough some men say here That it is all one with respect to particular Men if a Nation is not conquered particular Men are but it is plain these Men know not what they say and venture their Consciences upon Fancy and Imagination They have heard of Jus Belli and a Right by Conquest and without considering the Question are resolved to suppose themselves conquered tho at the same time they suppose themselves conquered by no body but their Fellow Subjects which is a pure way of Conquest indeed to convey a Title to the Crown and consequently to their Allegiance Heretofore Conquest was a terrible thing and appeared in Blood and Destruction but now 't is grown as mild and soft as can be and if you have a mind to find it you must not look into the Field and consider fighting and the Effects of the Sword but you must search into the most peaceable places of the Kingdom in the Parhament-House and Westminster-Hall which I must confess of all places a Man would hardly have thought to have found Conquest in 3. That is not a Conquest so as to convey a Right and Title to the Dominion of a Country where the Legal and natural Prince of that Countrey is not destroyed or so conquered as either virtually or expresly to resign his Right and submit to the Conqueror And this is plainly founded on the eternal and immutable Rules of Equity and Justice For no Man let him be under what Force he will can give away another Man 's Right without his own consent If therefore a Prince hath a Right to his Kingdom no force upon himseif much less upon his Subjects can extinguish that Right and till that is extinguish'd a Conqueror can have no right to it for two opposite persons cannot have the same Right to the same thing And here I would ask our Author who talks so pleasantly of winning of Right which way unjust Force should extinguish just Right And if this Right be not extinguished then it remains with him and if the Right remains with him then the Conqueror is an unrighteous Possessor i. e. he hath no Right and Title for no Man has a Right and Title to what he possesses unjustly And then I would fain know how Allegiance and Duty ceases to Right and follows Wrong and Injustice in opposition to Right But of this our Author and the Reader may be much better inform'd from the Learned Author of the Duty of Allegiance in Answer to Doctor Sherlock But after all what has the Question of Conquest to do in the Business for suppose Conquest in our Author's Notion would do all these won ders I hope No-Conquest would not do all these extraordinary matters too And where I pray is this Conquest they talk on 't is invisible to every body but themselves Did ever any Men before dispute and argue and take pains to prove themselves conquered when the person whom they pretend the Conqueror and all the Nation besides perfectly disowned it Those that insist upon this Argument it seems as if their Consciences were hard set when they have nothing to say to justifie themselves but what contradicts their own Eyes and common Sense A Man would imagine a little Modesty without any Reason would answer such Arguments And if they can stop the Mouth of their Consciences with Chimera's and Figments much good may it do them Should any sober Foreigner hear of the abdicating Vote ' of giving and accepting the Crown and the Revenue belonging to it of confining the Soveraign Power and limiting the Succession c. And at the same time hear of a sort of Divines that were might and main stretching their Wits to prove that a Conquest I believe he would think something or other which I will not name for certainly such a Conquest was never heard of when the Conqueror must take Terms from the Conquered For my part I think Men that talk at this rate are to be looked upon as the Betrayers of English Liberty and Property For how much soever they may play with it Conquest is a very hard word and means no less than a Title to the Property of the whole Kingdom And all these Arguments plainly centre in this That whatever was done and transacted in the Convention was nothing else but Mercy and Condescension in the Prince and he vouchsafed to accept of the Crown upon these Terms when it was his own before by the Rights of War So that by these Mens Arguments the Sovereign Power not being as absolute as in France or Turkey and the Property of the whole Kingdom is pure free Gift and Gracious Condescension which is a Tenure not very grateful to English Men. And I have often wondered that a Nation so jealous of its Liberties and Privileges would suffer such Doctrines and Arguments to pass abroad without Publick Animadversion And therefore in Defence of the Liberties of my Native Country which these Arguments totally overthrow and betray I will enter the List with him when he pleases And to make good his Hypothesis here are two things for him to prove 1. That Conquest in his Notion that is Force Power or Victory is a sufficient Title to Dominion and Government and gives a just Right to it 2. That the Revolution here is a Conquest the one is a general Doctrine and the other the Application of it to the particular Case And when our Author hath done these by the Grace of God he shall hear what Answer I have to return For the present I shall take my leave of our Author and of his Argument from Conquest with this one Remark That those who have been early in a Revelation and have set their Heads and Shoulders to it For them to justifie their Compliances by Conquest is abominable Hypocrisie before God and Man FINIS