AN ANSWER TO A Letter to Dr. Sherlock, WRITTEN IN Vindication of that part of Josephus' History which gives the Account of Jaddus' Submission to Alexander, against the Answer to the Piece, entitled, 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, etc.  
THE present Controversy concerning the Case of Jaddus, consists of these two parts; as it respects the Story itself, and as it respects the Convocation's Sense of it.  
I. As it respects the Story itself; 
Answ. p. 5  and here I had urged two Things: 1. That it is suspicious. And, 2. If it were true, it would not prove what it is alleged for.  
1. That the Story itself is suspicious. 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 doubtful and suspicious, and not that it is absolutely false, 
P. 12.  the Doubtfulness of it being sufficient to my purpose; which was to show, That no Argument can be drawn from the Example of Jaddus, to justify Submission to a Possessor of Power, notwithstanding an Oath to a lawful 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 Uncertainty of the Story is a good Argument against that, though it be not charged with direct Falsehood: For if it be only suspicious, it may be true, or it may be false; but if it be only suspicious, 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 doubtful and suspicious Story.— The Suspicion affects the Exemplariness of it, as much as the direct Falsehood; and a doubtful Example is as unserviceable to make a Precedent, as one that is notoriously false: So that in this Controversy there is some Difference between this Author and myself. 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 encumbered; 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 only 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' 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 Liar; and that I hope is no extraordinary Reason to rely 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' 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 Controversy, is in truth no Dispute between us; for he himself regards his Authority as little as I do, only 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 only 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 do our Author Justice, he hath as little to say for the Story itself, as he hath for the Authority of Josephus; and this will appear upon Examining what he says in the Vindication. He gins 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 authentic, and more especially before it be insisted on to justify 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 ancient 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 Country, 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 remarked, and so notorious and public, our Author would have us believe to be Matter only of National Record, and could by no means get out of the Territories of Judaea. And he talks of the Conquest of a Country, 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 suspicious; 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, only 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 Country, 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? Can 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, etc. 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 Physic, 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 Battle 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 only 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 do 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 than 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 mere 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 Judgement 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. storm. 1. Theoph. ad Autol. Tatian. paren, ad Gr. Orig. contr. Cells. Euseb. praep. l. 9 c. 6.  and the rest of the great Men among them, traveled 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 Suspicion of Partiality, is the Acknowledgement 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 among the Jews were the Foundations of Literature, and from whose Breasts the Grecians sucked their Knowledge. Besides, even in the lowest and most deplorable Condition of their Commonwealth, the Jews were admitted into the Courts of the greatest Princes, and to most noble Offices and Employments, as is evident from the Books of Ester, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the First and Second of Esdras, and many other Examples there are in Josephus. And after the Captivity the Romans made with them a League offensive and defensive, and at such a time too, when they were in great Distress, 
1 Maccab. 8.20, 21.  and oppressed by Demetrius; and hearty espoused their Interest, 
Ver. 32.  and writ to Demetrius to forbear his ill dealing towards them, otherwise threatening him, that they would do them justice, and fight with him by Sea and Land. About the same time they renewed a former League made with Sparta, 
1 Maccab. 12.1. ad 23.  which it seems was first desired by the Spartans', where it appears that the Jews were so far from being hated and contemned by them, that as a Matter of Honour to themselves, and as an Argument of Friendship they claim kindred with them; 
Ver. 21.  it is found in Writing that the Spartans' and Jews are Brethren, and come out of the Generation of Abraham. Now this, and a great deal more that might be said if it were needful, is no great Evidence of that general Hatred and Contempt of the Jews, which our Author, for want of a better Answer, charges upon the Heathens. But to gratify him let us suppose it, and what then? Why, then they would not speak the Truth of them, even though they knew it, and though it lay never so much in the Course of the History they treat of. This I must confess is round dealing, and at one stroke dashes out all their Reputation, and fastens as black an Imputation upon them as can be laid upon any Historian: and methinks our Author who is so ready to charge these eminent Men with Hatred, and consequent upon that with Insincerity, should have had some good Reason ready to have cleared his own in this Point; for if it be Insincerity in an Historian to omit a pertinent Passage, out of mere Hatred to the Persons concerned, 'tis something or other which I will not name, to charge an Historian with such woeful Prevarication, and offer nothing at all in proof of it. And what hath our Author to support this foul Charge? Why truly 'tis all built on one Word, 'tis but calling them Heathen Historians and the Business is done, and then 'tis as clear as can be, they are guilty of Hatred, Malice, Partiality, Unfaithfulness, and all the Vices. And if the Reader will not take this for a very good Reason why those Authors omitted this Story of Jaddus, I cannot help it, our Author will not afford us any better. He adds indeed, and perhaps he intended it for a Reason, Hence it came to pass that those Writers he mentions, have scarce ever named the Jews in their Histories. A very weighty Reason indeed, and therefore they must needs hate and contemn them, by the same Reason our Author hates Plutarch, Arrian, Curtius and Justin, for neither doth he name them, though the present Dispute is concerning them. But this Author has an excellent Faculty at turning his Reasons, but four Lines before it was very unjust and unreasonable to argue against the Authority of Josephus, only from the silence of Heathen Hiostrians. But now it seems their Silence is all in all, and the whole Fabric stands upon it, and it is very just and reasonable from thence to argue against their own Authority, and to make them guilty of Baseness; that is to say, this same Silence answers as many purposes as the Author pleases; they do not mention a Story that Josephus does, and then they are a parcel of Heathens, and their Silence signifies nothing at all: They do not mention the Jews in their Histories, and then they are Heathens too; but their Silence signifies Hatred, Corruption, Want of Fidelity, and I cannot tell what. Well! No body knows what Wonders the same thing can do, when it falls into the hands of a Man of Art and Argument: But after all this is pure Mistake; for if the naming the Jews will take off this Imputation, and abate our Author's heavy Charge, they have not been so backward in that: 'Tis true indeed they do not go out of their way to name them, and when they have no occasion, which, how kind soever it might be, would not be very pertinent in an Historian; and I suppose they chose rather to mind the Course of their History, than to digress, and mix things foreign, out of pure Complaisance to the Jews. But however, if naming the Jews in their Writings will reconcile them to out Author's better opinion, if he please to look again, he will find that some of them have named them indeed no oftener than they had occasion: Plutarch hath a whole Discourse concerning them in his Symposiacs, in which there is nothing savouring either of Hatred or Disrespect to them: Neither hath he forgot them in his Lives, but hath mentioned them more than once; and, which comes home to our Purpose, 
In Pompey's.  he records Pompey's Entrance into Judaea, and his taking Aristobulus Prisoner, his deciding Controversies there, and many other Affairs, by himself and his Officers: And I wonder why this very same Plutarch should in his Life of Pompey take particular Notice of the Affairs of Judaea, and of Pompey's Transactions there; and yet in his Life of Alexander take no manner of Notice of his being at Jerusalem, especially since his being there was, according to Josephus, so extraordinary and wonderful: I doubt the reason is, that he had heard of the one, but not of the other. Our Author adds, But Josephus designed nothing more than to give us a History of the Jews; even just as the other Historians designed nothing more than to give us a History of Alexander. And if it be reasonable to think Josephus would omit nothing that was material and extraordinary in the history of his Nation, I hope it is as reasonable to think those other Historians would omit nothing that was very material and extraordinary in the Life of Alexander. But this our Author will not allow; for he adds, How then should Josephus ' s Credit be impeached by the silence of Heathen Writers, especially in a matter which they would be sure to conceal, for that very reason that he had to mention is, namely, because it made for the honour of his Nation? Now this, if it be a Reason, it has two Edges; for if the Reason of concealing might be the Hatred to the Jews, and the Reason of mentioning it might be for the Honour of them; then the Question is, Whether it be most likely, that the Honour of his Nation might tempt Josephus to speak more than truth; or the 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 careful 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 Spite 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' Authority, they must be represented by odious and abominable Characters, and as designedly and maliciously concealing plain Matter of Fact; and all this without any manner of Proof, either from the Authors themselves, or from any other Reason, but only 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 itself; 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: 'Tis but boldly charging them with Hatred and Malice, and the Work is done, and a Testimony from History will signify no more than the Authority of a Romance. And if Josephus' 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 Virtue 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 matched 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 traveled into Asia and Europe, and was discouraged by no Trouble and Dangers from personally visiting those Places concerning which he was about to write. 
T●●●●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 Shipwreck of Learning, and to whom we own more of the Knowledge we have, here in the West, of ancient 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 only so clear, but so great and august, that a Man would wonder what should make our Author treat them so coarsely, 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 only have been barely suggested, but proved, at least offered to be proved; for a Man that writes Paradoxes, against the Sense and Judgement 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 consigned 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 Ptolemy; and Arrian plainly tells us, 
Arrian. Praef. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he made use of, and collected his History from Aristobulus and Ptolemy, 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 only 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 than 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 suspicious; 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 a Story, should all of them, either wilfully and industriously, or through negligence or inadvertence, omit the most observable Passage in the whole; or, that other Historians of undoubted Credit, and living in several Ages, and in divers Nations, and being of differing Tempers and Interests, and each of them consulting and transcribing out of the Writings of those Eye-Witnesses, should all of them unanimously omit one single Story, of very great Note, and which had been particularly remarked by the Authors they consulted; and this without the least Proof that either of them actually did so, and which is founded only on an inevident and presumptive Malice, which they had in their Hearts. How willing soever some Men are to impose upon themselves, I defy the most credulous and easy Man alive to believe either of these, if he can. Men had need complain of Faction and Party, that offer such things as these for Reasons.  
He adds, It was the same Reason that they had to pass by all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles; should we therefore grant the Story of these to be suspicious, because the Heathen Writers of those times take no Notice of any such thing? But how does the Author know, that the Heathen Writers of those times did pass by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles out of Malice to them and to the Christian Religion? Might it not be done out of Mistake, want of due Information, Incredulity, or because it was foreign to the Matter of their History? Some of these I suppose may pass for as good Reasons as Malice. But let that be as it will, it is nothing at all to the purpose; for the Cases are by no means parallel upon many accounts: For, 1. The Reason and Ground of my Objection was not the mere Silence of these Historians, but their Silence in such Matters as not only relate to, but make a mighty Figure in the History they treat of; and in such Cases their Omission is an Argument of Suspicion, though their bare Omission be not: And therefore to make our Author's Answer reach the Case, we must suppose, that the Life of Christ and his Apostles was the immediate subject of their respective Histories, as the Life of Alexander was of these Historians; and then indeed their omitting the Miracles, and most remarkable Instances of their Lives, would have made the Cases of Omission parallel; but this is a little too wild for any Man to suppose. And what a pure Consequence is this! The Omission of the most memorable Passage in the Life of Alexander, by those Historians who wrote the Life of Alexander, is an Argument that that Story is suspicious; and therefore the Omission of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, by those Historians who do not write their Lives, is likewise an Argument of the same Suspicion. But if this, as inconsequent as it is, was allowed our Author, it would not serve his Purpose: For,  
2. There is a great Difference in the Authority: 'Tis true, the Heathen Writers taking no Notice of the Miracles of Christ, and his Apostles, is no reason to grant, that therefore they are suspicious; nor yet would it be any reason, if they had expressed the clean contrary: But the reason of that is, because they have the Testimony of Writings divinely inspired, and the Authority of which cannot be impeached by the Assertions, and much less by the Silence of all the Heathens in the World. But what is this to the Authority of Josephus? Does that stand upon as clear a bottom as the Scriptures? And where I wonder is the consequence, because the Silence of Heathen Writers is nothing against the Authority of the Holy Ghost, therefore it is also nothing against the Authority of Josephus? And therefore this is nothing to the purpose, except the Authority of Josephus was as sacred and infallible as the Scriptures themselves. And therefore if our Author would make the Cases parallel, he must suppose that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles stood only upon humane Testimony, and then suppose five Heathen Historians, of undoubted Credit, should professedly undertake to write the Life and Acts of our Saviour and his Apostles, and one single Christian, of no better Credit than they in point of History, should take notice of one single Instance omitted by them all; I would fain know, whether in such a Case that single Instance might not reasonably be deemed suspicious, and of doubtful Credit. But yet this is not the Case: For,  
3. The Character of the Historians, even in point of Religion, very well suits with the Matter of their History. Here we have five Heathen Historians writing the Life of a Heathen Prince; and therefore there can be no Exception taken to their Religion in that point: And if this was an Argument, 'tis against the Authority of Josephus; for I suppose the Heathens hated the Jews no more than the Jews did the Heathens; and I hope the Authority of a Heathen Historian may be argumentative with respect to the History of a Heathen Prince, though it be not the same with respect to the History of Christ and his Apostles. For what if they did bear Malice to the Jews, and to the Christians, Did they bear Malice to Alexander also, that they would not tell the truth which they knew of him? Our Author indeed tells us, that it made for the Honour of the Jewish Nation; and what if it did? Did it not make for the Honour of Alexander also? And therefore those who writ the Story of Alexander, would not relate an honourable and memorable Passage concerning him, because that would redound also to the Honour of the Jews; that is to say, they would all of them do wrong to Truth, to the Prince they wrote of, and to their own History, rather than dee right to an Enemy. However the Question is concerning the History of an Heathen Prince, recorded by Heathen Historians, and I hope there is a great deal of Difference between Heathen Historians omitting Matters relating to a Heathen Prince; and between Heathen Historians omitting Matters relating to our Saviour, and his Religion; for who expects an account of Christianity from Heathen Writers? And 'tis a pure Consequence, because they have not recorded an extraordinary Instance in the Life of a Heathen, and because likewise the Heathen Historians have not recorded the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles; therefore their Omission in one Case may be drawn into Argument, as well as the other: For our Author tells us very gravely, 
P. 3.  We ought to take heed of such Arguments as an Adversary may make use of against the Gospel itself. And what I pray is this dangerous Argument? Why truly 'tis as plain as can be; Because one single Story in the Life of a Heathen Prince is suspicious, as being recorded only by Josephus, for that several Heathen Historians, of as good Credit as himself, who have given us the whole Progress of that Prince, have not in the 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 Suspicion, 'tis 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 suspicious 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 itself. 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 expressly 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 mere 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 than 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 writ 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 writ. 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 malicious Inventing, as well as with malicious 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 citys 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 Egypt. 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 Egypt. 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, and after the Siege of Gaza into Egypt; and that, I think, is not saying, that from Gaza, or after the Siege of Gaza, he went to Jerusalem, but the contrary; as if a Man describing the Journeys of a Traveller should say, he came to Uxbridge, and from thence he went to London, and then he went to Canterbury: I would fain ask any Body, whether this is not a contradiction to the saying that Traveller went from London to St. Alban, and thence to Canterbury, except the Man had some Spite to St. Alban, and then indeed I do not know how much it might alter the Business? The Situation is just the same; for Jerusalem stands North of Gaza, and Egypt is South: and a Man would be apt to imagine, that the saying Alexander went South, is a contradiction to the saying he went North; for as I take it, two opposite Points of the Compass are contrary to each other. And as to Alexander's doing this presently, 
Aegyptum adire festinans,— ille septimo die posteaquam a Gaza Copias moverat, in Regionem Aegypti pervenit. Curt. l. 4. Arrian. in init. l. 3.  or as our Author says, they do not say he presently went into Egypt, Curtius tells us, that he made haste into Egypt; and that on the seventh day after he had moved his Army from Gaza, he came into the Region of Egypt. Now I doubt this does directly contradict the account of Josephus, and which our Author defends: For if Alexander on the seventh day after his Removal from Gaza arrived in Egypt, I wonder how it was possible for him to go with his whole Army fifty Miles another way, (for our Author tells us, Jerusalem was about fifty Miles from Gaza,) and to receive the Submission of Jerusalem, and stay there a day at least, and then pursue his Voyage into Egypt, and accomplish all this in seven days. I wonder what kind of Marches our Author, to make this out, must allot for great Armies? Archbishop Usher (to whose Judgement our Author tells us he attributes much in these Matters,) 
P. 9  was sensible of this Inconvenience; and therefore though he hath taken the main Story from Josephus, yet he was not so very fond of his Credit, as to defend Impossibilities to justify it; but plainly tells us from these Historians, that Alexander went directly from Gaza into Egypt, and came on the seventh day to Pelusium, and not, 
Anno Mundi 1673.— non retro converso itinere, Hierosolymam (uti minus considerate a Josepho est traditum) Gaza expugnata petiit.—  by turning his Journey backwards, to Jerusalem, after the taking of Gaza, as it is inconsiderately delivered by Josephus. Now it is plain. Bp. Usher thought the account of these Historians contradicted the account of Josephus in this matter; it is plain likewise, that for that Reason he rejected the Authority of Josephus, so far as it relates to this particular; for he expressly quotes Curtius and Arrian, and charges Josephus with Inconsiderateness, for affirming contrary to what they do: And this is as good an Argument against the whole Story, as it is against this particular Branch of it; for if it be an Argument against Josephus' account of Alexander's coming from Gaza to Jerusalem, because these Historians say that on the seventh day upon his moving from Gaza, he came into Egypt; and this is irreconcilable with what Josephus delivers. Then 'tis likewise an argument against his coming from Tyre to Jerusalem, (which is the Bp's account;) for they as expressly affirm that Alexander went directly from Tyre to Gaza, as that he went from Gaza to Egypt in seven days; and which our Author also owns. So that if the Reason be good, Alexander came not from Gaza to Jerusalem, as in Josephus' account, nor from Tyre to Jerusalem, as in the Bishop's account; and consequently he did not come there at all: So that although the Primate allows the Story, yet the reason why he rejects this part, is equally valid against the whole; and that is, as it contradicts the account given us by those Historians who wrote the Life of Alexander; and Josephus upon the same Reason might be charged with Rashness and Inconsiderateness, with respect to the whole, as well as with respect to a particular part of it; and his Authority against them is no better in one case, than it is in the other. And this I thought good to say with respect to Bp. usher's account of this Matter, and I did it for these Reasons:  
1. To show our Author, that notwithstanding his pretence of attributing very much to his Judgement in these Matters, he takes the liberty to differ from him, as often as he pleases, and as often as he thinks it for his purpose.  
2. To show him that Bp. Usher made no scruple of charging Josephus with Inconsiderateness, when he thought there was good Reason for it; and therefore there was no such need of an Outcry against his Adversary's eager desire to find Faults in Josephus, and which blinded his Eyes. 
P. 5.   
3. To show our Author the ingenuity of his insinuating Parenthesis, p. 3. when he says concerning the Objection I put, with respect to this Story, that Alexander from Tyre came directly to Jerusalem; and then tells me, This Author, as he citys him, (I know not how truly;) Now (as it happens) the Objection is the very sense of Bp. Usher, (though I had no immediate respect to him, but to another Objector,) and any Man who reads our Author's Vindication, will easily conclude that he is well acquainted with the Bishop's sense; and when that is the same with the Objection, by a sly Parenthesis to question whether I had cited it truly, or no, as if no Man had made it, is such a strain of Ingenuity, that is not easily to be met with, and may serve for a Parallel to such honest Historians as our Author talks of, who can omit plain Matter of Fact, out of pure Malice and Contempt to the Persons concerned.  
4 To show our Author the great Difference that is between Archbishop Usher and him. The Archbishop indeed was a very learned Man, and, as our Author says, 
P. 7.  a great Chronologer, and a good Textuary; and agreeable to that Character we do not find him loading those Historians with Reproaches and Calumnies, and charging them with Hatred and Malice, when there is nothing else to say, which is a way of answering peculiar to our Author, and not much in use among learned Men. But instead of that the A. Bp. owns them as Authors of good Credit and Authority, and to say no more, in Alexander's Progress prefers them to Josephus; and where they contradict the account of Josephus, he owns theirs, and rejects Josephus', as in the present Instance; and I doubt not but he would have rejected the whole Story, had he as well considered it; for the Reason is the same in both: But this Controversy was never on foot before, and learned Men might easily let a Story pass, which they had no great occasion to consider.  
5. That it was the A. Bp's Judgement, (and, as our Author tells me, with respect to the Convocation, 
P. 20.  he may be ware how much the Archbishop's Judgement would be preferred before his, where he differs from him,) that the Story, as Josephus hath laid it, contradicts the account of these Historians, and that the A. Bp. could not reconcile them; and therefore in that particular rejected the Authority of Josephus. But however our Author makes it as easy as possible; for he tells us, That Alexander might well do this, (go from Gaza to Jerusalem,) according to Diodor 's account, who saith, that having settled things about Gaza, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he sent away Amyntas into Macedonia. A very pleasant account! Diodor saith Alexander settled or disposed Things about Gaza; that is, according to our Author's Interpretation, he went and took in Jerusalem, and the whole Kingdom of Judaea: Just as if a Man should say, the King of England settled Things about Newcastle; that is to say, he went and conquered Edinburgh, and all the Kingdom of Scotland. At this rate our Author may make Historians agree with him when he please, and they must be very malicious Heathens indeed, if he cannot bring them over to serve his purpose. And yet after such Proofs as these our Author gravely concludes, This being not contrary, but very consistent with the account we have from Josephus, there is no farther cause of Suspicion on this Head.  
The next thing which our Author examines, is the Difficulty of reconciling it to Chronology. Nay, (our Author adds,) This is not all the Objector tells us, for he saith afterwards, there are Difficulties that have perplexed all Chronologers; and at last there are insuperable Difficulties in this Story. Now all this I said, but not in the same manner and order, nor with the same respect as our Author mentions them, as we shall see presently: and it is well for our Author that he writes in defence of Dr. Sherlock, 
Vindic of the Case of Alleg p. 1.  and not against him, for otherwise he might have been chastised for this, and have been told, that the altering his Adversaries Method and Order, had more of art than honesty in it. But I shall leave such Exceptions as these to Dr. Sherlock, only I think if he did not like the order I proposed them in, he ought at least fairly to have represented them, and to have expressed the full force of them; if he would have done this, he might have taken what method he liked best: but to break the Series and Thread of a Discourse, and leave out five parts in six, that immediately concerns the Argument; to pick out one Sentence from a Paragraph, and leave out all the rest; to take a piece from one place, and tack it to another to which it does not belong, and to apply a small part of a Sentence to another part of it, though it respects the whole, and then argue from it, and such like: Now such fine things as these could never have been done, if our Author would have answered in order, and Paragraph by Paragraph, or at least have taken the Paragraph entire when he did answer it; or, if that might not be, to have taken the entire Argument, or at least the sense of it: But instead of that our Author is for taking a piece here, and a piece there; a Word from one place, and a Sentence from another; and this he calls answering, as we shall see as we go along; for I shall punctually follow him, and examine all that he says, in my Reply, though with respect to my Objections, he was not pleased to do either in his Answer.  
And with respect to the Difficulties that attend this Story in point of Chronology, first of all our Author asks, Where are they; 
P. 4.  for I confess I do not see any Difficulty? Now had Dr. Sherlock been to answer, he would have told him, They are in my Book still, and there he may find them: And I must needs confess, this is quick and expeditious, and if Difficulties will be answered by ask where they are, we may expect full Performance. But suppose our Author cannot see Wood for Trees; he cannot see the Difficulties, because so thick and obvious; he cannot see them because he can see nothing else. The Chronology of the Jewish affairs, that are contemporary with the Persian Monarchy, is a difficult piece of Chronology, as any other whatever, and hath been matter of Dispute and Contention among all Chronologers; and one main Reason of that is, The lame and imperfect (not to say false) account that Josephus hath given of the affairs of Judaea, with respect to that time; and this very Story (whether our Author can see it or no) hath been one ground of these Contentions: However the Difficulties may be what they will, for any thing our Author says to remove or reconcile them. He hath given another account indeed of some things than I have done; and who could doubt of that? Other Men have given another account than he has done; and as many Men as have undertaken it, there are so many Minds about it, our Author's own account in some respects differs from all the World besides, as we shall see by and by; but this makes nothing against my Objection, but for it; for I plainly suppose it, and my Argument turns upon it, and the consequence is, that therefore it is difficult. The various account that is given proves the Uncertainty, and if the Author's account differs from others as good Chronologers as himself, this still farther confirms it, whether our Author can see any Difficulty or no. The force of this will appear as we proceed.  
The Author says I tell him the Difficulty lies in the Ages of the Persons, mighty Ages, not in the least mentioned by any Historian, as that Sanballat lived to above 145, and Jaddus to above 124 Years of age.  
He answers, But doth Josephus say this? Not in words, nothing like it. Right, nor in sense neither; and so I had said, as plain as I could speak,— That neither Josephus himself, 
Answ. p. 9  nor any other Historian, takes the least notice of either of them living to such mighty ages;— and our Author repeats it, not in the least mentioned by any Historian. And this is plainly the reason of my Objection, That because neither Josephus, nor any Historian had taken notice of their living to such ages, therefore there was no reason to conclude they lived so long; and this I had confirmed from Experience and common Observation, that such Instances are as famous as Prodigies, and as much taken notice of by Historians, as in the Case of old Parr. And what then doth our Author mean by his Question, Does Josephus say this, or any thing like it? For if he had said it, there would have been no force in that part of the Objection, and it is founded in his not saying it: But this is the effect of Jumbling and Confusion, and of taking pieces of Sentences, without considering the whole Argument; Men speak for their Adversaries when they think they speak against them. And our Author instead of answering hath confirmed and proved my Objection; and he gives that very thing in answer, which in so many words I had given as the Ground of my Objection. But (says he) it must come to this, if the Objector reckons true. Come to what? That Josephus says Sanballat lived to above 145 Years, etc. Nothing like it: It must come to this indeed, that Josephus is mistaken in his Calculation of the Time wherein Sanballat and Jaddus lived: But this is nothing at all to his saying they lived so long; for that he does not say; and yet assigning them to such times, when by Chronological Computation they must have lived to such ages, and in the mean time taking no notice that they actually did live to such remarkable ages, is a sign that he hath misplaced them, and is out as to the time of their Living, though he might not be so in their respective ages, which he takes no notice of. He adds, and if he misreckon for Josephus, he deals as ill with Scripture, only he doth not charge it with Suspicion on that account. This is a very sad business indeed; that is to say, I do not think the Scripture account is suspicious, though I think Josephus' account is; and where is the harm of that? and where, I wonder is the ill dealing with Scripture? why 'tis as plain as can be; for he adds, But according to the Scripture, as he understands it, Ezra must have lived to a much greater age than either of these before mentioned. But now for the Validity of our Author's Answer; Did I say this? Not in words; nothing like it. No matter for that; our Author hath something else to do, than to mind whether his own Answers answer himself: However he tells us, That  
The Objector will have Ezra born about six years before the Babylonian Captivity, and to have seen the first Temple standing, and fifty nine years after this, viz. 
Answ. p. 17.  in the first year of Cyrus, to have returned from the Captivity; so that then Ezra was 65 years of age by his Reckoning: From thence to the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, are 79 years; so that then Ezra must have been 144 years of age; and yet it is certain, that in that year Ezra made a Journey from Babylon to Jerusalem; and as certain that he lived 13 years after that, 
Ezra 7.  till the 20th of Artaxerxes; and then be must have been 157 years of age; and yet as old as he was, that very year he led the Procession up and down Stairs, about, 
Neh. 12.36, 37.  the Wall of Jerusalem: He might live many years after this, as we may judge by his strength of Body in that Exercise; but if he died that year, being 159 years old, as he must be by the Objector's Reckoning,— And after having proved his point by these Chronological Steps, he thus concludes: He that finds no Difficulty in this, or takes no notice of it, for fear of reflecting upon Scripture, ought not to call that Story in Josephus suspicious, because of the Difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology. And why so, I pray? Is the Authority of Josephus as sacred as the Scriptures? and is there the same reason to charge the Scripture account with Suspicion, because of some Chronological Difficulties, as there is a Story in Josephus? And here I must once again congratulate our Author, that he did not write against Dr. Sherlock, for than he might have been told, Wither these Arguments will carry our Author I cannot tell. 
Vindicat. p. 48, 49.  I grant indeed, that a Story in Josephus is suspicious, because it is clogged with Difficulties; but is that a Reason to reject the Authority of Scripture too? This hath nothing but either Scepticism or Infallibility at the bottom. And this though it was nothing against his Answerer, I am afraid it will reach home here; for if to argue from the Difficulties that are in the Scriptures, to the Suspicion of the Truth of what they deliver in those Matters, be as reasonable as to argue in the same manner with respect to humane Writings, than I doubt it will follow, (as the Doctor says,) that we must be either Sceptics in Religion, or seek for an infallible Interpreter: If it be not as reasonable, than our Author's Conclusion is nothing to the Purpose, and his Premises and Conclusion do not agree. His Premises are, that according to the Objector's account of Scripture, Ezra must have lived to 157 years; and this is a Difficulty in Chronology: And thence concludes, that I ought not to call that Story in Josephus suspicious, because of the Difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology, as if the Difficulty of reconciling a Story with Chronology, was as good an Argument against the Authority of Scripture, as it is against the Authority of Josephus. 
P. 5.  Our Author tells me, that an eager desire to find Faults in Josephus blinded my Eyes: Now Passion, Interest, and the God of this World is very apt to do so, and if our Author please to consider, whether an eager Desire to vindicate him, hath not had that very effect upon him.  
Our Author adds, 
P. 5.  In vain do Men talk of reconciling Differences, (I suppose it should be Difficulties,) where there are none, but of their own making. They that take Ezra to have been born before the Captivity, judge so for this Reason. Now here are two things of pleasant Observation.  
1. But just before our Author tells me, that I find no Difficulty in the Age of Ezra, and objects it to me, and argues upon it, and yet now it must be, in vain do Men talk of Difficulties, though all the Difficulties he speaks of here are such only as respect the age of Ezra.  
2. He intimates, that these Difficulties are only of my own making; and yet it immediately follows, They that take Ezra to have been born, etc. then it seems it is They, and not myself only, that have made it, or found it, which our Author please. And what can a Man say to such an Answerer, that forgets himself at this rate, and twice together contradicts in the Line following what he had said but the very Line before.  
Well, but They that take Ezra to have been born before the Captivity, judge so for this Reason, 
Ezra 7.1.  because it is said, that he was the Son of Seraia the high Priest, that was killed before the Captivity: But in like manner Seraiah is there made the 17th from Aaron, that lived near a thousand years before. The meaning is, that Seraia was descended from Aaron (and so Ezra was from Seraia) not immediately, but with others between, that are not mentioned. And so Johanan the High Priest is called the Son of Eliashib, 
Neb. 12.23.12.10.  who indeed was his Grandfather, and his Father was Jehoiada, that is not there mentioned. This is a common way of shortening Pedigrees, which if the Objector had considered, he would not have run himself into that Difficulty of Ezra 's Age, which though he takes no notice of, is much greater than those of which he complains. In answer to this I have these things to observe:  
1. That our Author's Solution of this Difficulty is not very probable: For though it be admitted, that Pedigrees in Scripture are often shortened; and according to the way of Expression among the Hebrews, when one is said to be the Son of another, it does not always mean, that that Person was his immediate Father, but that he was descended from him, though not immediately. But this notwithstanding, here are two things that make a great difference in the present Case, and which are reasons that it is not so to be understood, when it is said that Ezra was the Son of Seraia.  
(1.) That Ezra himself was the Person who related this Pedigree, 
Ezra ●. 1.  and it is not very probable that he should omit and make no mention of his own immediate Father; and I believe there is not one single Instance to be found, in the describing any Genealogy in Scripture, that the immediate Father of the Person whose Genealogy was described was left out, though at the same time some others of the direct Line, but of remoter distance, have been omitted; and this is yet more, when the Person writes his own Genealogy: And therefore the Instance the Author mentions is not parallel, that Johanan is called the Son of Eliashib, who was his Grandfather; 
Neh. 12.23.  for there it is only barely mentioned, as denoting the Man. But the Genealogy of Johanan is not there recited, and much less recited by himself.  
(2.) Where there are such Omissions, they are proved to be so from other places of Scripture; but when there are no such Proofs, they are presumed to be the immediate Sons of the Persons whose Sons they are named to be; In the Author's Instance Johanan is called the Son of Eliashib, and he would have been so reputed, had it not appeared in other places that Jehoiada was his Father, and not Eliashib. But who was the Father of Ezra, if Seraia was not? He is said to be so, and it does not appear that any other Person was; and it is purely arbitrary to say he was not, without any other proof but the Commonness of shortening Pedigrees: For as common as that was, a great many, nay most were immediately descended from those Persons who are said to be their Fathers. And it is not reasonable to make this Exception general, and to affirm it of any Person of our own Heads, and where there is nothing in Scripture to make it appear. But,  
2. Suppose all this and what then? Why then I am mistaken in the time that I have assigned to the Birth of Ezra, and that (as I understand it) is a Difficulty in Chronology greater than those I complain of, and I take no notice of it. Suppose I am mistaken in the time of Ezra's living, does it follow therefore that Josephus is not mistaken as to the Times of Jaddus? That Consequence I suppose lies a great way off, and that is the main Controversy.  
3. Suppose again that I am mistaken, as to the time of Ezra's Birth; what is that to the Argument upon the account of which I mentioned it? which was to prove, that the building the second Temple was in the time of Darius Hystaspis, not of Darius Nothus; 
Answ. p. 7, 8.  the force of which does not stand purely upon the time of Ezra's Birth, but of those who saw the first Temple in its Glory, and were living at the Building of the second Temple, 
Ezra 3.12. Hag. 2.3.  and lamented at the great Difference that was between them: and whosoever will answer that, must not only prove that Ezra was not the immediate Son of Seraia, according to the manner of shortening Genealogies, but must prove also, that none of those who saw the first Temple, were alive at the Building the second. But our Author does not meddle with that, nor at all concern himself with the reason for which it was used, and for which it was urged, not singly as a Proof by itself, but jointly with other Instances, and which the other Instances without this are a sufficient Proof of. But our Author is for picking out a single Instance from the rest, and disputing about it, though the Argument does not consist in it; and though it would be the same without it. But this we must expect from an Author who snatches one part of a Discourse from another, and neither considers nor will repeat the main Argument, upon the account of which it was used; for than it would plainly have appeared how trifling his Exceptions were: for suppose all that he desires were granted him, let Seraia be supposed not only to be the Grandfather, but the great Grandfather of Ezra, (which may as well be supposed, according to our Author's Interpretation,) what does this signify to my Argument, which does not purely depend upon Ezra's age, but is equally valid with and without it? But the Case is quite otherwise in the present Controversy; for if Josephus be mistaken in the time of Jaddus, our Author's Argument, and all that is built upon it, falls to the ground. But,  
4. Why did not our Author, who writes a Letter in Vindication of Josephus, 
Antiq. l. 11. c. 5.  take Josephus' account of this Matter? Now Josephus tells us, that Ezra went from Babylon in the time of Xerxes, the Son of Darius Hystaspis, and not in the Reign of Artaxerxes his Successor, and that in his Reign all those Facts of Ezra were done, which our Author mentions: But there was good reason for this; for,  
1. He must have assigned a far less age to Ezra than he hath done, by about 40 years, and then there would have been no great reason to solve the Difficulty by the Commonness of shortening Pedigrees. And,  
2. This would have shown how woefully Josephus had been out in his Chronology, even in our Author's own Computation; and than it would have looked very pleasantly for our Author to call his Book, A Letter in Vindication of Josephus, and yet in the same Book to have palpably contradicted it himself. But our Author likes Josephus' account very well, when it makes for him; but when it does not, he is as free to contradict him, as the Answerer himself: And therefore I think the Author hath mistaken his Title; for instead of Vindication, he might have said, A Letter in Contradiction to Jesephus; for he himself contradicts Josephus as much as I do, and the reason is the same in both; and I would fain see a Reason why Josephus' account is more valid as to the times of Jaddus, than it is as to the times of Ezra: For my part, I know no difference, except it be one, 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 only 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 only 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 forgetful 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 only 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. 'tis 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 'tis 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 Precedents 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 died, that is certain. But when did he die? The Objector tells us from Briet, that he died 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' 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 proved 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 body, 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 malicious, 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 Author 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 gratify him, I will tell him once again how I infer it. Nehemiah in his Book intimates Jaddus being High Priest, Nehemiah, according to Briet, died the last year of Artaxerxes, and his Book was written some time before he died; 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 only 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 Author 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 show, 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 signify super or supra, upon or over: But then those Senses are determined 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 Household; there also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, and it signifies pra●●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 show 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 do, and therefore he must put in his own word throughout, though he hath no manner of Authority for it, only it would signify nothing to his purpose, except he had done so: And therefore,  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and means as much as add, or usque ad, to or till; and so Vatablus would have it rendered 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, etc. 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, than 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 do it, to humour any Man's Expectation; except he did it by the Spirit of Prophecy, which our Author 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 'tis 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 than 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 only the Heads of the Levites, and those only 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 defy all the World to show 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 only 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 only the Heads of the Levites, and those only 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 died 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 only 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 only 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 only 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 only 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 public Station, that it is not to be understood of the Days, i. e. during the time of his public 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 public Administration, and not of his Life. But suppose it might mean otherwise; how comes the very same Expression to signify 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 only 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 satisfy 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 only 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, than 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 please, he hath given us a Reason why they should not be mentioned; but why they should be mentioned he hath given us no Reason. And now does not any Man see what great Reason our Author had to ask where the Difficulties are; and to tell us he can see none: 
P. 4.  And when he is so woefully bewildered and perplexed, that he contradicts the Scriptures, himself, and common Sense, to solve the Difficulties, to ask, Where are they? and I confess I do not see any Difficulty, is somewhat extraordinary.  
And this I think is abundantly sufficient to satisfy our Author, that his Reasons are not unanswerable: And if I had nothing else to do but to answer him, I should have taken leave of this Point, but that I find another Answer to this, and which I confess is not made up of Contradictions, like that of our Author's; and therefore being more desirous to prove my Assertion, than to answer our Author, I shall briefly consider it; and consider withal whether it be sufficient to clear this Story of Josephus from the Suspicion which I charge upon it. The Answer is that which the German Divines made to Scaliger, That these two Verses were not writ by Nehemiah, but inserted by a later hand. In answer to this I observe.  
1. Suppose this was an Insertion by a later Hand, it is plain, that the Insertor makes the High Priesthood of Jaddus, and the Reign of Darius the Persian contemporary; and then the Question returns, What Darius was this? Whether Darius' Nothus, or Codomanus? If Nothus, the Difficulty still remains, and Jaddus would have been very near that age at the time assigned for Alexander's coming to Jerusalem; and especially if we shall farther add, that Josephus reckons him dying about the same time that Alexander died, and which was some years after that time of his reputed advance to Jerusalem: If Codomanus, and according to our Author's Hebrew Criticism, the Heads of the Priests and Levites were recorded over or throughout his Reign, then 'tis unaccountable why they did not say, till the Days or Reign of Alexander, which was such a remarkable Epocha, and when their Government received such a remarkable Alteration. Aagain: If Codomanus, than I would fain see a good Reason why the Name of an High Priest, and the Heads of the Priests and Levites, recorded in his time, should at such a distance be inserted into an History that concerned matters acted and done almost an hundred Years before. And therefore,  
2. Although it be admitted that there have been such Insertions, yet they have an immediate reference to the Story into which they are inserted, either by way of Connexion, or Explication of the subject Matter, or by immediate Addition or Continuation: as the account of the Death of Moses is added to his Books by a later hand, and things of the like nature: But to insert into the middle of a Book an account of Persons who lived a whole Age after, I suppose is not to be found in Scripture, nor yet in any other Historian. However let that be as it will, that which I insist upon is,  
3. That this is purely arbitrary, and mere Conjecture, and has no plain Proof to support it; and for aught I know the only Ground of it was to answer the Difficulties of this Story in Josephus, and I would refer it to any unprejudiced Man, which is most reasonable; to reject that Story in Josephus, or to make new and unheard of Methods to interpret the Scriptures: And I wonder what reason can be given for putting Strains and Difficulties on the Scriptures, to reconcile Josephus. Is it impossible Josephus should be in the wrong? And if Men who are so very tender of the Credit of Josephus, would not allow him so to be, they might as well make the Account in him insitious, to reconcile him to Scripture, as the Scripture Account insitious, to reconcile it to Josephus. And therefore,  
4. This solves one Difficulty by another as great, or greater: When was this Insertion made? By whom? Upon what cocasion? And how does it appear? Is there any thing like it in the whole Scripture? And when they come to be compared, and cast into the Balance, Is there any greater Evidence or Presumption, that these are Insertions, than that Josephus is mistaken? These are material Questions in the present Case; and if they cannot be answered, (and I suppose they cannot,) but by bare Conjectures, the whole Reason of my Argument affects these Insertions, as well as the Story of Josephus; and that is, that it is doubtful and suspicious whether there are such Insertions or no; and consequently, that no regular Inference can be drawn from thence, in reference to Practice. And I would fain know, 
Answ. p. 11.  whether any Man can or dare establish a point of Practice from such arbitrary Conjectures; and my Conclusion stands firm, That Men who act upon Principles of Sincerity, would be very fearful of using such things that stand upon pure Conjecture in matters of Practice; for however Chronologers may dispute, and frame Arguments to reconcile their Hypotheses, yet when it comes to a point of Conscience, Men that have a care of their Souls will hardly venture to act upon mere Suppositions, and conjectural Presumptions: So that let this Answer go as far as it can, it will never extend to my main Conclusion, which is drawn from the Suspitiousness of that Story in Josephus; and the Answer that is given, is as suspicious as the Story itself. And thus much to the Answer of the German Divines: I now return to our Author.  
And here he starts an Objection, 
P. 8.  That if his Interpretation be true, Nehemiah must have lived to a very great Age; and he answers, No doubt he did so, and he proves it by these Steps: That he was Cup bearer to Artaxerxes, in the 20th of his Reign, when he may be supposed to have been 25 Years of Age; and after that he lived to see the High Priesthood pass from Father to Son for four Generations, and saw a fifth in View, (Jaddua.) And then adds, All this might very well be, if Nehemiah were born 470 Years before Christ, and writ in the Year 347 (it should be 374) before Christ. No doubt of it, all this might then very well be; and Nehemiah would then be, according to our Author, 104 years old. But what Authority hath our Author for this? Why truly, no bodies but his own; and he might, if he had found it for his turn, have brought down Nehemiah's Age to the time of Alexander, as some others have done, and then it had been but saying, All this might very well be, if Nehemiah writ in the Year 332 before Christ; and so the Matter is fairly proved. At this rate our Author may very easily answer Objections, and they must be strange Difficulties indeed that can stand before him. Let a Man but suppose the main thing in Controversy, and it is a hard case if by the help of that he cannot answer all Objections. The Question is concerning the Age of Nehemiah, and our Author proves it by supposing it, if he was born 470, and wrote 374 years before Christ, than all this might be; that is to say, if Nehemiah lived 104 years, than 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 even do 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' Account of this matter agree, whom notwithstanding he pretends to vindicate. Josephus' Account is, 
Antiq. l. 11. c. 5.  that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem the 25th of Xerxes, and plainly intimates, that he died 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  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 do 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 Errors and Mistakes concerning these times, 
Answ. p. 11.  are so many and gross, any man that acted upon Principles of Sincerity, would be very fearful 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 thankful; for though he does not like my way, yet he proves my point as well as I can desire, and his Premises will fit my Conclusion as well as my own: For our Author hath found a much greater Fault in Josephus' 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; than it plainly follows, that he that owns him so woefully 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 Governor of Judaea, as well as Jaddus; and 'tis probable that his Reign was recorded in their Chronicles, and public 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 Governor of his own Nation, and one also who was reigning not long from those very Times about which is the Controversy; 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 Country, should say, that Archbishop Cranmer lived and died in the Reign of Edward iv (and the reason is yet stronger with respect to a chief Governor,) whether any Man would depend upon what he delivered about those Times, which stood only 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 'tis 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 Controversy 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 fit 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, (only 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 only 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 entered 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 died 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 only 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 Governor; and adds farthermore, that is certain, but gives us no proof of it, only 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 Governor, 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 died some years before Nehemiah,) to be also chief of the Levites in the times of Nehemiah, who was Governor 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, etc. 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 wonderful 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 died 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 died: 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 proved his Point, he adds, Suppose he (Eliashib) died 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 only three, but three times three Popes have sat in the Chair in the space of 26, or 30 years. But as to his comparison, 'tis true according to present Custom they choose 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, 'tis 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 children's 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, than the age of Joiakim when he died, 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 afraid it would puzzle all the Arithmeticians in Christendom, to make any account of it, as our Author hath laid it: For suppose Joiakim died 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 than what is the meaning of his Son Eliashib being 62 when he died, 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 died, 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 died 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, than Joiada when he died 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 died 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 died 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 died must be 65, Eliashib 73, Joiada 83, Johanan 89, and Jaddus 83? And 'tis 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 die, or in short if each of them had not at that age the very Son that succeeded him, than still the whole account must be proportionably lengthened. And to conclude this in our Author's words, If any one of these things did not happen, than 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 suspicious Stories. Nor do I; but however that is the Case I dispute against. And if our Author could show 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 'tis 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 easy is it in Matters of difficult and abstruse History, to frame Schemes to ourselves 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 judgement in these Matters; but not to rest upon that only, 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 Country, 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 died 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 Author makes his Calculation from the times of the High Priesthood of the several High Priests, which is a very doubtful and uncertain Ground to proceed on, and, if possible, more suspicious 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, only 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' own, or Africanus', or any other's, this I have to say:  
(1.) That there is no substantial Ground for the Account itself; 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 Country 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 Country, but an African, 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 sacked, and by reasonable Presumption (our Author's Argument) all their public 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; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 died 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' 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.) Gore 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 itself. 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 show what an excellent Method our Author hath taken, to prove the truth of a fuspitious Story, by a Medium that is every way as suspicious as the Story itself. 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 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 itself. And therefore before he had gone any farther, he ought to have proved that Syncellus' 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 only pitched 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 Ptolemy '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 show 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 dies.  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 ●2 336 Darius Codomanus 4 y. 332 Alexander takes Tyre.   Jerusalem submits to him.  330 Darius dies.  323 Alexander dies, 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 Conqueror. But if it was allowed him, it will by no means serve his turn; for I defy 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, 'tis 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 do 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' 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 die 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' Mistake plainly arose from confounding the first year of Cyrus' 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, 'tis 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' Death, we must compute from 31; and this brings the Matter to the same Issue, and according to that Compute, Jaddus' High Priesthood must determine in the days of Ochus, and not in the time of Alexander: And accordingly Syncellus plainly asserts, 3. That Jeshua's High Priesthood did determine the 20th of Darius; and then according to that Calculation Jaddus his Priesthood must determine in the time of Ochus, and 20 years before the Death of Alexander, according to Ptolomy's Canon. And now let us compare these Accounts, and see whether it be possible for any man taking the Accounts of the High Priests from Chronicon Paschale and Syncellus, to make Jaddus living at the time of Alexander.  
The whole Account of the times of these High Priests, according to Chr. Pasch. is— 190 y.  
The whole time of the Persian Kings, supposing Cyrus but the 2d before his Death to the last of Codomanus, is 200, and to the Death of Alexander 8 more, in Ptolomy's Canon, is— 208 y.  
That is, that by comparing the account of the High Priests in Chronicon Paschale with the Persian Kings in Ptolomy's Canon, it plainly appears, that Jaddas died in the time of Ochus, and that his Son Onias, and not he, was High Priest at the time of Alexander; and according to the lowest Computation there is 18 years' difference between our Author when he compares them, and what is the true Computation according to that Chronicon.  
And then for Syncellus, from the beginning of Joiakim's High Priesthood (the 20th of Darius) to the last of Jaddus, is— 158 y.  
From the 20th of Darius to the last of Codomanus, in Ptolomy's Canon, is 170, and adding the 8 of Alexander, is— 178 y.  
And therefore by comparing the High Priests in Syncellus with the Persian Kings in Ptolomy's Canon, it plainly appears, that our Author's Computation is but a Mistake of 20 years, even as much as the whole time of Jaddus' High Priesthood. And it does as plainly appear that Jaddus' Priesthood determined in the Reign of Ochus, and not in the time of Alexander, and much less, as our Author assigns, about the time of his Death.  
And so our Author hath proved the Matter on my side, a great deal better than I could do, or had so much as attempted: Alas! I only argued that the Story was suspicious; but our Author gives us Evidence and Demonstration, that it is not true, nor can be; for if he will stand by his own Method, and compare the Account of the Times of these High Priests, as they are in Chron. Pasch. and Syncellus, with the account of the Persian Kings in Ptolomy's Canon. 'Tis as plain as the Sun, that Jaddus' High Priesthood ended some years before Alexander's Expedition into Persia, and therefore was not alive when Alexander besieged Tyre; and consequently Josephus' Story concerning Jaddus and Alexander cannot be true; which I confess is a better Proof for my Assertion, than any I have offered at. This therefore deserves Thanks and due Acknowledgement, and which by these Presents I return to our Author. And if he had been pleased to vindicate Dr. Sherlock as he hath vindicated Josephus, he would have obliged me for ever; for than I do not question but Dr. Sherlock would have been answered much better than I have done.  
Our Author now comes to consider the Ages of Sanballat and Manasses, and tells us, For the first of these he is spoken of by Josephus, 
p. 11.  with that Care which one would have thought might have prevented this Objection; and yet however it comes to pass, most Men that have well considered it have made this Objection, and never thought that the Care and Caution of Josephus' expressing it, would so easily take it off: And for any thing I know Dr. Isaac Vossius was the first who thought of the Answer our Author hath given to it, and our Author I suppose out of him: And it was absolutely necessary for him to find out some expedient for this; for otherwise his Chronology would have been one of the wildest things in the World; for he places Nehemiah's going up to Jerusalem as Josephus does, in the Reign of Xerxes; and than if Sanballat, that disturbed Nehemiah, had lived to Alexander's taking of Tyre, he must have been 185 years old; nay, according to his account, 220 years old; for he assigns to the Reign of Artaxernes Mnemon 62 years, and makes the Continuance of the Perfian Monarchy to be 253 years: And therefore to solve this Objection, which lay so obvious against him, he found out this Answer, and tells us as our Author does, That there were two Sanballats; one the Horonite, mentioned by Nehemiah; the other sent into Samaria by Codomanus. But he gives no Proof of this, but only the account of Josephus: But that signifies nothing in the present Controversy; for Josephus saying that Sanballat was sent by Darius, who was driven out by Alexander, if it appears that Sanballat was Perfect of Syria upon the coming of Nehemiah to Jerusalem, which is the Scripture account, and the Ground of the Objection, and can never be answered by Josephus' saying Sanballat was sent by Darius, who was beaten by Alexander; for the Question is, whether there were two; and Josephus mentioning only one, is not an Argument that there were two, but a reason that he hath misplaced that one that he mentions. The Scriptures mention but one Sanballat, and Josephus likewise telling the same Story with the Scriptures, mentions but one Sanballat, though he has placed his Sanballat many years after the Scripture account. The Station is the same, as Perfect of Syria, both in the Scripture, and in Josephus; and this I think a fair Reason, that the Sanballats in the Scripture, and in Josephus are but one, though the placing of them are different, and which is the Ground of the Objection. Our Author farther adds, (which Vossius never thought on,) and makes it the Ground of his Answer, the Difference between Horonaim and Chutha; and because the Scripture calls Sanballat the Horonite, and Josephus calls his Sanballat a Chuthaean; therefore our Author concludes they must not be the same Sanballat, because of their different Original and Extraction, and says, Who would have thought that this Chuthaean should have been mistaken for the Moabite of Horonaim, whom Nehemiah found in Palestine 100 years before; and then takes some pains to prove that Horonaim was in Moab, and that Nehemiah's Sanballat was a Moabite. And what does that signify? For besides that the Distinction of such additional Names and Characters is a very slender Proof of the Distinction of the Persons; for Men may have such additional Characters upon several accounts, and there are Instances enough of it in Scripture. However here are two things considerable.  
1. The Question is, whether there were in those respective Times two Sanballats, and to say that Josephus, who writes the same Story, and mentions but one, calls his a Chuthaean, and therefore he is not the same, is answering by the Question; for why may not Josephus be mistaken as well in the Pedigree, as he is in the times of Sanballat? But suppose he is not, and hath given his Extraction 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 Samaritans 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 Country. And Josephus himself plainly favours this, for all that he says is, that he was of the Race of the Chuthaeans, from which the Samaritans eme; 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 Samaritans Chuthaeans, might make him say the same of Sanballat, though he might come no more immediately from Chutha than the Samaritans 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 joined with other considerable Circumstances. There is not only an Identity of Name, but of several other material Things. The Sanballat in Scripture, and the Sanballat in Josephus was Perfect 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' 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 Platonic 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 withal 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 easy 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 Country, that each of these Sons should be obstinate, and persist in such unlawful Wedlock, and for which each of them was deprived of his Priesthood, and of all Honour in his own Country: 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 Platonic Year. And such a Conjunction of all Circumstances is likely to fall out, when the Platonic 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 Uncle, 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 show, 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 Liar, makes bold with the Scripture itself. 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, 'tis 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 citys out of Nehemiah, and he that is called one of the Sons of Joiada, might 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 Governor 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 'tis 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 Governor of Syria, but only of one.  
(3.) That this one is the Marriage of Manasses, the Brother of Jaddus, to the Daughter of Sanballat, Governor of Syria. And therefore,  
(4.) As to the Matter the Scripture account and Josephus' 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, only 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 only one, (and he must have good Eyes that can find any more in Josephus, than it is plain that Josephus is mistaken, and the Question is, whether the Scripture account is to regulate Josephus, or Josephus' 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 Samaritans, than that of the Building the Temple of Girizim. They remembered 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 chief remembered 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 Samaritans 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 Author 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 Samaritans, 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 chief remembered 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 Successor: So that for any thing I can see, the date of time well known, is no security against Error 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 Country, in which there was no need to be so exact; for his Countrymen and Friends would not be so ready to find fault: For our Author tells us, the Samaritans 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 Country, 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 afraid 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 Samaritans 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 Samaritans at Alexandria concerning their Worship, and which came to be debated before Ptolemy 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 signify much, there being no great need to be so very critical in that which was not the main point in Controversy, 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 Samaritans in the World; for who knows not that the Samaritans 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 signify nothing at all by our Author's way of arguing.  
3. Our Author 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' 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 Controversy 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 only 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 only 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 Grandson 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. Well, I perceive, though Josephus was somewhat unfortunate, in having so many people find fault with him, yet he is mighty happy in an Advocate, who will be sure to find out some obliqne reason or other, to lay all the blame upon them. But I wonder which way our Author will vindicate Josephus from himself; such Characters may serve well enough for Heathens, Jews, and the Answerer; and Malice, Enmity, and particular Quarrels, may be a reason sufficient against them. But what I pray is the Reason of the Vindicator's Contradicting of Josephus: Josephus as much breaks our Author's Measures as mine, and if he can reconcile his own Chronology with Josephus, I will give him the Cause. And let our Author try what a pure Answer this would be, in the differing Account he gives from Josephus, and I do not know any reason, but it may be as good an Answer for him, with respect to the points in which he differs from Josephus, as it is for me, with respect to those, in which I differ from him.  
Well! how liberal soever the Author was but just before to allow me the Jewish Chronologers, because he thinks them not worth much; yet for all that he will not allow me them neither: for it follows, But yet the Jewish Chronologers will not help the Objector in his Cause. They will not make Jaddus live to one hundred and twenty four years of age, and Sanballat to one hundred and forty five. Nor did I quote them for any such thing, but for something else as we shall see presently. In the mean time his Reason is, They are so far from that, that they scarce allow either of them any age, for they make the 
* Ganz, p. 57, 64.  whole time of the second Temple at Jerusalem till the sixth of Alexander the Great to be but thirty four years. And what if they do? does it follow therefore, that they will not allow Sanballat or Jaddus scarce any age? 
P. 64.  Ganz himself in answering an Objection out of Meor Enajim concerning this very matter, and to make good his Compute, supposes the High Priests to have Children at eighteen or twenty, and then supposes that upon the Return out of Babylon, Jeshua might be a hundred, at the same time Joakim eighty, Eliashib sixty, Joiadah forty, Johanan twenty, and Jadduah just born then; and then concludes, if Simeon Justus were Jaddua he must be thirty five, at the time of Alexander, if Simeon Justus was the eighth from Jeshua, (i. e.) the Grandson of Jaddus, than it is but supposing they had Children at eighteen, and then there would be time sufficient. Now this how wild soever it be, yet shows that they were not for allowing them scarce any age, when Ganz himself hath taken such mighty pains to make them some: and, as I take it, the assigning Jaddus expressly thirty five years at the time of Alexander, is not scarcely allowing him any age. And this by the way is in the very Page that our Author quotes, viz. pag. 64. Our Author adds, In that sixth year of Alexander, they say that he came up against Jerusalem, and that Jaddus (Ganz says Simeon Justus) the High Priest, and all the Elders of Israel came forth to him, and that they made a Covenant with Alexander (though Darius was then living.) And yet Ganz has not the least syllable of Darius being then living. But as it happens, the very Page before, and but five Lines before he speaks of Simeon Justus, 
Alexander— ascendit contra Darium, & expulit illum è terrâ suâ, atque interfectus est, Ganz, p. 58.  he plainly and in express Terms says, that he (Darius) was slain. And is not this a pure Vindicator of Authors, who deals thus with them? And, which is yet more pleasant, he insinuates the same Fault upon me, when 'tis only his own; 
Pag. 57  for these are his next Words: This Story (says he) fills up most of that very Page our Objector quotes in his Margin. Well, that is true; but there is this difference, that the High Priest there is called Simeon Justus, and our Author calls him Jaddus, but for that our Author says, he might have seen in the passage before, where Ganz tell us of Simeon the Just, that his name was Jadduah. And that is true too, that he says so; and this brings us to the point before us. Ganz makes the whole time of the Persian Monarchy very short, about sixty and odd years: and at the end of it makes Simeon Justus the Son of Jeshua High Priest, and calls him Jadduah, which is plainly false; for Simeon Justus was Son of Onias, and Grandson of Jaddus. And therefore against his short Computation, he raises an Objection out of other Jewish Chronologers, particularly out of the Author of Meor Enajim, 
Pag. 58, 59  who says that Simeon Justus was the Eighth from Jeshua, and proves it partly from Nehemiah 12. where it is said, And Jeshua begat Joiakim, and Joiakim begat Eliashib, and Eliashib Joiada, and Joiada Johanan, and Johanan Jaddua: and partly by Tradition; for it is received, that Jaddua begat Onias, and Onias, Simeon Justus: and which is certainly true. And the Consequence of this is, that the times of the Persian Monarchy were much longer than Ganz computes them; and which seems to be the main reason of the Objection as it is repeated by Ganz: (for I have not the Author) and which appears further by Ganz's Answer, page 63, 64. And this was the reason of my quoting the Jewish Chronologers, not for Ganz's Account, which is false and ridiculous, but for those other Jewish Chronologers which he mentions, and who plainly understood the Chronology of those Times much better than he did; the Account they give of the Succession of the High Priests is undoubtedly true, and what they prove by it, that the Persian Monarchy stood much longer than Ganz would have it, is certainly true likewise; but as far as appears by what Ganz citys, they thought Simeon Justus was High Priest at the end of that Monarchy as well as Ganz, only he calls him Jaddua, when Jaddua was his Grandfather, and is plainly proved so by them from the Succession of the High Priests.  
Upon the same account it was that I quoted Ganz for the Jewish Chronologers concerning the building of the Temple of Girizim, which our Author tells us, 
Pag. 51.  The Objector saith the Jewish Chronologers affirm to have been built long before Alexander 's time. He answers, his Ganz tells us, that some of their Writers have said so, but he disproves them, and affirms of a certainty, that it was built in Alexander 's time, and by his permission. Very well, than Some of them have said so, and that is as much as I affirmed; but Ganz himself says the contrary, And what if he does? The other say contrary to him, and any Man that considers what Ganz repeats out of them, will find (as I noted before) that what they say comes nearer to truth, and consequently that they are more considerable, and are much to be preferred to him. Ganz indeed gives a strange account of these matters, but the others do not; and how much soever our Author may laugh at them, it does not appear that they are so very trifling and inconsiderable. But let that be as it will, it plainly appears from hence, that this matter even among them is an intricate and perplexed thing, and the Jewish Chronologers cannot agree about it. And there are the same Debates and Disputes amongst them, as there are among others. And this is a pure Account to build a Matter of Practice on, which is the Subject of Contention among all sorts of Chronologers, and hath no manner either of certainty or perspicuity in it. Our Author adds, He (Ganz) doth indeed confound the two Sanballats, the Chuthaean, and the Horonite, and makes Manasses to be the Priest that was deposed in Nehemiah 's time: this might be excused in a Jew. This is a fine Compliment to all the Chronologers almost that have wrote concerning these times; for excepting Vossius and those that follow him, and our Author, as far as I know, all the rest, even the Primate himself (whose Judgement our Author attributes much to) make no such distinction either between Sanballat or Manasses. But it seems all that our Author has to say for them is, what they say might be excused in a Jew, (And what I pray was Josephus?) But it is inexcusable in them. Well, but our Author has a Reason: That reckons that act of Nehemiah but four years before the Reign of Alexander. A very pleasant Business, that is to say, our Author will excuse a Jew, (and I dare say any body else) for calling Nehemiah's Sanballat the same with Josephus', provided he will bring him down low enough to fit our Author's purpose. But what is this to our Author's Reason, The Difference between Chutha and Horonaim? for if the Reason why they are not the same be, because they were of divers Countries, that Reason is all one whether they were Contemporaries, or lived at an hundred years' distance from each other; and therefore I do not know the force of what follows: But it is not to be allowed one that reckons one hundred years between. And why not, I pray, at least as much as a Jew, and especially in this matter? for if the difference lie only that the one was a Heronite, and the other a Chuthaean, the Mistake is all one with respect to that, whether we reckon one, or one hundred years between: he adds, And takes upon him to correct Josephus by Christian Chronology. What does our Author mean by this? The Jewish Chronology he laughs at, and Christian Chronology is not for the purpose. And therefore Josephus, let him say what he please, is not to be corrected at all; and this, I suppose, would satisfy our Author in this point. But then by what Chronology does our Author correct Josephus? (for he corrects him too.) And if he please to tell us by what Chronology he does that; it will serve my turn well enough, and I will be contented with it. But why Christian Chronology? Is Chronology the worse for being Christian? 
Pag. 14.  I am afraid this same Christian Chronology hath some Enmity or other with Josephus, because he breaks all the measures of it. Or else our Author would have allowed at least as much excuse for it, as he does to a Jew. However, the Chronology that I use is the Scripture Account, and if Josephus cannot be reconciled to that, I think, with our Author's leave, that may correct Josephus, let our Author call it Christian Chronology, or what he please.  
But there is one thing more to be taken notice of, and that is, that our Author tells us, That this Story (meaning the Story of Jaddus and Alexander) fills up most of that very page (in Ganz) that our Objector quotes in the Margin. Now it is true, there is something of the High Priest's going out to Alexander. But then Josephus' Story and this do so much differ, that the Variety is one Argument more for the Suspicion of it: Josephus calls the High Priest Jaddus, Ganz, Simeon Justus; Josephus tells us, that upon his adoring the Name of God, and saluting the High Priest, the Kings of Syria and the rest were astonished, and scarcely thought him in his right mind, only Parmenio asked him, How he that was adored by all, should himself adore the High Priest of the Jews? To whom he answered, that he did not adore him, but God, whose High Priest he was. For, says he, I saw him in this same Habit when I was in Dio in Macedon, who exhorted me, deliberating how I might subdue Asia, to be of good Courage, and forthwith lead out my Army, for by his Conduct I should gain the Persian Empire. But Ganz tells us, his Captains and Servants admiring (at his Bowing to the High Priest) and indeed being displeased at it, he said to them, That an Angel, who that night in a Vision walked before him in his Army, was in Figure and Form like to that Man.— Josephus says the Jews asked several Prvileges and Immunities of Alexander, and he granted them. Ganz says he asked of Simeon Justus, that he would make his Image of Gold, and place it in the Temple between the Steps and the Altar; to which the High Priest replied, that it was forbid them by God, to make any Graven Image, but they would provide for him a better Commemoration (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) viz. that all the Sons that were born that year, should be called by his Name, Alexander. With which the King was well pleased.  
And now I suppose the great Difference of telling this Story is no great Credit to it. 
P. 245.  And it is very remarkable what Vorstius (the Editor of Ganz) says concerning this very Story. He tells us, that Josippus does not tell this Story of Alexander and Simeon the same way; for he says that Alexander meditating on the Destruction of Jerusalem, an Angel with a Sword appeared to him, threatening to kill him, etc. And then Vorstius adds, 
† Sed nihil veri subesse huic fabellae non pauca arguunt. Ne quid jam dicam, quod altum sit silentium de hac re, apud Josephum genuinum apud Arrianum, & Curtium, qui sane eximium hoc factum non praeteriissent, cum saepius minutiora sectentur. Diversa hujus historiae narratio vanitatem ejua ubique prodit.  But that there is nothing of Truth in this Fable, there are many things argue, that I say nothing of the profound silence of this matter, in the genuine Josephus, Arrian and Curtius, who certainly would never have passed by such a famous Instance, when they often take notice of things of far less moment. The differing Relation of this Story every way shows the Vanity of it. I must confess that I was much surpised, when I read of the profound silence of this Story in the genuine Josephus, etc. and so, I suppose, will any Man else that considers the Learning and Care of this Author. But that he did not say this inconsiderately, and out of Negligence or Forgetfulness, is plain; for in a few Lines after, and in the very next Paragraph, speaking of the Fact of Sanballat, and the building the Temple in Mount Girizim (and the place he refers to, is page 60, 61. concerning Sanballat building that Temple by the permission of Alexander, and making his Son-in-law Manasses his High Priest, he quotes the very Book and Chapter where these things are now in Josephus, and plainly says, Flavius (Josephus) has nothing of these things in the eighth Chapter of the eleventh Book of his Antiquities: 
Nihil de his Flavem in Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 8. Ibid. pag. 246.  which is the very Book and Chapter where all these things are now extant. I am not now at leisure to read over the whole Book, but I remember somewhere he complains of the Corruption of these Books of Josephus which are abroad. And if he had another Copy, or ancient Manuscript, in which this Story is not, it would vindicate Josephus much better than any thing our Author hath said. And if he had not, it will be very hard (considering the Man) to give any tolerable Account of these Passages. But let that be as it will, his Argument is the same, and the stronger if it be also related in another manner by the genuine Josephus; for if the Variety and Discrepancy in the Relation of a Story be an Argument of the Vanity of it, than the greater Variety still more confirms it. And Josephus relating it yet differently, strengthens the Inference, that therefore it is but a Fable, and hath no Truth in it. And here it may not be amiss to add a Remark of a very Learned Author of our own, which comes home to the purpose, 
2 vol. p. 100  it is Dr. Lightfoot, who speaking of this very Story, says, The Talmudists own the Story, but altar the Name, etc. And then adds, Let those endeavour to reconcile Josephus with the Talmudists, who believe any thing of the Story and thing itself.  
And therefore, as an Addition to this, I shall yet give a further remarkable Instance. And that is, that the Samaritans themselves lay claim to this very Story. It is to be found in Chronico Samaritano, brought over by Dr. Huntingdon, and by him given to the University Library in Oxford, and which is very ancient, and ends about the time of Mahomet. I give it according to the Translation of the Learned Doctor Barnard.  

* Anno ante Christum, 331. Mundi, 4094. Alexandro M. cum per Neapolin Samariae in Aegyptum contenderet, in genua decumbenti benedixit Hezekia pontificatus sui anno 15. qualem hominem halitu Sacerdotali per quietem nuper viderat Macedo de Bello Persico prospera ei omnia pollicentem. Hunc ergo antistitem & gentem Samaritanam donis magnis cumulavit Alexander item hoc Elogio, jam certe novi Deum vestrum Diis cunctis esse majorem. Item Hezekia hymnos sacros composuit, & Hosanna.  When Alexander the Great went through Neapolis of Samaria into Egypt, Hezekiah in the fifteenth year of his High Priesthood blessed him, kneeling upon his knees. The Macedonian having in his Sleep seen such a Man in Priestly Habit, promising him all prosperity in the Persian War. And therefore Alexander gave great Gifts to the High Priest, and to Samaria, and moreover with this Testimony, Now I know certainly, that your God is greater than all Gods, and also Hezekia composed sacred Hymns, and sung Hosanna.  
And it is yet further to be observed from this Chronicle, that there is an exact and particular Succession of their Schismatical High Priests, together with the years each of them held that Office, and this far higher than the Days of Alexander, and yet no such name as Manasses to be found amongst them. A particular Account of this Chronicon, together with the thing itself, I hope that profoundly Learned Man , from whose Excerpta I transcribe this, will one time bless the World with. In the mean time, it is not only very ancient, but seems to be the Work of several Ages, and a Succession of public Memoirs kept up by the Body of the Sichemites, like the many continued Chronicles of our Monasteries, and those of the Chinese. The last known Author is Abulphelacus, who brought it down no lower than the year 1492. And some things are so particular, as could hardly have been preserved otherwise than by Coaeval Observations. And there are several particulars of time so well connected, as that they could hardly have been the Inventions of later Ages. The Samaritans are frequently mentioned in the Roman Histories and Laws, as still in a Body in the very place of Sichem even till the Hegira. So that they had the same convenience of preserving their Memoirs as the Jews themselves, excepting what is mentioned in Scripture.  
Our Author having considered the Difficulties in Chronology, and which he tells us he hath proved to be none, (how well let the Reader judge) comes now to consider, the several Inconsistences in the Story itself, noted by Salian. To which our Author answers,  
That Jesuit was an Enemy to the very name of Josephus for Scaliger 's sake. Well! it must be confessed, that that is a good Answer indeed which will serve all Purposes, Nations, Times and Persons. The Heathens they hated the Jews, and the Jewish Chronologers hated Josephus, and Salian was an Enemy to his very Name, and who would matter what such malicicus Folks as they said? And if this be not enough to silence all Men that speak against Josephus, or question any thing that he says, it is a very hard Case. But our Author tells us, He will take the Inconsistencies as they lie.  
The first is, that Josephus saith, the Phoenicians and Chaldaeans, who followed Alexander, when he came against Jerusalem, thought to have plundered the City. Now, saith the Objector, how should he have Chaldaeans in his Army, when as yet he had not taken Babylon, nor came near to Chaldaea.  
He answers, He might have Chaldaeans of those whom he had taken at Issus, many of whom turned over to Alexander, and served him, as he told Darius in his Epistle. For the proof of this, our Author quotes in the Margin, Arrian de Exped. Alex. 2. Now indeed in that Letter Alexander tells him, that as many of his side who were saved at the Battle, and fled over to him, he took care of them, and they fought for him willingly. And what then? How many were these in all? And how many of them were Chaldaeans? Certainly not likely to be so many, and to make such a Figure in Alexander's Army, that their Desires of Booty and Plunder should be particularly taken notice of; and therefore this may still go for an Inconsistency. But our Author does not much trouble himself with this, but hath found an Inconsistency, that the malicious Salian himself never so much thought on, and I dare say, no body else. And it is this, I confess I know not why these Chaldaeans should be named together with the Phoenicians, as if these two Nations should be eager for the Spoils of Jerusalem above all the rest that were in Alexander 's Army, there must be some Reason for this Eagerness in these two Nations above others. And our Author assigns two, probably either their own especial Gain, or for some National Spite against the Jews. (Now I always expected that Spite and Malice must be one Reason.) And accordingly he tells, That for the Phoenicians the first of the Reasons is plain, because they had the chief Sea Ports, and the Trade of that part of the World: therefore Tyrus said of old, Aha! she is broken, I shall be replenished when she is laid waste. 
Ezek. 26.2.  And the same hope they might have now again. Yes by all means, when Tyre itself was laid waste, and desolate but just before. But (says he) not other Nation could be so intent upon the Spoils of Jerusalem but only for spite. And that was not to be imagined in 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. Well, this is something however, I am glad to hear, the Heathens have had, and still continue so much Kindness to the Jews. 
P. 2.  I hope hereafter their Hatred of the Jews will not pass for a Reason of Omission or Silence of any thing that concerns them. But why I pray could no other Nation be intent upon the Spoils of Jerusalem but only for Spite? Methinks, a little Covetousness, or a Thirst after Prey (a small Military Virtue) might have gone for a Reason, it is very pleasant to ascribe a Soldier's desire of Plunder to particular Spite. But for all that our Author tells us, Of all the Nations that were in Alexander 's Army, none in the World so likely as the Samaritans, and of them Josephus says there were eight thousand sent by Sanballat; and when Josephus speaks of these people in anger, he commonly calls them Chuthaei, which is so near a word to Chaldaei, that I cannot forbear offering this as an Emendation of the Text; for ΧΑΛΔΑΙΩΝ write ΧΟΥΘΑΙΩΝ. And then there is no Inconsistency, No truly, nor is there any Inconsistency whether we writ so or no; for covetous and hungry Soldiers to be eager after the Spoils of a City full of Riches and Plenty is a great Inconsistency indeed, and for to solve which, there is wonderful need to mend the Text. But our Author tells us he could not forbear to offer this as an Emendation, and for to bring that in, I suppose, he could not forbear making such an Inconsistency as was never heard of before. And it is a Question, whether he found out the Inconsistency for the sake of the Emendation, or mended the Text for the sake of the Inconsistency.  
The next thing (he says) might very well have been spared; 
P. 16.  for there is no Inconsistency in it, that the Jews, when they had found favour with Alexander, should ask the like favour for their Brethren that were in Babylon and Media. The Reason of this Inconsistency is, for that Alexander at that time had not conquered Babylon, nor Media, nor so much as been at them. Our Author answers: These Countries, though Alexander had not yet conquered, yet it could not be doubted they would be shortly in his Hands. I suppose because the Events of War are so absolutely certain, that 'tis easy for any Man to know them. And there is no Inconsistency at all for Men unconditionally to ask, and another unconditionally to promise, which is not in his power, and which depends upon a future Contingency. Darius was not in so despicable a Condition,, but had not only the greatest part of his Empire in his Hands, but an Army to back him, and which in number was superior to Alexander's. And neither Alexander himself, nor the Jews, nor any Man else (humanly speaking) could be certain of the Victory; and for People to ask, and a Prince to grant Liberties and Immunities to the Inhabitants of a Country, which is to be fought for, is indeed but such an Inconsistency as to divide the Spoils before the Battle is fought. Which, it seems, is nothing at all with our Author; for he adds, They are much to seek for faults, that can find them in such a clear Passage as this. And truly they are much to seek for Answers, that can find no better to reconcile them. However, our Author adds,  
But such another is that which next follows, 
P. 17.  that the Army was astonished to see Alexander to worship Jaddus. Well they might, though it was but a Civil Worship, etc. But our Author knowing the Force of the Objection did not lie in that, adds,  
But the fault is, that Josephus should put it into Parmenio 's mouth to ask Alexander, wherefore he should adore another, that was himself adored by all. It is adjudged by Salian and the Objector an Inconsistency, to say that Alexander was adored, or that he believed himself the Son of Jupiter before his coming into Egypt, etc. The Sum of the Answer is: That Adoration was paid to Eastern Princes that did not believe themselves the Sons of Jupiter, that this was not confined to Crowned Heads; for Josephus tells us of Haman the King's Favourite, 
Antiq. l. xi. 6.  that he had adoration paid him, that the Mother of Darius received Alexander with this Ceremony, only she mistook, 
Plut. in Alex.  and paid it to Ephestion. And it is not said, that he refused to be treated with that Ceremony. And the Conclusion is, That he did suffer himself to be adored, even before his going into Egypt: And therefore what Josephus tells us of Parmenio's saying these words, might be true, for aught we know, however he might have said them without any Inconsistency. In answer to this, I shall grant our Author, That Adoration was paid to the Eastern Princes, and in particular to the Kings of Persia. And I suppose our Author will grant, that it was not the Custom to pay Adoration to the Western Princes, nor in particular to the Kings of Macedon. And suppose that Darius' Mother, and the Persian Captives, treated Alexander with the same Ceremony they did the Persian Kings, what is that to all, or to Adoration in general, being paid to him. For it is plain, that Alexander had not then taken up the Persians Manners and Customs, and 'tis as plain, that the Macedonians and Grecians mortally hated not only those Customs, but this in particular. And when a long time after Alexander insisted on it, they could never be brought to pay it him. 
Arlan. l. 4. Curtius' l. 8.  And we have a memorable Instance of this recorded by Arrian and Curtius, when some time after the death of Darius, Alexander had a mind to be adored, according to the Custom of the Persian Kings, and the better to draw the Grecians to it, he laid a Design, and made an Entertainment for that purpose, to which among others, the Princes of Macedon and Greece were called. And as the Historian tells us, it was agreed between Alexander and the Sophisters, and the great Men of Persia and Media that were about Alexander, that whilst they were at their Cups, a Discourse of this Matter should purposely be set on foot, and accordingly Anaxarchus makes a set Speech about it; and those that were privy to the Secret, commended it; but the Macedonians, disproving it, held their peace, till at length calisthenes, with a grave and sharp Speech refutes it, which indeed nettled Alexander, but was very grateful to the Greeks. And when afterwards it came to action, and when Alexander had sent some to mind them of what was expected from them, the Persians every one in their order adored him; but for the Greeks, Leonatus mocked them, and none of the rest could be prevailed upon to perform it. And now it is not very likely, that such a Saying should come out of a Macedonian's Mouth, and Parmenio, who perfectly hated it, should tell Alexander, that he was adored by all. Besides (and upon which the Objection turns) it is evident enough, that Alexander never required it, till some years after the time of assigning this Story. And among all Historians it is reckoned as a great Instance of the Corruption of his Virtue, and which was most ungrateful to his Countrymen. And it is very consistent indeed, for an Officer to tell his Prince that he was adored by all, when he was not adored by the greatest part, perhaps by none at all of his whole Army, and which was very odious to them, and as far as appears, never so much as thought of by the Prince himself. And therefore although some of the Persians might treat him with the same Ceremony they did their own Kings; yet it is plain enough, that he did not receive it, at least not generally; for if he had there is all the reason in the world to believe, that it would have been as ungrateful to his Army, and bred him as much mischief as it did afterwards, nay rather more, in that he should so early assume the Persian Customs, and especially, which they abominated most of all, to be adored or saluted by prostration. And I will leave it to any Man who knows the Story, whether it be possible for him to believe it. And therefore notwithstanding what our Author hath said, here is a double Inconsistency. (1.) That it was said by Parmenio, who hated the thing. And (2.) That it was 〈◊〉 said at all.  
But besides these Inconsistencies, I shall crave our Author's leave to add three more, and which in my opinion, are more considerable than those noted by Salian.  
1. Josephus tells us, that upon seeing the High Priest in such Vestments, Alexander told Parmenio, that he did not adore the High Priest, but God: For, says he, I saw him before in this same Habit, when I was at Dio, who, when I was deliberating how to subdue Asia, exhorted me to be of good Courage, etc. for by his Conduct and Guidance, I should obtain the Persian Empire. Wherefore, so soon as I saw this Habit, and being mindful of the Vision, which moved me to this Expedition, I believe I did not lead my Army against Darius without God, and that I shall have the Victory according to my desire. And afterwards Josephus saith, that he went up into the Temple, and sacrificed to God, according to the Priest's Direction. And further, showing him the Book of Daniel, wherein it is prophesied, That one of Greece should vanquish the Persians, which he interpreted to be himself. He being overjoyed, dismissed the Multitude. This is the State of this Matter in Josephus. And now let us see whether Alexander's Practice be not as direct a Contradiction to this as is possible. Now the time Josephus fastens this Story, is after the Siege of Gaza; and it is plain, that soon after Alexander went by tedious and dangerous Marches over Sands and Deserts to the Oracle of Jupiter Hammon, 
Curtius' l. 4.  and there owned himself to be his Son, consulted the Oracle whether he should be Governor of the World, etc. Now put these together, at Jerusalem Alexander meets with a miraculous Accident, and which wonderfully affects him. And from thence (and if it were true, there was all the reason in the World for it) concludes, that the God of the Jews moved him to the Expedition, and that under his Conduct he should gain the Persian Empire, and this further confirmed by a Prophecy he found there, and yet immediately with a strange eagerness to hunt after other Gods, and to expose himself and his Army to find them, and so soon as he comes there to own himself a Son, and to put himself under their Conduct. This, I think, (all things considered) is as unaccountable as any thing in the whole Story. And that which yet further confirms it, is that upon his return from the Temple of Jupiter Hammon, 
Arrian l. 3.  when he came back to Samaria and Tyre, and there again sacrificed to Hercules, that he should not make one step to Jerusalem, and repeat his Sacrifice to that God whom he owned (and if the Story be true, it is impossible he should do otherwise) to be the Mover, and under whose Conduct he expected the Success of his Expedition. And I believe any Man, that fairly considers all Circumstances, will find it very difficult to give any equal Account of this, and especially considering the Temper of Alexander, who, whatever his Religion was, loved Empire and Victory well enough, as not to be ●●nting in any thing that he thought might conduce thereto. And those astonishing Circumstances at Jerusalem (if true) must have made a mighty Impression on his mind, and the Temple of Jerusalem would have been much more in his thoughts than either that of Jupiter in Egypt, or of Hercules at Tyre. And he that spent so many days through a sandy Desert to the Oracle of Hammon, would not have neglected Jerusalem upon his return, nor have omitted to sacrifice there, when he was diligent enough to do it to Hercules at Tyre, though he had sacrificed to him likewise when he was there before. And the truth is, the Account of this matter in the Samaritan Chronicle (before mentioned) is far more consistent than the Account in Josephus; 
Ann. Christ. 330. Mun. 4095.  for there it is said expressly among other things, that Alexander returning from Egypt through Samaria, worshipped God on Mount Girizim.  
2. Another Inconsistency is, That Josephus tells us, that the Temple on Mount Girizim was built by Sanballat, by leave obtained from Alexander. Now as Josephus says Sanballat revolted to Alexander, upon his beginning the Siege of Tyre, which was so grateful to him, 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 justify their Cause, and to animate their Followers. Alas! a Little Creeping Manuscript (though never so foolish) cannot escape the having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affixed to it. And I'll warrant you, Alexander having so fair and just an opportunity to magnify 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 itself, 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 though 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' Pastor, and many more. And what if such a Legendary Tale should pass traditionally in Josephus' time, and he take it up, and insert it in his History for a truth, though 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 mere 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 Romantic 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 Acknowledgement 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 Ptolemy Euergetes, upon the Conquest of Syria, that he did not sacrifice to the Egyptian Gods, but coming to Jerusalem he sacrificed to God according to the Custom of the Jews. But there is not one word of Alexander's sacrificing there, nor the least mention of those miraculous Circumstances which attended it, which notwithstanding is by many degrees a fairer instance to prove the Honour of his Nation, and the Reputation of his Religion, than the bare act of Ptolemy's sacrificing. Josephus wanted neither Skill nor Eloquence to amplify and improve every thing that was for his advantage: and 'tis plain enough to a Man but of an ordinary Talon, how suitable this was to his Design, and what great Advantages might have been made of it to prove his point. And I shall leave it with our Author, or any Man else, to give any other reason of his total omission and silence, of what was so exceedingly cogent and pertinent to his purpose, (and especially considering his mentioning of Alexander and his kindness, and the sacrificing of another Prince at Jerusalem, as instances of Honour done to his Nation) but that it was, that (though he inserted this Story in his History) yet he durst not insist upon it, when the Matter came to Argument and Dispute. There is a great Difference between bare Narratives and close Disputes: and though Josephus might take the Story, perhaps as he found it, yet when he came to debate the matter, he even let it shift for itself as well as it could, and never so much as alleged it, or vindicated it. But hath left that Honour to his Vindicator.  
I now proceed to our Author, who after having said, That his Answers to thelast Inconsistences of Salian , are so plain, that he cannot think how it came to pass, that I did not see them, (and yet I profess, as plain as they are, I cannot see them now, nor, I doubt, the Reader neither) but he gives a Reason, Except Josephus had offended him so much, that he was too greedy of Objections against him, that he did not regard what might be said in his Vindication. Now as to Offence, I must say, that neither Josephus, nor our Author have offended me; and as to his Vindication, I did not before regard what our Author would say, but it was because I did not know it; but, I hope, by this time, our Author will be satified, that I have regarded it.  
He adds, In this angry Humour, he runs on in the next Page, and there he calls in Calvisius to be his Second. Well! I thought such a Second as Calvisius in point of Chronology might have been pretty well; but it seems I am mistaken; for our Author tells us,  
He could not have found a fit man to take his part; for he had a quarrel of his own against Josephus for writing such things, as would not consist with his Chronology. Once again we have got this universal Answer, that stops all Gaps, and fits all purposes; I wonder which way I should find a Man for our Author's turn, I have named to him, Heathens, Jews, Jesuits and Christians, and yet none of them will go down with him: and I know not how to satisfy our Author, except I could bring a Man that in all points agreed with Josephus, and where is such an Author to be found; For my part I know of none such; and I am sure the Vindicator of Josephus is not such a one, who writes things as inconsistent with Josephus as Calvisius himself; and so for any thing I can see our Author's Exception lies against all Mankind, and against himself. And Salian, Calvisius, yea, and the Vindicator too, have a quarrel of their own against Josephus for writing such things as would not consist with their Chronology. And therefore with our Author's good leave, he is every way as fit for my turn as Calvisius himself. And if it would save our Author the trouble of making such hard Reflections on the  Writers, I am contented to venture my Argument that follows on our Author's Account, and difference from Josephus. And I am mistaken, if it does not as strongly conclude from what our Author himself says, as from what Calvisius says, or any other quarrelsome Chronologer of them all. And this will appear presently. In the mean time, with respect to Calvisius, our Author tells us, This was Scaliger 's Fault, who had cramped that part of Calvisius 's Chronology, by beginning Daniel 's seventy weeks in Darius Nothus ' s. And in consequence of that Nehemiah 's Artaxerxes must be Mnemon, not Longimanus, and the Darius he mentions not Nothus, but Codomanus. And if Nehemiah lived to Codomanus 's time, so might his Sanballat as well. And then why should not the High Priest be Manasses, the same that is mentioned in Josephus? And this both Scaliger and Calvisius are for; and the Objector, if he pleased, might have quoted them for these things. Right, and I did so; and a good part of what concerns the Case of Jaddus is spent in confuting it. And it is very pleasant for our Author to tell me, I might have quoted them. And what follows is of the same stamp. But then his Arithmetic would have been of no use, for Sanballat 's one hundred forty years would have been but eighty, 
Answ. p. 7.  Manasses might have been a young man, and Jaddus of middle Age. Right again, and therefore I particularly examined that Account, and I think plainly showed the mistake of it. But than what does our Author mean by telling me, I might, if I had pleased, have quoted them for these things, when I not only quoted them, but shown the mistake of these very things. But this is the fruit of disjointing a Discourse, and arguing against Scraps and Parcels, without considering either the entire Discourse, or the Coherence. Our Author skipping over two parts of the Discourse, finds that I had there quoted Calvisius, and presently concludes, I had not quoted him before, though I had but the foregoing Leaf (which perhaps our Author never looked on) not only particularly mentioned these very things, but fully examined them, and it takes up almost a third part of the whole. Well! But our Author tells us, Those two learned Men were so far from seeing any difficulty in the Story of Jaddus, as Josephus tells it, that they take it for unquestionable History. And so they do, and that is one reason why they are both so mistaken in their Chronology: for they place Nehemiah's going up to Jerusalem in the Reign of Mnemon and not Longimanus, and particularly object the Age of Sanballat to the contrary Opinion, and therefore if Nehemiah (which is our Author's account as well as mine) went up to Jerusalem in the Reign of Longimanus, Sanballat according to these two learned Men, at the time of Alexander's taking of Tyre, must have been above one hundred forty five years old, And our Author also if he pleased might have quoted them for these things. But then our Author asks, Why then does the Objector bring in Calvisius as if he were on his side in this Argument? But he answers it himself, He will say He doth not, here is no mention of Jaddus. Very well, but here are hard Censures on Josephus, which being brought in in this place though they do not belong to it, may serve as well as if they did: Tho Calvisius intended them for things wherein Josephus differed from him, yet the Reader may apply them to that Story wherein he agreed with him.  
Now here we have an instance of our Author's dexterity in turning off an Argument, which I presume he could not fairly answer. 
Answ. p. 11.  The place he refers to is a general Inference or Argument, I drawed from the whole. The sum of which is: That a Story clogged with such Difficulties cannot be drawn into Argument in reference to Practice; 
Calv. p. 148.  and to confirm this I quoted Calvisius, who gives us this account of Josephus, and his History of these Times. They that rest upon the Authority of Josephus stand upon a very slippery and weak foundation; and farther adds, When Josephus is so much out concerning these Times, who can safely give Credit to what he asserts. These are what our Author calls hard Censures. But the Question is, whether they be true or no; if not, why did not our Author disprove them? but instead of that he calls them hard, but neither answers, nor yet so much as mentions them, and yet my Argument is plainly drawn from them. But there was some reason for this, for whatsoever he had said upon this general Inference would have turned home upon him. And therefore it was far better to run over it with general Reflections, or to obscure it, than to come close to it, and fairly examine it. Our Author cannot deny but Josephus was out in the History of these Times, or if he did, his own account confutes him; and then from these Premises I would fain know why Calvisius' Conclusion does not follow, who can safely rely on what he asserts concerning these Times. that is to say, this Conclusion follows as naturally from our Author as from Calvisius, though he does not say so in so many words. And here I shall make good my word, and show that our Author fits my turn as well as Calvisius or any other Chronologer. For according to our Authors own account contradictory to Josephus's (as appears before) it is plain, Josephus' Authority is not to be relied on concerning the History of those Times; And this Story of Jaddus and Sanballat stands purely on the Authority of Josephus, and in a manner contrary to much better Authority. However, if that Authority in matters relating to those Times, be not sufficient to be relied on, than the Story of Jaddus standing upon that Authority is not to be relied on, nor to be drawn into Argument. And therefore 'tis mere Sophistry what our Author says with respect to Calvisius, (and which he may also say with respect to himself) That Calvisius intended them in things wherein Josephus differed from him, for the Conclusion is general; And if Josephus' Authority is not to be relied on in things wherein he differs from Calvisius and our Author: I would fain know why his Authority (which is the only Question) is to be relied on in things wherein he agrees with them. The Agreement or disagreement with our Author, or with Calvisius makes no difference in the Authority of Josephus. And therefore I conclude from our Author as well as from Calvisius that the Authority of Josephus in the History of those Times is not to be relied on, and before our Author can disprove it I doubt he must alter his Chronological Scheme; and if he does that, he will be as hard put to it to Vindicate Josephus on the other hand.  
And this is General, and the Inference reaches to what account other Chronologers give of those times, as well as Calvisius and our Author; for (as far as I know) excepting Vossius, there is not one single Chronologer, or Historian that agrees with Josephus in his account of those times. 
Pag. 14.  The Author told me before, that I brought all Chronologers on my side against Josephus. But that is his mistake; I brought them indeed against Josephus, which makes my Argument good against his Authority. But he tells me, I should have excepted all the best both Ancient and Modern, and particularly the excellent Primate; but by his favour I will neither except the Primate, nor any other since those times but Vossius, and I am sure the Primate differs from Josephus as much as Calvisius though not in the same instances, and I desire our Author among those many numerous and learned Authors, who have considered the Persian Monarchy and the affairs of the Jews contemporary therewith, to name one that agrees with Josephus if he can. Any mortal man that reads the whole account Josephus gives us of the Persian Monarchy (if he was not acquainted with other Histories) could not otherwise than believe, that from the time of releasing the Captivity to Alexander, there were but five Kings of Persia or six at the most, whereas in truth there were twelve or thirteen. I know Vossius, to take off the edge of this, says, 
Chronol. sacra. p. 150.  That Josephus prudently omitted those Kings of Persia with whom the Jews had no matter of concern, for that He wrote the History of the Jews, not of the Persians. Which is a strange Reason from so learned a man, as if the Jews had not concern always with their Principal and Supreme Governors, upon whom they did immediately depend, and by whose Authority all their affairs were managed; or as if the very names of their Supreme Governors were not sufficient matter for History; or further, as if, during the Reigns of so many several Kings for the space altogether of 130 years, there was nothing remarkable in Judea and fit for an Historian to take notice of. It is plain enough therefore, either that Josephus was very negligent in transmitting the History of those times, or that the Records and memory of them were lost, and he was left to mere Conjecture and Opinion. Either of which makes good the Conclusion, that his Authority with respect to those times is not sufficient to be relied on. And it is plain enough, that no man besides Vossius believes him, or relies upon his Authority, in his account of those times. And I wonder why Josephus' Authority is better in the Story of Jaddus, than in other matters relating to those times. Suppose a man pretending to write a History of England, and to give account of the Original, Antiquities, and affairs of the British Nation, and coming to consider the Norman Conquest, should leave out one third part of the Kings, and neither name them, nor anything at all done in their times, and yet write as if he gave the whole History. I wonder whether any man would take a single Story relating to those times, only upon his Credit, and especially if it was a Case of Conscience, and concerned Practice, which is plainly the Case.  
By this time I suppose our Author may be satisfied, that He was a little too hasty in charging me with Insinctrity, for not quoting what makes against me in my own Authors. For I did not quote these Authors for their opinion of this Story, but for the general judgement they give of Josephus and his History of those times, and which judgement of theirs is certainly true, and our Author cannot deny it, without denying also the foundation of his Vindication, which makes good my Inserence, what opinion soever they might have of that Story. And as our Author says (and which he intends for an answer) it will serve as well for that purpose; and though Calvisius intended them for things wherein Josephus differs from him, yet the Reader may apply them (and honestly too, for they are as applicable) to that Story wherein he agreed with him.  
But after all, what does our Author say to two other famous Chronologers, whom I had mentioned, who do not only give the same account of Josephus, but come home to the very Story, and plainly intimate their suspicion of it, to say no more. 
Answ. page 10.  And those are our Lydiat and Temporarius whose words I had at large recited, and because our Author will not take any notice of them, 
De Emend. Temp. page 65.  I must be forced to repeat them. Lydiat speaking of Sanballat, saith, either this was another from him who was Father-in-law to one of the Sons of Iciada, whom Nehemiah mentions, (and by the way Lydiat never thought of our Author's difference between the Horonite and Chulhaean) or else Josephus is equally false, and contrary to himself in determining the Age in which Sanballat lived, as he is in almost all the Chronology of the Persian Monarchy. 
Demonstr. Chronol. l. 3. p. 232.  And Johannes Temporarius is yet more full. And after having proved the Inconsistency by Chronology says— It is necessary that the Sanballat and Jaddus, in the History of Josephus, either they are divers from them whom Ezra mentions, or, which I rather suspect, they are the most vain Fictions of Josephus himself concerning Jaddus and Sanballat. Now here we have two very learned and considerable Authors, and both of them as great and skilful in Chronology as perhaps any Age hath had who not only deliver the same account of Josephus, but make the same Inference of the suspiciousness of this Story; The one with respect to Sanballat, and the other with respect both to Jaddus and Sanballat: and that which makes their Testimony yet more considerable is, (as I said) that they were not at all concerned in the present Controversy, and consequently could have no bias on their Judgements on that account. And what did our Author say to all this? Why truly not one single word, nor so much as vouchsafe them the least notice. I fancy our Author suspected his Answer would not hold out any longer, and hatred and malice, and particular quarrel had quite spent itself on the Heathens and Jews on Salian and Calvisius, and having not another ready, or perhaps not knowing how to fit that fine Character to Lydiat and Temporarius, He even let them alone, and has nothing to say to them, though if I mastake not their Censures are as hard on Josephus as Calvisius or any man else: and my quotations out of them come home to the very Case. He tells me, before, I called in Calvisius to be my Second, and that I could not have found a fit man to take my part; and yet there were two others almost in the same place, and neither of them inferior to Calvisius, who are much more fit for my purpose, and yet our Author (I suppose, because he could not prove any malice upon them) has not one word to say to them, though at the same time he charges me with Suspicion of Insincerity for omitting those words that make against me in my own Authors. But if it be an argument of Insincerity in me to omit words that make against me, I pray what is it to omit two entire quotations that make against him?  
Our Author now comes to the Convocation Book, 
Pag. 19  and gins, If our Author dealt candidly in this (i. e. the quotation out of Calvisius and the inference from it) He doth not so always. We have a great instance of the contrary in his shuffling and cutting with the Convocation Book. Well! To shuffle and cut which the Convocation Book, is not fairly done; nor yet is it very fair to charge a Man with doing so, and not be able to prove it. But in order to that our Author says, He, against whom he writes, had urged the Example of Jaddus, for something which the Objector doth not like, and to give the more Credit to it, he saith (as here he is quoted) that whether the Story be true or no, the Convocation seems to believe it, he gives very good reason to judge so, because they have inserted part of it into the Convocation-Book. Now all this business, which our Author puts into such a spruce Form, is nothing else but an Objection which I had raised, and which it was necessary for me to speak to considering the Subject matter of the Discourse; there is not one single word, nor intimation of all these fine Things, of urging the Example of Jaddus; and to give the greater Credit to it, because it is in the Convocation; and after that a good reason to judge so, but an Objection barely and nakedly proposed: so that if our Author had pleased he might have let all this Flourish alone: for I do not know any great need, of proposing an Objection in Mood and Figure; and making a long business of that, which may be dispatched in few words. The Objection in the Answer is thus: If it be said, That whether the Story be true, or no, the Convocation seems to believe it, 
Answ. pag. 11.  and have inserted part of it into the Convocation book. And it is not matter of Fact, but their sense we are enquiring into.— And to which I thus answer: I say so too, but I say likewise, that their sense is not to be extended beyond their words, nor are they to be made Parties to any more of the Story, than they have inserted in their Book.— And accordingly I show what they have inserted, and consequently to what part of it they can only be presumed to be Parties. And what does our Author say to this? Why truly he tells us, They have taken in all that the Objector hath thrown out, concerning Sanballat, Manasses and Jaddus, which is the pleasantest answer in the World, for it is the very Objection, and granted in my Answer; and this we get by flourishing Things over, and we must have the same thing in Reply to an Answer to an Objection, which is the Objection itself. Well! 
Convoc. Ch. 30. p. 63.  but they expressly quote Josephus for it as their Author. Right, and I wonder whom else they should quote for it. He adds,— Tho by making his Sanballat the same with Nehemiah 's, it appears that they follow Scaliger and Calvisius in their Chronology. Why then I doubt they take in what our Author hath thrown out: But how does our Author collect, that they followed the Chronology of Scaliger or Calvisius? I doubt our Author must strain a point of Chronology to prove it, for I believe the Chronology of Calvisius or Scaliger either were not extant at the sitting of the Convocation. But that is not the Question: Let them follow what Computation our Author thinks fit. It is all one in the present Case, The Question we are now upon is not Chronology, but their sense of matter of Fact. And therefore our Author adds, But for the Story they not only take is for an undoubted Truth, but they reason upon it, as to matter of Practice our Objector says well, that Men that have any care of their Souls will hardly venture to act upon one single Example, and that only vouched but by a single and suspicious Author. They may do well to consider this that go in untrodden ways, and yet damn all them that will not follow them. Now here are two things our Author is bound to prove, and which he may do at his leisure. 1. That those that differ from him go in untrodden ways: and 2. That they damn all them that do not follow them. And till he can do that, his Reflection turns upon him; But these are big words, and may serve for something or other when there is want of better argument. He adds, But it is upon the single Example of Jaddus having sworn to Darius, that the Convocation saith, that the Jewish High Priests were bound to the Kings of Persia by an Oath, when they were made High Priests. That is to say, they prove a matter of Fact by an Instance; and I wonder what way besides there is to prove it. They prove the High Priests of Judea took an Oath to the Kings of Persia when they were made High Priests, because Jaddus did so. A great matter indeed and much to our Author's purpose. 
Convoc. Can. 30. pag. 65.  He goes on, And they add this judgement upon it, That if any man affirm— that Jaddus the High Priest did amiss in binding his Allegiance to King Darius by an Oath, or that he had not sinned if he had refused (being thereunto required) so to have sworn— he doth greatly err. It is plain, says he, that they affirm this upon one single Example, and that also vouched but by a single Authority. A very fine Reason indeed, What does our Author make of the Convocation? as if they established a point of practical Religion, from a single Example, and by the Single Authority of Josephus. The Point of Practice here is the Taking (yea and keeping too) of an Oath to a Lawful Prince. And our Author would make us believe, that the Convocation build this upon the Single Example of Jaddus, and that vouched by the Single Authority of Josephus, which is a fine Compliment to Josephus, and makes him not only equal, but even Superior to the Scriptures themselves. Which however our Author may like, (who is so eager in vindicating Josephus, that he cares not what he says either against his Adversaries or for him.) Yet the Convocation never thought of any such thing. But do they not say, If any man affirm that Jaddus the High Priest did amiss in binding his Allegiance to Darius by Oath? Right, But do they prove whether this was amiss or no by Jaddus' Practice? And do they not say, or that he had not sinned, if he had refused so to have sworn. Right again, but do they prove whether he had, or had not, sinned by his own taking or refusing the Oath? which are pure Proofs and like our Author's unanswerable ones. And therefore our Author (who complains so much of Insincerity for omitting what makes against a man) hath himself left out the principal thing, and which would plainly have showed the sense of the Convocation. 
Convoc. pag. 64.  For thus they begin that very Canon our Author refers to. If any man therefore shall affirm, contrary to the grounds and Truths of the said Holy Scriptures, either that albeit the Kings of Persia— or that the Jews might lawfully have rebelled,— or that Jaddus the High Priest did amiss, etc. He doth greatly err. So that 'tis plain enough, the foundation of their Reasoning here is, the grounds and Truths of the Scriptures, and whoever affirms, That Jaddus did amiss in binding himself by Oath to Darius, or that he had not sinned if he had refused so to do, he doth greatly err; and the reason of that is, not because Jaddus did, or did not, so, much less because Josephus said it; but because it is contrary to the grounds and truths of the Holy Scriptures. So that with our Authors good leave, They do not argue from the Story to Practice, i. e. to establish a practical Point, but the contrary. And yet our Author talks of Shuffling and Cutting with the Convocation; and what I wonder does He call this?  
Our Author indeed might fairly from hence have argued to the sense of the Convocation, and from what he hath quoted it plainly appears to be their sense, That for the High Priest to take an Oath of Allegiance to his Lawful Prince was his duty, and according to the Scriptures. And this plainly and naturally follows, whether the Story itself be true or no. And accordingly my answer proceeds:— They mention, 
Answ. pag. 11.  and thereby approve Jaddus' answer to Alexander, that he had sworn Allegiance to Darius, and therefore could not violate his Oath so long as Darius lived; and from thence we may conclude that their sense is, That an Oath of Allegiance was binding to a Prince, so long as he lived, and had not given up his Right, though he was beaten in the Field, and fled before his Enemies.— Here our Author answers; 
Pag. 20.  He was ware how much their judgement would be preferred before his, where he differs from them: and therefore finding them against him in all he hath said of the suspitiousness of the Story. He is now for compounding the matter as far as this Story will make on his side. He is content they should believe it, provided they will give up that part of it, for which he hath rejected the whole, that is, he is content they should take Josephus for a good Author, only as far as his Authority makes for the Non swearers. An easy Reader may be persuaded to this, but not without show of proof. But where had our Author all this? There is not a word of it, nor any thing like it in my answer; My answer is before cited verbatim: and if any Reader (let him be easy or difficult) can find the least Intimation of any one of all these fine things, I will be contented to own that our Author gives my Sense, when he says the clean contrary. And what I wonder has the sense of the Convocation arising from a Story (true or false) which they have inserted in their Book, to do with his Compositions, Prouisoes, 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 Senses, 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 virtue 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 sense is, That an Oath of Allegiance was binding to a Prince so long as he lived, and had not given up his Right, though 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 solicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto: He doth greatly err. This I think is as fair a proof of their sense of this Matter as need to be, and consequently that the Doctrine before is their sense. But though our Author will not answer this, yet he doth not think so; and therefore tells us, The sense of the Convocation will best appear by their own words. And thus they go on with the Story.— Alexander by God's Providence having vanquished 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, released 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-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 settled 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 citys here out of the Convocation is not from the Chapter in which the answer of Jaddus is mentioned, and thereby approved, 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' answer to Alexander and approve of it; They likewise take notice of Darius' over throw by Alexander, and particularly at the end of Jaddus' 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 sense 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 'tis ridiculous to think otherwise, then 'tis 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 though 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 virtue of this Oath, he was not to take up Arms himself against Darius, nor to solicit 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 sense 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 solicit others; i.e. in the Circumstances mentioned 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. sherlock's 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' answer why he could not submit to Alexander, was notwithstanding the very thing, He did. He tells us the meaning was, having sworn to Darius, he could not make a voluntary Dedition of himself to Alexander; and yet, however it came to pass, this was the thing he did; He made a voluntary Dedition of himself to Alexander. For he delivered up himself, and the City, without either Siege, or Struck, or Summons: and if so soon as an Enemy comes before a Town, the Governor and Inhabitants open the Gates, and deliver up the Keys, and themselves, if this be not a voluntary Dedition, no man living knows what it is. And as to the voluntariness of it, it could not have been more voluntary if it had been done, when Alexander was before Tyre: there was indeed this difference, that Alexander demanded their Submission then; but here was not so much as that. If therefore Jaddus' Oath obliged him from a voluntary Dedition, than it obliged him from that Dedition, which is inconsistent with that very sense of his Oath; which the Doctor makes to be his own meaning. And I will appeal to any Man, whether if a Governor of a City or Castle, had only taken a solemn Oath, not to make a voluntary Dedition of himself, (and yet an Oath of Allegiance is much more than that; but supposing only such an Oath, whether in the Estimate of all Mankind, he would not be perjured if he should act in the same manner, as Jaddus here by the Dr. and our Author is represented to have done. And so the Dr. hath finely mended the matter, and to save the Example of Jaddus; and to suit it to his purpose he hath proved him, and represents him, as a plain violater of his Oath, and that formally (according to the Doctor's distinction) as acting against his own sense and judgement of the Oath he had taken: and so at last he hath made a fair Example of it, and much good may it do him.  
I now return to our Author, and to connect the Discourse (which the answer to the Dr. hath a little interrupted.) We may remember that in answer to what he cited out of the Convocation; I said, That it was taken out of another Chapter, and is of distinct Consideration from that in which they mention the answer of Jaddus, and the overthrow of Darius. And therefore,  
2. When they say in the next Chapter, as our Author citys them: Alexander by God's Providence having vanquished the Persians: the Jews amongst many other Nations became his Subjects. By being Vanquished, can never be interpreted to mean the same overthrow and discomfiture of Darius, which they mention in the former Chapter; for notwithstanding that, they still suppose Jaddus the Subject of Darius, and that he ought not to take up Arms against him, etc. But here in this Chapter, they suppose the Jews, Priests and People, Subjects to Alexander to all intents and purposes. Which plainly denotes a very great variation of Circumstances. And therefore by overthrow in the former Chapter, they mean, and so express it, when his Army was beaten, but he was escaped, and in that state, Allegiance was due to him, and the force of Jaddus' Oath remained. But by Vanquishing here, they mean a total and final subduing when Darius was killed, and the Persian Monarchy at an end; and this plainly appears from the Expressions themselves.  
1. They say, Alexander having vanquished the Persians, the Jews became his Subjects: whereas according to our Author's Notion, it should have been said, when Alexander had vanquished the Jews, they became his Subjects. It is plain enough therefore that they date the subjection of the Jews, not from any Victory, or Dedition of the Jewish Nation, but from the vanquishing of the Persians, which plainly respects the destruction of that Monarchy: and it is not only a great force and strain upon the word, but even contrary to common Sense; to say, the Persians were vanquished when the King was living, in the Possession of Persia itself, and a numerous and potent Army at his Heels. From whence 'tis plain enough, that the Convocation, expressing this, not by the submission of Jaddus and the People, but by the vanquishing of the Persians, nor yet dating Alexander's Government over them from any such submission and consent, but from the vanquishing aforesaid, have no manner of reference to such a Submission, (and which is one Evidence they never believed it) but refer to quite another state of Affairs than what they mention in the Chapter before, and consequently by vanquishing the Persians here, they do not mean the two Victories Alexander had over Darius before he received the answer of Jaddus, but the last fatal and concluding Battle, which put an end to Darius' life, and to the Persian Monarchy. And that they only meant this, is farther confirmed in that.  
2. They say, the Jews (among many other Nations) became his Subjects. This plainly refers to the end of that Monarchy, and the death of Darius. When indeed Alexander had many Nations subjects to him; but not so before, and especially at that time he is represented to come to Jerusalem. His Conquests were then but of a small extent to what they were afterwards. And put these together, the Convocation dates Alexander's Government over the Jews from his vanquishing the Persians, and adds withal, That they became his Subjects among many other Nations. I think no man can reasonably doubt but that they had an immediate Respect to the determining of the Persian Monarchy, and seem plainly to mean that Judea followed the Revolution of that Empire, and became subject to Alexander, as the rest of the Nations did upon the death of Darius.  
An this is a plain Answer to what follows in our Author; I had said, for the other part of the Story of Jaddus submitting to Alexander while Darius was living, the Convocation take no notice of it. He answers, 
P. 21.  They do not name Jaddus indeed: but what saith he to these words, that the Jews generally both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander? why truly I say nothing at all to them, for they do not concern the present Question. These words are in the Convocation, and if they thought that Jaddus was then living, they might mean him as well as any body else. But the Question is, Whether they thought Darius then living, and it does not appear any where that they thought so. Our Author answers, No! Doth it appear that they thought what they writ? Yes sure, but I must tell our Author, that will not be granted to every body, and I should go near to fancy that a Man that contradicts himself, twice in two or three lines does not think what he writes. For Proof of this he adds, Their Book saith, He by flight escaped, when his Army was discomfited. Right, but I have told him already they say it on another Occasion, and with respect to another state of Affairs: it is the subject of another Chapter, in which they plainly seem to approve Jaddus' answer, which is a direct contradiction to our Author. And they add in their Canon to it; and which also plainly refers to it, that by virtue of his Oath to Darius, it was not lawful for him to take up Arms against Darius, nor to solicit others, Jews or Aliens. This addition of Aliens is very remarkable, there is not the like again in the whole Convocation, and it seems plainly to refer to Alexander or his Army, who at that time were in actual Arms against Darius, or at least to the neighbouring Countries, who might be tempted to revolt from their King in his declining Condition, and take part with the Conqueror. However, this singular Expression means something. And when in this place only they add Aliens, it seems plainly to respect that juncture, and immediately to refer to the flight and discomfiture of Darius they had mentioned in the Chapter; and I shall refer it to any impartial Reader, whether he can make any other fair Construction of it. In the Chapter they approve Jaddus' resolute answer to Alexander, that he could not yield to his demands, (viz. to assist him in his Wars and become Tributary) because he had taken an Oath to Darius which he could not violate while Darius lived. And in the Canon they say, If any Man shall afffirm,— that Jaddus having so sworn, might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius, or have solicited others, whether Aliens or Jews thereunto, he does greatly err— which plainly and in all points concurs with Jaddus' answer; and is the very same thing in other words. He might not bear Arms himself, and therefore could not become the Subject of Alexander. He might not solicit Aliens, and therefore could not assist him in his Wars. And the placing of this deserves consideration; It is said, first Aliens, and then Jews, which intimates, as if that was chief in the Eye of the Convocation, and which plainly runs parallel with Jaddus' answer, and seems directly to refer to it, when he was required to assist Aliens against his own King, when he was escaped by flight, and his Army discomfited. So that this Part of the Canon is nothing else, but the jadgment of the Convocation concerning this Conduct of Jaddus, and they plainly determine that what he did, was but his duty, and what he ought to have done. From whence nothing is more plain than that it is the sense of the Convocation, that it is not lawful for a Man to become subject, or to assist another prevailing Prince, if his own King be living, though he be beaten in the Field, and fled before his Enemies. Our Author adds, And though they do not say Darius was living when Alexander came to Jerusalem, yet no learved Man can be ignorant, that he lived Two years after this.  
This Doctor Sherlock speaks a little more to, and therefore I shall consider it altogether. To what I said, That the sense of the Convocation is not to be extended beyond their words.— The Doctor says, 
Vindic. p. 19  This I grant: But to the other Part, nor are they to be made Parties to any more of the Story than they have inserted in their Book. He says, This I deny; and his Reason is, For if they believed any of the Story upon Josephus 's Authority, for the same reason they must believe all, and if they pass their judgement on a matter of Fact, such wise men ought to be presumed, to judge upon the whole matter of Fact, especially when different Circumstances will alter the nature of the Action. Now this is true enough, but nothing at all to the purpose; for the matter of Fact, that the Convocation pass their judgement on, they do consider the whole of it; and that is the answer of Jaddus to Alexander. But the submission of Jaddus to Alexander afterwards is another Story, and not one and the same: and I do not see any reason why, because they give their judgement on one matter of Fact, and aught therefore to be presumed to judge upon the whole of that matter of Fact, therefore they ought to be presumed to judge upon the whole of another matter of Fact, which they give no judgement, nor take any manner of notice of. If a Man quotes one Story out of an Historian, is he therefore presently bound to answer for all the Stories the same Historian tells, though they be in the same place, or refer to the same Person? and if he does not, must his Judgement and Wisdom be called in question? This is the Case here, the Convocation take one Story out of Josephus concerning Jadus, and must they therefore be accountable for every thing Josephus says of Jaddus in the same Chapter, though they take no notice of it? A Man would imagine the Inference was the clean contrary; and that because they take no notice of it, therefore they are not at all to be concerned in it, nor entitled to it; their very pretermission of it (when it lay so fair for them according to their Course and Method) one would think is a sufficient reason of their dislike of it. And it is somewhat hard that it must be fathered upon them, whether they will or no.  
Well! But the Doctor adds, According to our Author's Opinion it makes a great difference, in Jaddus 's submission to Alexander, whether Darius were living or dead. And can we think such wise men, as made up that Convocation, should not consider this? though, as he says, they take no notice of it: and if they did consider it, and took their Story from Josephus (and it seems by him, they could have it from no other Author, it is plain they must believe Darius to be living when Jaddus who was his Subject, and had sworn Allegiance to him, notwithstanding this submitted to Alexander, which shows what their Opinion was, That Subjects who had sworn Allegiance to their Prince might yet, when under Force, as Jaddus was become the Subjects of another prevailing Prince. Now all this Reasoning the Doctor confutes himself; For thus he Prefaces what he has to Reply to the Case of Jaddus. 
Vindic. P. 18.  This I must say, that if they part with this Story, they lose so glorious a Testimony (as they used to account it) to the indispensable Obligation of an Oath of Allegiance, while the King to whom we have sworn Allegiance lives, whether he be in possession, or out of it. Very well, than I suppose those Men did believe Darius' being living or dead, made a great difference with respect to Jaddus' submission, and yet it seems they did not consider this. And then it follows, that Men may take that Story from Josephus, and argue from it, and yet not presently be supposed to think Darius then living: and it is plain, no Man did think so, that made that Argument, and made use of that Testimony for that purpose: Well! but these I doubt are some Men, for the Doctor calls them— They, and so perhaps may not come within the Character of such wise Men. Well, but suppose the Doctor himself were one of those Men, than I hope it is not so utterly impossible, but a wise Man may take that Story, and yet not consider whether Darius was living. And to my knowledge the Dr. took this Story out of Josephus, and argued upon it, and yet for all that did not then think that Jaddus confuted it himself; and truly, for any thing I know, no one else besides himself than did so, though he is now pleased to say, They used to account it so glorious a Testimony. And therefore the Doctor hath the least reason of any Man to give this for an Answer; for if Jaddus himself hath confuted the Testimony, the Doctor himself hath confuted his Answer; for it is plain enough from his own Practice, that Men may take this Story from Josephus, and yet not believe that Darius was living, when the Jews became Subjects to Alexander, for he himself did so; And why might not the Convocation do so, as well as he? And there is yet more reason for the Convocation, for the present Controversy was not then on foot, nor the de facto Arguments in every Man's mouth, and in every Pamphlet; all which was the Case of the Doctor when he considered Josephus; and if in such Circumstances the Doctor could overlook all this, I hope the Convocation might do it, and yet be very wise Men too! And what wonder is it, if Men are not so very crititcal and punctual, in examining all the Circumstances of a Story, what if they took the Story just as they found it as the Doctor did, without considering what Josephus said before or after, or without considering what Arrian and Curtius had said, and comparing them with Josephus? This is matter of every days observation, and the wisest Men are often guilty of it. And suppose it was an oversight, must Men presently be entitled to the Doctrines that are consequential to those very things which they have overseen? We look into the Convocation, not for History, but for Doctrine: And it is a pleasant Business indeed, when we are enquiring into the sense of the Convocation, we must have it from Josephus, and not from the Convocation itself. The plain Question is, whether the Convocation did believe that Darius was living when the Jews (in their account) became Subjects to Alexander. Yes, saith the Doctor, because such wise men ought to be presumed to judge upon the whole matter of Fact. Yes, saith our Author, because no learned Man can be ignorant that he lived two years after this. That is to say, you must take the sense of the Convocation from the considerations and Collections that these Gentlemen think convenient, for them (whether they were concerned in them or no) and if you intent to know the sense of the Convocation, you must apply yourself to Josephus, Curtius and Arrian, and diligently compare them together, and then you cannot miss of it, which is a pure way of interpreting of Authors: Whereas I always thought that every Author was his own best Interpreter; and 'tis a strain of Interpretation and fit only to serve ends and purposes, when Men will not take an Author as they find him; but besides his own account will seek out for other matters, to square and measure his sense by: and 'tis plain enough, that these Gentlemen cannot make out their Point from the Convocation itself, otherwise they would never have sought out for foreign Helps and Assistances; which in short, is nothing else but to make a sense for themselves, but not to take it as they find it.  
But this is not all, for the Doctor hath once more confuted his own Reasonings here; for to my Answer, That this Story (as 'tis told by Josephus) is an exempt Case, for that Jaddus had a Revelation, and so does not come within the Compass of the ordinary and standing Rules the Dr. 
Vindic. p. 20.  answers. We are now disputing about the sense of the Convocation, and therefore must remember, that the Convocation does not assign this Reason, why Jaddus after his Oath to Darius, submitted to Alexander. Very good! And where then is the force of this Reason, if they pass their judgement on a matter of Fact, such wise Men ought to be presumed to judge upon the whole matter of Fact, especially when different Circumstances will alter the nature of the Action? I hope Revelation in this Case is a different Circumstance that will alter the nature of the Action. And if the Doctor will not admit that to be the sense of the Convocation, because they do not assign it as a Reason, than Josephus' account of their submission is not their sense, for neither do they assign that account of their becoming the Subjects of Alexander. But this matter we come now to debate; and here the Doctor's Answer, and that of our Author is the very same; our Author indeed says a little more to it, and therefore I shall follow his Method.  
My Answer is this, 
Answ. p. 12.  Grant the Story true, it is not to the purpose it is used for. Josephus tells us, God appeared to Jaddus in a Dream, and warned him to submit to Alexander, and to meet him in that solemn manner he did. So that this is a singular and exempt Case, and falls within the Circumstances of Jehu and Ahud.  
Our Author puts off his Answer to this, and falls first upon an Objection I had raised to it, 
Pag. 23.  and tells us, He is ware that there is a prejudice against this, namely, That Prophecy was then departed from the Jewish Church. He answers, 
Mal. 4.3.  This is certainly true, Malachi having given them warning, that the next Prophet that should come would be Elias. But the Objector shifts off this by telling us, That when there were no more Prophets, yet still there was an inferior degree of Prophecy, which lasted for a long time as the Bath Kol, and probably some other way, as by Dreams, etc.  
He adds, To make way for these: He tells us, it was always the Custom of the Jewish Church, in great Extremity, to have recourse to God, for some express Revelation what they should do. To this he answers, This is more than the Jews knew, or they did not think of it, at that time when Judas Maccabaeus being slain, there was a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a Prophet was not seen among them, 
1 Maccab. 9.27.  for than they took mere human Counsels, without looking for any express Revelation. But that is more than our Author knows; and the Text intimates no such thing. The Text saith indeed, the like affliction was not since the time that a Prophet was not seen among them. 
Antiq. l. ● 3. c. 1.  But that is but a Date of Time, and Josephus himself interprets it, so great a Calamity as was not since the Babylonish Captivity, and yet there were Prophets among them since that, though but few, and not of the same rank with those before. And it 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 Superior to that Condition they then were in, and which cannot well be assigned 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 supposed 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 inferior 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 mere 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 Egypt. And what mere human Counsels were these that they took? Why truly, after the kill 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 choose whom they pleased, to wait for Divine Direction; for the theocracy 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 proved, 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 mere human Counsels, i.e. contrary to Divine Laws, and which indeed would have needed a Divine Revelation to justify. 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 inferior degree of Prophecy in the Jewish Church, as the Bath Kol, and probably some other way, as by Dreams, etc. 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 inferior 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 applied 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 justify 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 expressly, 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, though 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, than it is wholly besides the purpose; for (adds our Author) says he (with his usual Civility:) If these Gentlemen will show us any express Revelation for what they do, as Jaddus had, than they say something, but till they can show that, this Example, if true, will do them no service. Our Author answers, He hath obliged me so much with this Compliment, that I cannot choose 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 Compliments are of very short continuance. For he immediately adds,: But I cannot grant him his Consequence, till I see how it follows from the Premises. 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 showed that we have the like occasion, before he had required us to show the like Revelation. But since he is so short in these things, I must be the longer in considering them more particularly.  
First, Take every thing as the Objector would have it, that Jaddus had a Revelation, that he should submit to Alexander, though Darius was living, and notwithstanding his Oath, by which Jaddus formerly thought he was bound to the contrary. If Jaddus was then in the right concerning the Obligagation of his Oath to Darius, the thing that he was now put upon, was the horrible Sin of Rebellion aggravated with perjury, and whatever else the Objector thinks fit to load his Brethren with, only this of Jaddus he tells us was an exempt and singular Case, for he was put upon it by Divine Revelation. Very well! and this answers all that black Charge our Author hath so formally drawn up, and is plainly employed and supposed in my Answer: and our Author admits it too; and what then, I wonder, made him make such a formal Harangue about nothing. I suppose because (as he says) I had been so short, therefore he would be the longer. Well! but though that might do well enough for Jaddus, yet it will not serve for the people: for he adds: But even in this Case there would have been something else necessary to engage the People to go along with him in this submission; 
Chap. 4.3.  for since now they are to look for no Prophet more, till the coming of Elias, as Malachi told them, but were left under a strict charge to remember the Law of Moses with the Statutes and Judgements. This Change of their Allegiance from Darius to Alexander, being, as the Objector will have it, Rebellion and Perjury, than which nothing can be more contrary to the Law of God, how could Jaddus hope to bring them to this, by telling them only that he had a Revelation from God He could not pretend to it, without making himself as great a Prophet as these were by whom these Precepts were given. And then he must prove it, by showing such signs as those former Prophets did. Otherwise the Jews were so far from being bound to believe him, that they were to look on him as a false Prophet, and as such to put him to death. We see how ready the Jews were to execute this upon our Saviour, as oft as he seemed to teach any thing contrary to their Law, though he did prove himself a Prophet by working of Miracles. But Josephus doth not tell us that Jaddus did any Miracle: (if he had we ought not to have believed him) and yet the Jewish Church at that time was so far from stoning Jaddus for pretending this Revelation, that they all joined with him, in submitting to Alexander, even while Darius was living. And therefore we may be sure, that this Revelation was not against their common and standing Rules; as our Objector will have it.  
In answer to this I have these things to say:  
1. Our Author's Argument is equally valid against all Prophets and Prophecy among the Jews since the promulgation of the Law of Moses, as against this inferior Degree of Prophecy now before us. He does not quote the Text, nor yet refer to it, I suppose, lest the Reader should consult it, and plainly perceive the inconsequence of his Argugument, it is (Deut. 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) the Sum of which is, If there arise a Prophet, or Dreamer of Dreams, and giveth a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, Let us go after other Gods, and serve them, thou shalt not hearken unto that Prophet, for the Lord your God proveth you— And that Prophet shall be put to death, etc. Now our Author tells us, that Jaddus could not pretend to a Revelation (contrary to the Law of God) i.e. (contrary to ordinary and standing Rules) without making himself as great a Prophet as those were by whom these Precepts were given, and of proving it by showing signs and miracles. Whereas 'tis plain enough the Text makes no difference in that, but expressly declares the contrary. And let men pretend themselves to be what Prophets they pleased, even as great as Moses, and work Signs and Wonders, and which accordingly should come to pass, yet if they taught them to serve other Gods, they were not to be believed but to be put to death. And what then? therefore they might not act against ordinary and standing Rules in particular Cases, when God hath declared his Will by Prophets, or by other Revelation. This is a pure Consequence; our Author's Argument equally respects Prophets and Miracles, as any other Revelation; and though its true, none of these were sufficient warrant to serve other Gods, yet 'tis plain enough they were to act against the ordinary Rules, as in the Case of the Israelites, spoiling the Egyptians, and in the Case of Joram and Jehu, had the People, of their own Heads, set up Jehu, and killed Joram, it had been Perjury and Rebellion, and our Author must own it; but when God had declared his Will by his Prophet, they ceased to be so, which notwithstanding without such a Revelation would still have retained their criminal Nature. And therefore,  
2. I would ask our Author one plain Question, whether Divine Revelation, which way soever it is manifested, be not a sufficient Warrant to act against standing and ordinary Rules? And it would be a pleasant thing if any Man should deny it. 'Tis true indeed, it being against these standing Rules, may (in fit Circumstances) be a reason to believe that 'tis Enthusiasm, Delusion, or Temptation, and no Divine Revelation; but when the Revelation is granted (as our Author grants it) to talk of Miracles, Stoning, and I cannot tell what, is mere wand'ring and fancy, and nothing at all to the purpose. And as Josephus tells the Story, 'tis plain enough that Jaddus himself, and the People were sufficiently satisfied of the Truth of the Revelation, and accordingly immediately complied with it, and upon confidence of it presently opened their Gates, and put themselves into the power of Alexander; whom they knew to be an enraged Enemy; which they never would have done, if they had not confided in the truth of the Revelation. So that the whole Question returns to this, Can the Jewish Church in those days have any Divine Revelation? Or was it against their constant and standing Rules that they should have any? This indeed our Author's Argument seems to drive at, when he tells us, they were to look for no Prophet more, but were loft under a strict charge to observe the Law of Moses, etc. But then this is an Argument not only against the Uses and Ends of this Revelation (which is the Controversy between us) but against any Revelation at all, (which our Author allows.) If indeed there was no Revelation, nor could be at that time according to their Law, when all Prophecy was closed up with Malachi, than our Author's Uses, and mine, and Josephus' are all alike. But if there was, then 'tis plain there was an inferior Degree of Prophecy continued to the Jewish Church after there were no more Prophets, and here my Dilemma turns upon him, either there was such a Divine Revelation, or there was not; if there was, than it was a sufficient Warrant for Practice against ordinary and standing Rules, and all our Author's Arguments here signify nothing. If there was not, than Josephus is mistaken in his Story, and as our Author says, If we deny this part of the Story, why may not the Objector deny all the rest? And so our Author hath his Wolf by the ears still, and he may either hold him, or let him go as he pleases. But  
3. Our Author makes a great difficulty of it, how the People should believe Jaddus, and says, How could Jaddus hope to bring them to this? and especially not pretending himself as great a Prophet as those by whom the Precepts were given, and not showing Signs or Miracles, or if Josephus had said he had, we ought not believe him. Now truly if there was any such thing, what Methods Jaddus had to make them believe it, or what Evidence he gave of the Revelation, Josephus is silent. But it seems (as he tells it) they did believe it, and upon that belief, ventured their Lives to the mercy of a Prince who had vowed Revenge on them. And I would fain see a Reason why they might not as well believe it to warrant their Practice, as to encourage their Hopes; for if it was a Divine Revelation, (and they believed it as such as 'tis plain they did) it would do one as well as the other. And I suppose their Consciences, under the Direction of a Divine Revelation, were in no more hazard, than their Lives.  
At last our Author tells us, 
Pag 26.  These words upon which all the Argument moves, were thrust in by the Objector, namely, the words to submit, and that we shall find nothing in Josephus of any Revelation that Jaddus had to submit, and to meet Alexander. There was no occasion for it, for thus far he had determined already, before the Prayer and Fasting upon which he had the Revelation. These are Josephus his Words, Alexander having taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem; the High Priest Jaddus, upon hearing of this was, in an agony of fear, being at his Wit's end to think how he should meet the Macedons, the King being angry at his Disobedience formerly. It seems he was resolved to have no more anger on that account, but to make his peace by an humble submission, and therefore he was in care how to meet the Macedons, saith Josephus, who thus goes on: Having therefore ordered the People to make Supplications, and himself with them offering Sacrifice to God, he besought him to protect the Nation, and to deliver them from the imminent Dangers. It is plain, that these were Prayers for a Deliverance, and not for a Revelation as the Objector is pleased to say. But was there not a Revelation after this? Yes it follows, That after the Sacrifice, when he was gone to Bed, in his sleep, God bade him be of good courage, and let them crown the City, and open their Gates. And for their Meeting, (which they had resolved before, but were in care how to do it, so as might move the King's favour and compassion) Let them go (says he) the rest in white Garments, but he with the Priests in those Vestments which the Law hath prescribed, and be confident they shall suffer no evil, for that God will provide for them. And then our Author adds, Here is every word of the Revelation.  
In answer to this I have these things to observe:  
1. That our Author tells me, I thrust in the words upon which all my Argument moves, namely to submit, of which there was nothing in the Revelation mentioned by Josephus, and yet, however it comes to pass, our Author has thrust them in himself; for he tells us Jaddus was resolved to make his peace by an humble Submission. And how does he prove this? why Jaddus being in an agony, and at his wits end how to meet Alexander, and as for their Meeting that they had resolved before. But where is Submission all this while? Why 'tis included in the Meeting; and Jaddus was resolved to submit to, because he was resolved to meet, Alexander. And is not this a very pleasant Business? if they resolve to meet him themselves, than it means Submission; but if God commands them to meet him, then to submit is thrust in by the Objector. But  
2. How does our Author prove that Jaddus resolved to submit to Alexander before the Revelation? Why he offers at it by what Josephus says, relating to Matters before the Revelation; and by what he says, as he reports the Revelation itself: but neither of them are to his purpose.  
1. What Josephus says before the Revelation, that is, when Jaddus heard of Alexander's hastening to Jerusalem, he was in an agony, and at his wits end how he should meet the Macedons, the King being angry at his Disobedience formerly. From whence our Author concludes, that he was resolved to have no more anger on that account, but to make his peace by an humble Submission. Or, as Doctor Sherlock renders it, 
Vindic. p. 20.  to atone for his former contumacy by an early submission. But how does this follow from the words of Josephus? For as the Learned Author, , hath very well observed, the word here used by Josephus (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) may be taken in a hostile signification; and the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) may be rendered not how he should submit, but how he should fight with the Macedons. And so it is used in S. Luke (ch. 14. v. 31.) whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that cometh against him with twenty thousand. And this is yet farther confirmed, 
Antiq. l. 11. c. 8.  for that Josephus himself uses it in the same sense in this very Chapter, when he tells us that Darius hearing that Alexander had passed the Hellespont, and at Granic. had conquered his Lieutenants, having gathered an Army of Foot and Horse (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) determined to meet the Macedons before they had subdued all Asia. Now, I suppose, no Man thinks that when Darius determined (as in our Author's phrase was resolved) to meet Alexander, it was with intentions of Submission, and to yield up his Crown to him, or in Dr. Sherlock's Language, to atone for his former contumacy, in having resisted his entrance upon his Kingdom, but in plain English to fight with him. Now I would fain know why the same word in the same Author, and in the same Chapter is not also to be understood in the same sense? And that which yet farther confirms this, is  
1. That Josephus plainly altars the Expression, when he mentions their meeting of Alexander by the Command of God in the Revelation, and it is not there that God commanded him (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and afterwards upon Jaddus' actual Meeting, he expresses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is both a differing Expression, and a differing Sense, 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) Atonement and Supplication, it should have been, how he should meet Alexander or the King, for, I hope, Jaddus did not intent 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 accordingly (as Josephus tells it) they took a proper course, and applied 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, etc. 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 atone 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 Governor 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, though he lost his life in the Attempt, was not more faithful to his Master, and performed 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 not 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 Governor, 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, 'tis 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 atone for his former Contumacy, i. e. the Contumacy of his former Answer. Now to atone 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 than 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 Governor, 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 hardhearted indeed, if they will not vouchsafe to send for a Surrender. And yet at this fine rate do these Gentlemen treat Jaddus, and to magnify 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 resolved 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 bade him be of good courage, and let them crown the City, and open their Gates. And for their Meeting (which (says our Author) they had resolved 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 prescribed, etc. Now here we have a pure strain of Interpretation, and plainly shows, how our Author 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 resolved 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 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 resolved to do it before; whereas both for their meeting, and the placing of it (which plainly altars the Sense) is purely his own; all that Josephus says, is, that God bade 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 prescribed, (or legal Vestments) to meet him. And where, now I wonder, is this; And for their Meeting, which our Author gins the matter with, though Josephus placed it last, and from whence he would fain conclude, that this Meeting was resolved on before; whereas 'tis plain enough, by the placing of these Words in Josephus, and by the connecting the Sentence by Conjunctives, that the same Command that bade him be of good courage, bade 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 controversy is plainly, if not industriously perverted. Is there no difference with our Author 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 Author's purpose, he hath an Art to make him; 'tis 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 contained 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 authorising and appointing his and the People's 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 itself; 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 , 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 answered 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 itself 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 aught 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 signify 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 proved 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 though 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 minced it and divided it, and not only so, but have left out a great part of it, when notwithstanding 'tis all of a piece, and the strength of it appears when 'tis 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 entire, and yet talks as magisterially and dogmatically as if he had answered every word. And besides what hath been observed 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 itself is doubtful. The practice of the Highpriest in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church, will not signify 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 than it must needs signify 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 appeared 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 aught 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 than he must either have answered it all, or at least have mentioned 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 confirmed by an Instance, The Practice of the Highpriest 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, etc. And if this had been mentioned 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 Highpriest? To prove his Point, he might, if he had pleased, have produced the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf. But to show 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, 'tis 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' 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 informed him about that matter. Well, but our Author says, All ancient Writers speak of these times, as the best that ever were under the second Temple. Now methinks our Author should have obliged his Readers with one of these ancient Writers at least: But no such matter, if you will have them, you must look them yourself, for he has not named one, no not so much as referred to one in the Margin, and yet to tell us all ancient Writers speak 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 ancient 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 imposed upon, if he has not so much as one single Writer ready at hand to justify 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 believed it. Well, but our Author proves it, The Church was much reformed 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 reformed by these Excellent Men, was the best that ever was under the second Temple, and not the Age that followed; 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 Persuasion 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 of the great Synagogue, there was also Bensira, as they tell us, a shining Light to the Israelites, and one that much advanced the Honour of our God. But where had our Author all this? Why truly out of those very Jewish Chronologers our Author mentions with so much scorn before, and tells me these things might be excused in a Jew, 
p. 14, 15.  and evenpoor David Ganz is quoted also for it in the Margin. Well, I perceive these same Jewish Chronologers, if they writ against Josephus, they are a Company of base and envious Fellows; but if our Author can pick any thing out of them for his turn, they may pass so far for good and substantial Historians. But after all, our Author has made the most woeful Construction out of them that ever was made out of any Author: 
Tempus Benfirae ignoramus sed juxta verba autoris Meor enajim cap. 22. fuit Bensira diebus Simeovis justi. Mentionem facit hic Bensira sub finem libri, à me visi, Simeonis Justi, & narrat cum ejus laude quod fuerit Israelitis tanquam Lux splendens, & quod tenebras ab illis dispule rit, & auxerit honorem Dei nostri, p. 66.  He says, They tell us that Bensira was a shining Light to the Israelites, and one that much advanced the Honour of our God; whereas they say not one such word of Bensira, but of Simon Justus, and conclude that Bensira lived in the days of Simeon; because at the end of his Books, he speaks to the commendation of him, that he was a shining Light to the Israelites, dispersed their Darkness, and increased the Honour of our God. (The whole is in the Margin.)  
And our Author interprets all this, as said of Bensira himself. And to make this yet more pleasant, 
Eccl. 50.  our Author adds, After them was Omas the High Priest, and his Son Simon, whose Praise swells a Chapter in Ecclesiasticus. After whom, I pray? Why, after Jaddus and Bensira. Now this Bensira was the Author of Eeclesiasticus, and after him came Omas, and after Onias his Son Simon; and so about two High-Priests after himself, Bensira wrote a whole Chapter in praise of Simon, I find it is nothing with our Author, for a Man to write a whole Chapter in Commendation of another, about 50 Years after he himself hath been dead: I hope, all things considered, no Man will hereafter question our Auther's Skill in Chronology.  
Well, how unluckily soever our Author proves his Point, yet it may be there may be some Argument in it, if times and things could agree, and therefore, for Argument sake, I do not much care if I grant him (in the present Dispute) that Jaddus and Bensira, and Onias, and his Son Simon, were Contemporaries, and flourished in the Jewish Church at the same time, which is as much as he can desire, and more than he can prove: I will give him, likewise, that each of them swelled a whole Chapter in Ecclesiasticus in their Praise, as well as one of them; and what then? Therefore the state of the Jewish Church was not corrupt in their times; this is the Question before us, and it is a pure Proof indeed, for the Virtue of a whole Age, to number three or four Excellent Men that then lived. I could tell him of an Age where there was Seven Excellent Men, and of higher stations than Bensira, which, notwithstanding, will be no proof, but that that Age was very corrupt, both in their Principles and Practices.  
But though I am willing to grant this, for Argument sake, it is, I confess, more than our Author asks, or pretends to prove, and all that he says, is, that Nehemiah, Ezra, and Malachi, reform the Church the Age before, and Jaddus then lived, and Bensira no body knows when, and the Age after that Onias, and the Age after him Simon, who was a very good Man, according to Ecclesiasticus: So that, after all, our Author can find not one in the times of the present Controversy, but even Jaddus himself, and about whom is the Controversy. And yet after such Proofs as these, he falls on me without Mercy. His branding of those excellent Men and the Church of God in those times, may teach us to bear the Characters he gives us more patiently: Patiently does he call it? It is a pure Instance of Patience, indeed, to tell me I brand Excellent Men, whom I neither named nor thought on, and to make proof of it, to run a whole Age backward and forward to find out Men to make me lay an Imputation on, and yet, forsooth, he bears it patiently. And just such another Instance of the Virtue of Patience in what follows, so when he saith their Practice will signify no more to us in this than in their other Immoralities, well this I said, and I thought the thing was plain enough, and if not, why does not our Author disprove it? Why, perhaps his Patience will not suffer him to do that. But however he tells us, The meaning is, there must be other Immoralities in them that differ from him in his Point, so here we have a Test to try who are, and who are not honest Men. An excellent Consequence indeed, because the practice in a corrupt state of a Church, is no more a Precedent than their other Immoralities, therefore those that differ from me are guilty of other Immoralities. Now, when our Author's hand was in, I wonder he did not charge this matter home, and tell me, because, I say, that if this Story be true, Sanballat must have been 145 Years old, therefore every one that differeth from me in this Point, is at least of the Age of 150, or because I say, that as Josephus tells the Story, Jaddus acted by Divine Revelation; therefore those that differ from me, they are all of them Prophets. And this would have undone me for ever, and I could never have been able to prove it. And when Men are for making Consequences, they had even as good make them to some purpose: And our Author, if he please, may say that I make all them that differ from me, alexander's, or High-Priests, or Jews, or Samaritans, for I mention all these words, as that I say they must be guilty of other Immoralities. But this is an invidious Inference, and our Author draws it in by the head and shoulders, without Connection or Consequence, I suppose, by virtue of his Bearing, what I say patiently. Well, I perceive our Author's Patience is as unanswerable as his Arguments.  
At last our Author takes some pains to vindicate Jaddus from Immorality, 
p. 30.  and says, He dare be bold to say, he was never taxed with it, and that being a Man of that high place in the Church, and of so clear a Repute ever since in all Ages. Our Author speaks as if he was extraordinary well acquainted with all the History of Jaddus' Life; whereas, all that we have of him is from Josephus, and that is so little, that for any thing is said there, he might, or he might not be a Man of Virtue. But it is plain enough, that in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church, the Practices of the High-Priests were not so exact and regular; Eliashib built a Chamber in the Temple for an Ammonite, and Johanan (as Josephus tells us) murdered his Brother in the Temple, 
Antiq. l. 11. c. 7.  of which Josephus saith, That it was a very great Wickedness, and especially in a Priest, and such a one as there was not the like to be found among the Greeks or Barbarians: And these, I suppose are no extraordinary Instances to recommend the Example of the High-Priests in those times. And here my Reason comes home, it is plain enough that the High-Priests of those times were guilty of very great Immoralities, what News soever it may be to our Author. And therefore their Example not to be depended on. Our Author speaks of Jaddus' high station in the Church, as if his station was higher than his great Grandfather Eliashib, or than his Father Johanan. And therefore our Author's following Question is much to the purpose, What should make the Objector and his Party make so light of such an eminent and venerable Example? For if our Author means eminent for the station of the Person, and venerable for the Antiquity; as far as the Example of the Highpriest, in these times, will reach, Eliashib's polluting the Temple with a Stranger, and Johanan's kill his Brother, is every jot as eminent, and a little more venerable than the Example of Jaddus.  
As to what our Author says of Jaddus' clear Repute in all Ages, I must needs confess there is an honourable mention of him in some good Authors. But then, I say, it is for that Resolute and Loyal Answer Josephus says, he sent to Alexander, that he had taken an Oath to Darius, and could not violate it so long as Darius lived. But our Author and the Dr. have rob him of that Honour and have made it just nothing at all, nay, have made him renounce and retract it, as our Author saith he corrected, Doctor Sherlock confuted himself what he said formerly: and so his Answer to Alexander, is just as much to his Reputation as those Principles of the Doctors in the Case of Resistance are to him, which he also confutes himself. Indeed, as Josephus tells the Story, That what he did afterwards was by Divine Revelation; His Honour and Virtue remain entire: and therefore if our Author please, let his Example be Eminent and Venerable so far as it is an Example, i. e. in ordinary and standing Cases, as his answer to Alexander was; but what he did by Revelation is no Example at all, nor signifies any thing to any Man's Practice but in the like Circumstances; I expect our Author will say here as he does before, 
Pag. 20.  As far as the Story will make on his side, he is content they should believe it. But that is but trifling, except he disprove what I say here, That Jaddus' being mentioned with Honour, is with respect to that answer he returned to Alexander. And our Author who insists so much upon his Clear repute in all Ages, to make that Repute signify any thing to his purpose, is bound to do one or both of these things. 1. To show any Author that mentions Jaddus honourably, and with a Character of Virtue, who has not an immediate reference to this answer to Alexander, i. e. they reckon him virtuous and honourable upon that account. Or 2. That any Author mentions him with the same additional Characters, with respect to his violating his Oath, or acting in contradiction to his former Answer. And if our Author can do neither of these, (and which I must take for granted till I can see him prove the contrary; and the first of these I will engage to make good upon his Request,) than it is plain, that the Clear Repute of Jaddus in all Ages is not for our Author's purpose, but the contrary; and it depends upon that Answer Josephus saith he gave to Alexander, and which Repute, our Author hath done all that he can, to take from him. And to say no more, Josephus himself tells us, that Answer was of so much Reputation, as to recommend the Jewish Nation to the favour of Ptolomaeus Lagi, and upon confidence of it, 
Antiq. l. 12. c. 1.  to commit to their Trust his Castles and Forts, as being Men faithful, and pertinacious adherers to their Oaths: and how purely this agrees with the account our Author hath given of it, let the World judge.  
I now come to examine what he says further upon the general Inference I had made. And he adds, He tells us, Jaddus becoming a Subject ject 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 Laws of God. Our Author answers; This is home to the purpose, and being said at the first, might have saved him, and me all this trouble. Now, our Author is certainly the pleasantest Man alive, 
Pag. 28.  for but the Leaf before he tells me of this very Inference, That he thinks it was put out of its place, and aught to come in here for a Reserve, in case it appeared that the Story of Jaddus was not only true but to our purpose, than it had been time for him to tell us, that all this is nothing to him and his Party: and yet in the next Page but one, if it had been said at first, it had saved us both some trouble. Now, how is it possible for me to please such an Answerer, I put it in the middle, and then it was out of its place, and aught to come in for a Reserve. Our Author himself hath put it in for a Reserve, and hath placed it last, and then it might have been said at first, and have saved him trouble. But if our Author had been so sparing of his trouble, why did not he put it first? He confesses he hath taken it out of its place; and by the same Reason he might have put it where he had pleased, or at least, why did not he speak to it where I had placed it? and than it might have saved him all the remaining part of his trouble. But the truth is, had our Author put this first, it would have quite spoiled all his Book, and have shown how fruitless and insignificant all his Arguments were to vindicate Josephus, and to prove the practice of Jaddus; for if all his Proofs were admitted (not one of which notwithstanding, I believe he is ever able to make good) it was utterly insufficient to determine the Controversy, and to warrant practise in a Point so important as that which is before us; for the practice if it had been plain, and much less if it be doubtful, is not a sufficient foundation for such a Superstructure our Author would build on it. And to say the truth, for all our Authors talk of Eminent and venerable Examples, he hath plainly quitted the Example itself, i. e. He hath vielded the Point that I insisted on, That the Example of Jaddus is insufficient, and hath put the whole Issue upon the nature of the Thing. And this is as much as I can desire, and my Conclusion is gained, though our Author will not admit the Premises, That the Example of Jaddus in a Case of Conscience of so high a nature is not a sufficient Warrant and Authority to act upon; and so the Controversy about the vindication of Josephus for the present ends. For if there be any difference between the Practices of Eliashib and Jaddus; that difference does not arise from the differing Examples (for they were both high Priests of the same Church) but from the nature of their respective Actions; That is to say, that the Example of Jaddus signifies no more to us (as it is the Example of a Jewish High Priest) to transfer Allegiance after an Oath taken to a Prince living, and claiming, than the Example of Eliashib, does to act contrary to the express Law of God. I know our Author tells me, 
Pag. 32.  That the Scriptures say one is contrary to the express Law of God, and I say the other: and then tells me, as if we were as well assured of what he saith, as what we read in Scripture. But this is all his own, what the Scripture saith in the Case is matter of another Controversy. The present Question is about the Example of Jaddus; and our Author himself pretends to justify it from other Topics, which is a Demonstration, That that Example will not do it, which was the only thing I had to consider in that part of the Discourse. And this I think is abundantly sufficient for the Question before us. But because the Author adds something of another nature, I shall also briefly consider that.  
He tells us; Now all the Question is, 
Pag. 31.  whether Jaddus acted contrary to his Oath to Darius, in becoming a Subject to Alexander? To judge aright of this Question, we must consider what Circumstances he was in at the taking this Oath, and how they were changed at the time of his submitting to Alexander.  
1. He was a Subject to Darius before the taking of this Oath, and by it, he gave no other Right to Darius than what he had before, he gave him only a greater assurance.  
2. That Right that Darius had over the Jews was no other, than what descended to him from Cyrus; and that was by his Conquest over the Babylomans, that were their former Lords.  
3. That Right of Conquest being descended to this Darius, was won from him by Alexander that had overcome him in War, and so made himself Lord of that Country. And so Alexander now had the same Right to their Allegiance which Darius had before.  
4. This Right to their Allegiance being ceased, their Oath to him, was of no Obligation; but they were as free, and had as much reason to pay their Allegiance now to Alexander, as they had formerly to Darius, or Cyrus.  
This is all that our Author offers in this Point; and I shall show him the force of them, by only altering the names, and putting an instance with respect to the times of King Charles the First. And then he will see how admirably they will look. Suppose then a Subject of his who had taken an Oath of Allegiance to him; and suppose the Circumstances so altered, as between his taking the Oath when hue as on the Throne, and his being beaten at Naseby Field, delivered up by the Scots, imprisoned, etc. and then our Author's Propositions will run thus.  
1. He was a Subject to King Charles before the taking of this Oath, and by it he gave no other Right to King Charles than what he had before, he gave him only a greater assurance.  
2. The Right that King Charles had over the People of England, was no other than what was descended to him from William the Conqueror. And that was by his Conquest over the Saxons that were their former Lords.  
3. That Right of Conquest being descended to King Charles, was won from him by Oliver Cromwell, that had overcome him in War, and so made himself Lord of that Country; and so Oliver now had the same Right to their Allegiance which King Charles had before.  
4. His Right to their Allegiance being ceased, their Oath to him was of no Obligation; but they were as free, and had as much reason to pay their Allegiance now to Oliver, as they had formerly to King Charles, or William the Conqueror.  
Now I desire to know of our Author which of these Propositions he will deny? If he will deny none of them, than I perceive had our Author been Governor of a Town for the King in those days, after the fatal Battle at Naseby, he would have had nothing else to do, but to put on his Pontificalia, and deliver himself and his Allegiance over to the Rumpers, 
Pag. 32.  or Oliver: for as he saith of Jaddus, He had kept his Oath to the last, till there was no such King as he had sworn to. But if our Author will deny any one of these Propositions, and show the difference, I will engage he shall answer himself, and do hereby promise to make it good.  
In the mean time, it is very pleasant for our Author to talk of Conquest, and yet never take care to state the nature of it, nor to show when and in what Circumstances, a Right and Title may be obtained by it, but talks of it as loosely, as if the beating an Army in the Field did ipso facto give a Right to the Government, and dissolve all the former Oaths and Obligations of the Subjects. And if that be the Case, methinks our Author should have given some reason for it, and he may yet do it; for certainly some Conquests are Invasions and Robberies, and convey no more Right to a Crown, than a Thief hath to a Purse, when he hath conquered the Right owner. All Men hitherto that have handled the Question of Conquest, have made a wide disserence between a Conqueror, and an Usurper: The latter of which by way of Distinction, they call Raptor and Invasor, a Ravisher and a Robber, though the Government that each of of them have, may be acquired by Victory, and the Force of Arms. And this is our Author's fundamental Mistake: He will have them all one, and that Conquest is nothing else but Force. He makes Cowns and Empires not subject to the Laws of Justice and Equity, but sets them up as a Prize to be fought for, and there is no more to do, but to 〈◊〉 them, and wear them. Which is such a Notion of Conquest, as never was heard of in the Question before us. And I desire our Author, or any Man else to show me one single Author, who treats of the Question, then uses it in such a sense. But the 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 justify the taking away the Prince, and People's 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 Prince's 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, though in such Cases they may admit of some Latitude, and what exceeds them is plain wrong, and it is Nonsense to say, that wrong creates Right.  
2. That is not a Conquest, where the Subjects of a Prince are not Conquered, though 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 virtue 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, though 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 'tis 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 fight 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 Country is not destroyed, or so conquered, as either virtually or expressly 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 extinguished, 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, than it remains with him; and if the Right remains with him, than 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 informed 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 dear, I hope No-Conquest would not do all these extraordinary matters too. And where, I pray, is this Conquest they talk on, 'tis 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 justify 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 Chimeras 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 Sovereign Power, and limiting the Succession, etc. 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 men's 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 Public 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 justify their Compliances by Conquest is abominable Hypocrisy before God and Man.  
FINIS.