A letter to Dr. Sherlock, in vindication of that part of Josephus's history, which gives an account of Iaddus the high-priest's submitting to Alexander the Great while Darius was living against the answer to the piece intituled, Obedience and submission to the present government. Lloyd, William, 1627-1717. 1691 Approx. 71 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A70476 Wing L2686 ESTC R4385 12414459 ocm 12414459 61625 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A70476) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 61625) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 767:17, 792:31) A letter to Dr. Sherlock, in vindication of that part of Josephus's history, which gives an account of Iaddus the high-priest's submitting to Alexander the Great while Darius was living against the answer to the piece intituled, Obedience and submission to the present government. Lloyd, William, 1627-1717. [4], 33, [2] p. Printed for Thomas Jones ..., London : 1691. Half title: A letter to Dr. Sherlock, in vindication of his late book, entituled The case of allegiance. Advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library and Duke University Library. Includes bibliographical references. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Overall, John, 1560-1619. -- Bishop Overall's convocation book. Wagstaffe, Thomas, 1645-1712. -- Answer to a late pamphlet entituled Obedience and submission to the present government. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Vindication of The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. -- Case of the allegiance due to soveraign powers. Taylor, Zachary, 1653-1705. -- Obedience and submission to the present government. Allegiance -- Early works to 1800. 2007-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-05 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-07 Angela Berkley Sampled and proofread 2007-07 Angela Berkley Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A LETTER TO Dr. Sherlock , In Vindication of that part of Iosephus ▪ s History ▪ Which gives an Account of Iaddus the High-Priest's submitting to Alexander the Great while Darius was living . Against the ANSWER To the Piece Intituled , Obedience and Submission to the Present Government . LONDON , Printed for Thomas Jones at the VVhite-Horse without Temple-Bar . M DC XCI . A LETTER TO D R. SHERLOCK , In Vindication of his late Book , Entituled , The CASE of ALLEGIANCE . A LETTER TO Dr. Sherlock , &c ▪ SIR , YOu desire to know what I have to say to the Objections that are made by a late Writer against the Authority of Josephus , in what he says concerning the Submission that was made to Alexander the Great by Jaddus the High-Priest of the Jews , and against the use that is made of it by some that have written in Defence of the Oath of Allegiance to Their Majesties . First , Against the Story it self ; the Objector saith , It is very suspitious , on two accounts : First , That no Author besides Josephus and his Followers , mention any such thing . Secondly , He sets forth the difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology : To which he adds , That there are several Inconsistences in the Story it self . Secondly , The Objector saith , That if the Story were true , yet it would not prove the Point for which it is alledged . To consider what he bringeth under these Heads , we shall begin with what he saith of the suspiciousness of the Story . To prove this charge , his first Argument is , because no Author besides Josephus , and those that had it from him , mentions or takes notice of any such thing . This Argument lyes against all that Josephus has written of the Jewish Affairs , within the Historical time of the Heathens , except what he takes out of Scripture , or out of the Books of the Maccabees ; for we have no other Ancient Jewish History . 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 then is 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 . 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 ? Hence it came to pass , that those Writers he mentions , have scarce ever named the Jews in their Histories . But Josephus design'd nothing more than to give us a History of the Jews . How then should his Credit be impeacht 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 it , namely , because it made for the honour of his Nation . 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 ? We ought to take heed of such Arguments as an Adversary may make use of against the Gospel it self . But if it were true that our Objector here says , that those Heathens tell us the clean contrary to that which we have from Josephus , there might be something in this contradiction , tho not in the silence of Heathen Writers . But perhaps the Objector might mean , that the Account of those Historians is contrary to that of the Author , against whom he writes . For this Author , as he cites him , ( I know not how truly , ) saith , That from Tyre Alexander came directly to Jerusalem . That indeed doth not agree with the account that is given us by the Historians he mentions . But Josephus doth not say this : He tells us , That Alexander having besieg'd Tyre seven months , and then taken it , came forward to Gaza , and took it after a Siege of two months ; and then hastened to Jerusalem , which submitted to him , as also did the Neighbouring Cities . This consists very well with what we read in those Historians . For tho they agree , that from Tyre he went directly to Gaza , yet after the taking of 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 . I say he might well do this , according to Diodor's Account , who saith , * That having settled things about Gaza , afterwards he sent away Amyntas with ten Ships for Macedonia , and then went with his Army into Egypt . This being not contrary , but very consistent with the Account that we have from Josephus , there is no farther cause of suspicion on this head . The next is the difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology ; Nay , this is not all the Objector tells us , for he saith afterwards , there are difficulties that have perplext all Chronologers : And at last , * There are insuperable difficulties in this Story . Where are they ? For I confess I do not see any difficulty . He tells us , in the Ages of the persons , pag. 9. Mighty Ages , not in the least mentioned by any Historian : Namely , that Sanballat lived to above 145 , and Jaddus to above 124 , years of age . But doth Josephus say this ? Not in words , nothing like it . But it must come to this , if the Objector reckon true . And if he misreckons for Josephus , he deals as ill with the Scripture , only he doth not charge it with suspition on this account . But according to the Scripture , as he understands it , Ezra must have lived to a much greater Age than either of those before mentioned . The Objector * will have Ezra born about six years before the Babylonian Captivity , and to have seen the first Temple yet standing ; and 59 Years after this , viz. in the first year of Cyrus , to have return'd from the Captivity . So that then Ezra was 65 years of Age by his reckoning : From thence to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus , are seventy nine years ; so that then Ezra must have been One hundred and fourty four years of age , according to our Objectors account . And yet it is certain , that in that year of Artaxerxes , Ezra made a Journey from Babylon to Jerusalem * ; and it is as certain , that he lived 13 years after that , namely till the 20th . of Artaxerxes ; and then , according to our Objector , he must have been 157 years of age ; and yet , as old as he was , that very year * he led the Procession up Stairs and down Stairs about 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 dyed that year , being 157 years old , as he must be by the Objectors reckoning ; 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 Suspitious , because of the difficulty of reconciling it with Chronology . But in vain do Men talk of reconciling Differences , 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 ; because it is said , That he was the Son of Seraia the High-Priest , that was kill'd before the Captivity : But in like manner , Seraia is there made * the 17th . from Aaron , that lived near a thousand years before . The meaning of these words is , that Seraia was descended from Aaron , ( and so Ezra was from Seraia , ) not immediatly , but with others between , that are not mentioned . And so Johanan the High-Priest is called * the Son of Eliashib , who indeed was his Grand-Father , and his Father was * Jehoiada , that is not there mentioned . This is a common way of shortning Pedegrees , which if the Objector had considered , he would not have run himself into that difficulty of Ezra's Age , which , tho he takes no notice of it , is much greater than those are of which he complains . And yet these that he complains of are Difficulties of his own making , and proceed only from an eager desire to find faults in that Story in Josephus . If this had not blinded his Eyes , he might have seen , that , admitting that Story to be true , yet there was no necessity of making either 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 . First he takes it for granted , that Jaddus was High-Priest at the time when 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 . Next for the time when that Book was written , it must have been before Nehemiah dyed ; that is certain . But when did he dye ? The Objector tells us from Briet , that he died the last year of Longimanus , who reigned 41 Years . But to what end doth he tell us this ? For he himself could not believe it , as appears by his Words . For saith he , I think the least we can allow for the time of Nehemiah's living after he ended his Book , is 30 Years ; and it is very probable it was much more . Well , say but 30 Years , and account that upward from the time of his death according to Briet ; and then Nehemiah's Writing of his Book will be in the 11th . Year of Artaxerxes , that is , his Book was written 9 Years before any of those things happened that are written in it . Now this I think the Objector could not mean , and therefore he doth but amuse us with that idle Quotation . Howsoever , as if he had prov'd something by this , he infers from it ( I know not how ) that Jaddus was High-Priest the last Year of Artaxerxes . Grant him this , and he has no more to ask . For then , Jaddus being 30 years old , to this add 94 ( which is the time from the death of Artaxerxes , till Alexander's coming to Jerusalem , ) and then Jaddus , at that time Josephus fastens this Story , must have been 124 years old . Q. E. D. But tho I do not see which way he proves this , I see very clear Reasons to the contrary , which I think are unanswerable . First , That the Book of Nehemiah was not written , till after the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus : Secondly , 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 : This is certain ; For in his Book he mentions * the Reign of Darius the Persian . I think none will say he did this by the Spirit of Prophecy . But to come nearer the point , I insist upon it , that he writ after the Reign of Darius . So the Hebrew words shew , that he writ when that Reign was expired ; for there it is said , That the Heads of the Levites , and also the Priests , were recorded , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over or throughout the Reign of Darius . It appears , that the words are so to be understood , by what followeth in the next Verse , where it is said , that the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Book of the Chronicles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the days of Johanan , that is , till he came to be High-Priest . I take Nehemiah's meaning in those two * Verses , to be thus in short : Having given account * of the Heads of the Priests that were in the 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 : Therefore he inserted these * two Verses , wherein he tells us , That as for 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 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 . As for Jaddua , he is mentioned , both ‖ here , and before ‖ in this Chapter , not as being High-Priest then , ( how could he in his Fathers days ? ) but only as being then living , and Heir apparent of the High-Priesthood ; so the words are understood by the most Learned ‖ Primate , who was as well a great Chronologer , as a good Textuary . It may be said , that if this Interpretation be true , Nehemiah must have lived to a very great Age. No doubt he did so ; for he was Cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes , in the 20th . year of his Reign . We may suppose Nehemiah to have been then about 25 years of Age ; after that , he lived to see the High Priesthood pass from Father to Son for four Generations : And he saw a fifth coming in view , namely Jaddua , whom we suppose to have been then about 30 years old . All this might very well be , if Nehemiah were born 470 years before Christ , and writ in the year 347 before Christ . Then he was about 104 years old according to our reckoning , which is not so incredible an Age , as that of Ezra's being 157 years old when he went in that clambering Procession according to the account of our Objector . Secondly , For Jaddus his being High-Priest at the time of Artaxerxes's Death , which our Objector makes the ground of his Calculation , I have shewn he has no ground for his affirming of this , and that might suffice for an Answer . But besides , that it is groundless , it is also highly improbable . For if this had been true , there must have been living and dying no less than 5 High Priests in one direct Line , from Father to Son , in the space of two and twenty years . First , His Grand-Fathers Grand-Father Joiakim , was High-Priest within the time while Nehemiah ‖ was Governour ; that is certain . But his Government began in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes . It appears , that Joiakim dyed the same year ; for his Son Eliashib ‖ was High Priest at the time when the Wall of Jerusalem was building . And he was High Priest ‖ in the 32d . year of Artaxerxes . Eliashib continued much longer , as I understand it ; but suppose he dyed that very year , there must be some time allowed for his Son Joiada after him , and then for his Grand-Child Johanan ; for both these were High-Priests , as has been already shewn . But after the 32d . of Artaxerxes , there were but eight years more before the end of his Reign . We have scarce known a Change of five Popes in the time that this Objector allows for so many to come and go in a Hereditary Succession : And then the Age of Jaddus being considered , ( of which our Objector saith when he came to be High-Priest , The least we can allow is 30 years , and it is very probable it was much more : ) If it was but 30 years , then the Age of Joiakim when he dyed , must have been at least 90 years ; his Son Eliashib at least 62 ; his Son Joiada near 70 ; his Son Johanan near 60 ; and each of these , as the Objector saith , it is very probable much more ; and four of these must have been born when their Fathers were but 20 years old . If any one of these things did not happen , then our Objectors ground-work fails ; but that all things happen'd thus , I think there is no probability . But on the other hand , there is nothing improbable in that Account which I offer'd before : Jaddus might have been born any year before his Father Johanan came to be High-Priest , ( at which time I conceive with very good ground the Book of Nehemiah was written ; ) and yet Jaddus might have been mention'd as he is in that Book . But I supposed him born 30 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 Scripture together with Josephus's Antiquities . I attribute very much to his judgment in these Matters : But not to rest upon that only , I have also consider'd the years of the High-Priests above-mentioned . They are recorded in the Chronicon Paschale ; but I think better in Georgius Syncellus ; who tho he doth not quote his Author , yet is reasonably presumed to have transcribed them from Julius Africanus ; an Author that lived little more than 100 years after Josephus , and living in the same Country , might have his Information from them that knew as well as Iosephus 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 . year of Artaxerxes ; which exactly agreeth with the Account of his Death that 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 that is 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 . Yaars before Christ . Beginnings of Persian Kings , and of Iewish High-Priests . 445 — In Nisan Nehemia came from Susa for Jerusalem ▪ After his coming thither Joiakim dies . 444 — His Son Eliashib High-Priest , 34 y. 424 — DARIUS Nothus , 19 y. 410 — Ioiada , 36 y. 405 — Iaddus born . ARTAXERXES Mnemon , 46 y. 374 — Iohanan 32 y. Nehemiah writ his Book . In Iohanan's time Bagoses was Governour . 359 — OCHUS , 21 y. 342 — Iaddus , 20 y. 338 — ARSES , 2 y. 336 — DARIUS Codomannus , 4 y. He sent Sanballat to Samaria . 332 — ALEXANDER takes Tyre and Gaza . Ierusalem yields to him . 330 — Darius dies . 323 — Alexander dies , and Iaddus . Having shewn that the Age of Iaddus has no difficulty in it , we are next to consider what there is in the Ages of Sanballat and Manasses . For the first of these , he is spoken of by Iosephus , with that care which one would have thought might have prevented this Objection . For whereas the Objector proceeds upon a supposition , that the Sanballat in Iosephus , is the same that was the Adversary of the Iews in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes ; and if that were true , then indeed he must have been ( as the Objector would have him , ) much above 120 years old in Alexander's time ; to prevent all suspicion of this , Iosephus described him by those Characters by which we may be sure he was not the same Sanballat . However , the Objector is pleased to a say , That Iosephus doth not intimate any such thing ; he doth more than intimate , he tells us plainly in his Description ; First , That this was a Chuthaean , of that Race from which the Samaritanes came , that b is , from Chutha beyond the river Euphrates ; and farther , c that this Man was sent to be Governour of Samaria by the last Darius , who was driven out by Alexander the Great . Now who would have thought that this d Chuthaean should have been mistaken , for the Moabite of e Horonaim , whom Nehemiah found there in Palestine 100 years before in Artaxerxes his time ? I call Nehemiah's Sanballat a Moabite , for he is join'd with Tobia the Ammonite f almos● 〈◊〉 oft as he is mentioned : And as Nehemiah observeth , g Th●● the Israelites were particularly forbidden to marry with Moab and Ammon ; so he h gives instances of the breach of this command in the Priests marrying into the Families of Tobia and Sanballat . That Horonaim was in Moab , I have shewn above in the ( see e ) Margent . For the strangeness of it , that there should be two of a Name ; that would not have stuck with the Objector , if he had considered that there were two Artaxerxeses , and three Dariuses in his view . But those were Kings , and they might take Names from one another : To go lower therefore , he might have found two Ezra's and two Nehemiahs ▪ in those times ; one of each ‖ came up from Captivity with Zorobabel ; and again one of each was in the Government almost One hundred years after . There is no strangeness in this , but that any Man should be so senseless to think these two Pairs were but one Ezra and one Nehemiah . Lastly , For Manasses Brother of Iaddus , Iosephus saith , That he marryed a Heathen Woman , Nicaso the Daughter of Sanballat the Chuthaean , which occasioned a Breach between the Brothers , and thereupon a Schism in the Church : This Manasses setting up another Temple at Mount Garizim in opposition to that at Ierusalem . The Objector , to find a fault in this Story , makes many . For , First , He confounds this Brother of Iaddus , with his Uncle that is mentioned by Nehemiah , ‖ in the end of his Book . Nehemia there calleth him , one of the Sons of Ioiada the Son of Eliashib the High-Priest , which is plain enough to shew , that he was younger Brother of Iohanan the Father of Iaddus : But no matter for that . The Objector to make Iosephus a Lyar , makes bold with the Scripture it self : He is pleas'd to give this Uncle of Iaddus the Name of Manasses , which ●●●hemiah never thought of : And he will have this Man to be Brother of Iaddus ; he calleth him so as oft as he mentions him . And the Wife that he marryed , who was Daughter of Sanballat the Horonite , must be the same with Nicaso the Daughter of Sanballat the Chuthaean . And in consequence of all this Iosephus must be a Liar , who writes of things as done in the time of Darius Codomannus , which were done long before ( as our Objector saith , ) in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus . But with his leave , Iosephus knew what he writ , as it appears by his fixing the time of this Story : There was no date of time better known among the Iews , than that of the building of their Temple at Jerusalem ; nor among the Samaritans , than that of the building of the Temple of Garizim . They remembred nothing more , than the destruction of their Temples : It was a thing in every ones mouth , Our Fathers worship'd in this Mount , said a the Woman of Samaria to our Saviour . And no doubt , if they had any Records or any Histories , the times of these things were chiefly remembred in them : But it was within 200 years of Iosephus his time , that the Temple at Mount Garizim was destroyed by Iohannes Hyrcanus . It happen'd at a memorable time , being soon after the Death of Antiochus Pius , ( which was in the year before Christ 130 ▪ ) then that Temple was destroyed , saith Iosephus , b 200 years after the building of it . How long that Temple stood , and when it was destroyed , none knew better than the Samaritans themselves . And as they were Enemies to the Iews , so they must be particularly to that Author , who provokes them as oft as he mentions them . How then durst he have put it in their power to disprove him , as they certainly would , if this had not been true ? I take it therefore for certain , by their account as well as his , ( accounting 200 years upward from the destruction , ) that their Temple was built in the year before Christ 430 , which falls in the time of Alexander the Great , and not as the Objector would have it , in the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus . What saith the Objector to this ? He c tells us from David Ganz , That the Iewish Chronologers do affirm , That the Temple on Mount Garizim was built long before the times of Alexander ; and that all the time of Alexander , Simeon Justus was High-Priest ; which Simeon was the Grandson of Iaddus . The Objector tells us afterwards , That Calvisius , and not only he , but all Chronologers , find Iosephus ' s Errors and Mistakes concerning those times so many and 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 . I believe the Objector acts upon Principles of Sincerity in other things ; notwithstanding that he seems to forget them in his Quotations . 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 I doubt not you will find the like in other places of his Book . But whereas he bringeth all Chronologers on his side against Iosephus , he should have excepted all the Best , both Ancient and Modern ; and among them particularly our excellent Primate , who followeth Iosephus in every part of this Story . I allow him indeed the Iewish Chronologers , who are as much the Enemies of Iosephus as he is himself ; for they have the like quarrel against him , because he breaks all their Measures . But yet the Iewish Chronologers will not help the Objector in his Cause . They will not make Iaddus live to 124 years of Age , and Sanballat to 145. They are so far from that , that they scarce allow either of them any Age. For they make d the whole time of the second Temple at Ierusalem , 'till the sixth year of Alexander the Great , to be but 34 years . And in that sixth year of Alexander , they say that he came up against Ierusalem ; and that Iaddus the High-Priest , and all the Elders of Israel came forth to him ; and that they made a Covenant with Alexander ( tho' Darius was then living . ) This Story fills up most of that e very page , that our Obiector quotes in his Margent . Only there the High-Priest is called Simeon the just . But that this makes no difference in the Story , he might have seen in the passage f next before , where Ganz tells us of this Simeon the just , that his name was Iaddua . And for the building of the Temple at Mount Garizim , which as the Objector saith , g The Jewish Chronologers affirm to have been built long before Alexander ' s time : His Ganz tells us , h 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 . He 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 Iew , that reckons that Act of Nehemiah but 4 years before the Reign of Alexander the Great : But is not to be allow'd one that reckons one hundred years between , and takes upon him to correct Iosephus by Christian Chronology . But besides these difficulties in Chronology , which I have proved to be none ; the Objector saith , there are several Inconsistencies in the story it self , noted by Salian . That Iesuit was an Enemy to the very name of Iosephus , for Scaliger's sake . But without engaging in the quarrel between them , I take the Inconsistencies as they ly here before me . Object . The first is , that Iosephus saith , the Phoenicians and Chaldaeans , who followed Alexander , when he came against Ierusalem , thought to have plunder'd the City . Now saith the Objector , How should he have Chaldaeans in his Army , when as yet he had not taken Babylon , nor come near to Chaldaea ? Answer . He might have Chaldaeans in his Army , of those whom he had taken at Issus , many of whom turn'd over to Alexander , and served him , as he i told Darius in his Epistle . But 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 Ierusalem , above all the rest that were in Alexander's Army . There must be some particular reason for this eagerness in these two Nations above others : And that probably either for their own especial gain , or for some National spite against the Iews . And indeed for the Phoenicians , the first of these Reasons is plain , because they had the chief Sea-Ports , and the Trade of that part of the World. Therefore Tyrus said of old k against Ierusalem in the time of Nebuchadnezzar . Aha! she is broken , — — she is turned unto me : I shall be replenisht , when she is laid waste . The same hope they might have now again . But this being a reason peculiar to the Phoenicians ; no other Nation could be so intent upon the spoils of Ierusalem , but only for spite , and that was not to be imagined in the Chaldaeans ; who after so long acquaintance as they had with the Iews in their Captivity , were kinder to them than any other People , and have continued so ever since . But these here spoken of must be Enemies of the Jews ; and who should they be of all the Nations that Alexander had in his Army ? Of all the Nations in the World none so likely as the Samaritans . And of them Iosephus told us lately before , there were 8000 sent by Sanballat , that were now in the Army . But when Iosephus speaks of these People in anger , he commonly calleth them Chuthaei ; which is so near the word Chaldaei , that I cannot forbear offering this as an Emendation of the Text : For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and then there is no Inconsistency . The next thing might very well have been spared ; for there is no Inconsistency in it : That the Iews when they had found favour with Alexander , should ask the like favour for their Brethren that were in Babylon and Media . Those Countreys , tho Alexander had not yet conquered , yet it could not be doubted , that they would be shortly in his hands . And that Iaddus askt favour for them , and that Alexander granted it , or rather that he promised it , ( for so the Greek word signifyeth ; ) They are much to seek for Faults ▪ that can find them in so clear a passage as this . But such another is that which next followeth , viz. That the Army was astonisht to see Alexander worship Jaddus . Well they might : Though it was but Civil Worship ; it was a wonderful thing , that so great a King should give it to a Priest , or to any other humane Being . But the fault is , that Josephus should put it in Parmenio's Mouth to ask Alexander , wherefore he should adore another , that was himself ador'd by all . It is judg'd by Salian , and the Objector , an inconsistency , to say that Alexander was ador'd , or that he believ'd himself the Son of Jupiter , before his coming into Egypt , &c. Yet those Learned Men could not but know that adoration was paid to Eastern Princes , that did not believe themselves the Sons of Jupiter . It was so far from this that it was not confin'd to Crown ▪ d Heads . Josephus * tells us in this Book , that Haman , being the King's Favourite , as oft as he came to Court , had adoration paid him by all , as well Strangers as Persians . How much more should it be paid to Alexander himself by them of the conquer'd Nations ? No less than the Mother of Darius , when she was taken Prisoner at Issus , and Alexander came to give her a Visit , receiv'd him * with this Ceremony . She perform'd it indeed , by mistake , to Hephaestion that came with him , because he made a better figure , and when she understood her mistake , was much out of Countenance , till the King himself told her it is no mistake , he is Alexander . But I have not read that he told her he would not be treated with that Ceremony . It seems therefore he did suffer himself to be ador'd , even before his going into Egypt : And therefore what Josephus tells us , of Parmenio's saying those Words , might be true for ought we know ; howsoever he might have said them without any Inconsistency . The things in these two last Answers are so plain , that I cannot think how it came to pass that the Objector did not see them : unless it be that Josephus had offended him so much , that he was too greedy of Objections against him , and did not regard what might be said in his vindication . In this angry humour he runs on in the next page . And there he calls in Calvisius to be his second . He could not have found a fitter 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 . But that was Scaliger's fault , that had crampt that part of his Chronology , by beginning Daniel's 70 Weeks in Darius Nothus his time . In consequence of that , he must make Nehemia's Artaxerxes to be Mnemon instead of Longimanus : And the Darius that he mentions must not be Nothus , but Codomannns : And if Nehemiah liv'd till Codomannus his time , so might his Sanballat as well : And then why should not the Priest that Nehemiah depriv'd , be Manasses , the same that is mention'd in Josephus ? All this both Scaliger and Calvisius are for ; and our Objector if he pleas'd might have quoted them for these things . But then his Arithmetick would have been of no use : For Sanballat's 145 years would have been but fourscore , Manasses ▪ might have been a young Man , and Jaddus of middle Age ; and so there had been an end of all his Insuperable difficulties . 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 . But why then doth the Objector bring in Calvisius , as if he were of his side in this Argument ? 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 , tho' they do not belong to it , may serve as well as if they did : Though Calvisius intended them for things wherein Josephus differ'd from him , yet the Reader may apply them to that Story wherein he agreed with him . If the Objector dealt candidly in this , he doth not so always . We have a great instance of the contrary in his shuffling and cutting with the Convocation-Book . He against whom he writes had urg'd the Example of Jaddus , for something which the Objector doth not like ; and to give the more Credit to it , he saith ( as here he is quoted ) that whether the story be true or no , the Convocation seems to believe it . He gives very good reason to judge so , because they have inserted part of it into the Convocation-Book . They have indeed taken in all that the Objector throws out , concerning Sanballat , and Manasses , and Jaddus ; And they * expresly quote Josephus for it as their Author ; though by making his Sanballat the same with Nehemiah's , it appears that they follow Scaliger and Calvisius in their Chronology . But for the Story , which is so much contested by our Objector , they not only take it for an undoubted Truth , but they Reason upon it as to matter of Practice . Our Objector saith well , that Men that have any care of their Souls will hardly venture to act upon one single Example , and that also voucht but by a single and suspicious Author . They may do well to think of this , that go in untrodden ways , and yet damn all them that will not follow them . 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 . And they add this * judgment 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 sinn'd if he had refus'd ( being thereunto requir'd ) so to have sworn — he doth greatly err . It is plain that they affirm this upon one single Example , and that also voucht but by a single Authority . They do indeed profess they do not * hold it Canonical no more than the Books of the Maccabees and other ancient Historiographers ; but neither did they judge it ( as our Objector doth ) to be of Suspicious Authority . He was aware how much their judgment would be preferred before his , where he differs from them . And therefore finding them against him in all he hath said of the suspiciousness of this 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 not-swearers . An easy Reader may be persuaded to this ; but not without some shew of proof . And therefore he tells you , they of the Convocation mention , and thereby approve , Jaddus his Answer to Alexander , That he had sworn Allegigiance 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 , tho he was beaten in the Field , and fled before his Enemies . This is what the Objector would have . But the sense of the Convocation will best appear by their own words ; and thus they go on * with the Story : Alexander by Gods Providence having vanquisht the Persians ; ( that is , having * overthrown Darius the King of the Persians , upon which the Monarchy of the Graecians began , ) the Jews amongst many other Nations became HIS SUBJECTS . He dealt favourably with them , releast them of some Payments , viz. from paying Tribute on the Sabbatical years , and granted them liberty to live according to their own Laws . 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 erusalem , two years before the Death of Darius . In consequence hereof , the Convocation declare their * Canon , That if any Man shall affirm , — That the Jews generally , both Priests and People , were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them , as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia , — he doth greatly Err. What the Convocation did mean by the setling of an Authority , they shew * in these words , viz. when it is either generally received by Subjects or setled by continuance . , The Disjunctive is as plain in these words , as it is in those of Bishop Buckeridge's , which are fairly quoted by the Objector , p. 27. but not fairly repeated in the bottom of that page . It was plainly their Judgment , that both these were not necessary , but that either of the two might suffice , for the setling of an Authority . But Alexander had one of the two , that is , the general subjection of the People ; whereupon , without the other , they were his Subjects according to the Convocation-Book , as much as they had been before the Subjects of Darius , though he was yet living . But this will not go down with the Objector . He saith , For the other part of the Story , of Jaddus submitting to Alexander while Darius was living , the Convocation take no notice of it . 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 ? Those words seem to be intended chiefly of Jaddus , at least they take him in among the Priests and People . But then saith the Objector , it doth not any where appear , That they ( the Convocation , ) thought Darius was then living . No : Doth it appear , that they thought what they writ ? Their Book saith , He by flight escaped , when his Army was discomfited . And tho they do not say , he was living when Alexander came to Jerusalem , yet no Learned Man can be ignorant , That he lived two years after this . But the Convocation were not concern'd whether he were living or no , any longer than while the People of God were under his Dominion ▪ The Changes of Governments over the Jews , was the thing which the Convocation were to consider . And now upon this Change of Government , they tell us , That the Jews , both Priests and People , being Subjects of Alexander , ( whether Darius was living or dead , ) they were bound to pray for the long life and prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire , as they had been bound before to pray for the long life and prosperity of the other Kings and their Kingdoms , while they lived under their Subjection . Therefore when they were no longer in subjection to Darius , it was all one to them whether he were living or dead . From what hath been said , the Answer is plain to his Question , concerning Submission to a Possessor of Power , notwithstanding an Oath to a lawful King , who is alive , and insists upon his right , whether it be argued from the Story or from the Convocation-Book ? It may be from either or both , for ought that he hath said to the contrary : The Story hath been clear'd from all suspicion of Falshood , That he hath endeavour'd to fasten upon it . The Convocation-Book hath spoken for it self , and hath much more to say ; but this little is enough to shew our Objector , that he might better have let it alone than brought it into this Controversy . After all he comes to this , that grant the Story true , it is not to the purpose it is urg'd for . How so ? Because this of Jaddus is a singular and exempt Case . What he did was by especial Revelation from God ; who , as Josephus says , appear'd to him in a Dream , and warn'd him to submit to Alexander , and to meet him in that solemn manner as he did . He is aware , that there is a prejudice against this ; namely , That Prophecy was then departed from the Jewish Church . 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 , &c. To make way for these , he tells us , it was always the Custom in the Jewish Church , in cases of great Extremity , to have recourse to God for some express Revelation what they should do . 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 ▪ For then they took meer humane Counsels , without looking for any express Revelation . That in such Distresses , they used Fasting and Prayer , was to seek God for Deliverance , as hath been used in all Ages . And thus Josephus tells us , the Jews did at this time when Alexander was coming against them . They fasted and prayed for a Deliverance . Thus far there is nothing strange in the History . But then mark what follows . The next night God appear'd to Jaddus , and order'd him so to do ; that is , so as he told us before , namely , to submit to Alexander , and to meet him as he did . Here he would make us believe we have a Wolf by the Ears , for whether we admit this , or deny it , we are in his danger either way . If we deny this part of the Story , why may not the Objector as well deny all the rest ? But if we admit it , then it is wholly beside the purpose : For saith he ( with his usual civility ) if these Gentlemen will shew us any express Revelation for what they do , as Jaddus had , then they say something : But 'till they can shew that , this Example , if true , will do them no service . He hath oblig'd me so much with this Complement , that I cannot chuse but admit , that here was an express Revelation . But I cannot grant him his Consequence , till I see how it follows from the Premises . In order to this , he should have told us what Revelation it was that Jaddus had , and what use it was for : And then have shew'd that we have the like occasion , before he had required us to shew the like Revelation . But since he is so short in his account of these things , I must be the longer in considering them more particularly . First , Take every thing as the Objector would have it , namely , that Jaddus had a Revelation from God , that he should SUBMIT to Alexander , though Darius was living ; and notwithstanding his Oath by which , as Jaddus formerly thought , he was bound to the contrary . If Jaddus was then in the right concerning the Obligation of his Oath to Darius , the thing that he was now put upon was the horrible sin of Rebellion , aggravated with perjury , and whatsoever else the Objector thinks fit to load his Brethren with : only this of Jaddus he tells us was a singular and exempt Case , for he was put upon it by Divine Revelation . But even in this case , there would have been something else necessary to engage the people to go along with him in this submission . For since now they were 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 Judgments ; 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 those were by whom those Precepts were given . And then he must prove it , by shewing such signs as those former Prophets did : Otherwise the Jews were so far from being bound to believe him , that they were to look upon 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 seem'd to teach any thing contrary to their Law , though he did prove himself a Prophet by the 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 join'd 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 would have it . It was so very agreeable to them , that if the Matter of the Revelation were as he reports it , there could be no reason given why Jaddus should have a Revelation , but this , that God saw it necessary for the correcting of that former Error of Jaddus , by which , if he had run on it , and stood out pertinaciously against Alexander , ( as some do against Their present Majesties , ) it had been a certain way to have destroyed the Jewish Church . Blessed be God , that hath preserv'd our Church , by letting us see , that our Submission is so agreeable to the Rules of our Religion and to the Practice of his Church in all Ages , that there is no need of proving it to be our Duty that way which the Objector requires , namely , by an express Revelation . But what if there was nothing of Submission to Alexander in the Revelation that was made to Jaddus ? Then those words upon which all his Argument moves , namely , the words TO SUBMIT , were thrust in by the Objector . If he did this by mistake , he may easily correct it , by reading the place in Josephus . There he will find nothing of any Revelation that Iaddus had to submit and to meet Alexander : There was no occasion for it . For thus far he had determin'd already , before the Prayer and Fasting , upon which he had this Revelation . These are Iosephus his words ; Alexander having taken Gaza , made haste to go up to Jerusalem . The High Priest Jaddus upon the hearing of this , was in an Agony of fear ; being at his wits 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 Iosephus . Who thus goes on , having therefore order'd 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 Deliverance , and not for a Revelation , as the Objector is pleas'd 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 bad 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 Kings favour or compassion , ) Let them go , ( saith he , ) the rest in White Garments , but he with the Priests in those Vestments which the Law hath prescrib'd , and be confident they shall suffer no evil , for that God will provide for them : Here is every word of the Revelation ; in which , God that best knew what a Dream he had sent to Alexander before his coming out of Macedonia , now orders Iaddus to put himself into that Dress in which Alexander had seen him in that Dream . This was a likely way indeed to strike an awe into the Conqueror , and to make him reverence the Priest of that God by whose Conduct he had gotten those Victories . And it had that effect , as Josephus tells us . Alexander did acknowledge this was he that first invited him over into Asia . I saw him then ( saith he , ) in the same habit : — I never saw any other in such a Robe : And now seeing him , and remembring my Dream , I am satisfyed it was God that sent me on this Expedition , &c. It appears that Jaddus had a direction from God in what manner he should meet Alexander , so as not only to pacify his wrath , but to recommend himself into his favour . For the Command of Submission , which is not in Iosephus , there was no need of that , for the People had determined to submit , being not able to resist . But if it had been as the Objector imagins , yet it would do him no Service , as I have sufficiently shewn : And therefore after all that he hath said , this Story of Iaddus affords us a very good unquestionable instance of the judgment of the Iewish Church in his Age ; that it is lawful to submit to a Prince that comes in by Conquest , and that it is our Duty to pay Allegiance to him as his Subjects , when he is setled by the general consent of the People ▪ notwithstanding an Oath to a former King who is yet living . One thing the Objector hath to say against this , which I think was put out of it's place , and ought to come in here for a Reserve . In case it appear'd that the Story of Iaddus was not only true , but to our purpose , then it had been time for him to tell us , that all this is nothing to him and his party . They care not what Iaddus did , they know what they will do . He saith this in effect , in the following * words , 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 . This was frankly said , but I think not very ingenuously . First , He speaks as if Iaddus were single in this Act of Submission ; when it is evident , that the whole Church of God at that time , went along with him : And the Iews generally , both Priests and People were Subjects to Alexander , in the words of the Convocation Book . He tells us of that corrupt state of the Jewish Church in Jaddus's time : This is news . All Ancient Writers speak of those times as the best that ever were under the second Temple . The Church was much reform'd by those excellent Men that flourished in the Age next before ; namely by Nehemiah the Governour , Ezra Priest and Scribe , and Malachi the last of the Prophets . At this very time , beside Iaddus himself , whom the Jews * make the last of the Men of the great Synagogue ; there was also B●nsira , as * they tell us , a shining Light to the Israelites , and one that much advanc'd the honour of our God. After them was Onias the High-Priest , and his Son Simon , whose praise swells a * Chapter in Ecclesiasticus . His branding of those excellent Men , and the Church of God in those times , may teach us to bear the Characters he gives us the more patiently . So likewise , when he saith their Practice will signifie no more to us in this , than in their other Immoralities . 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. Yet I dare be bold to say , he never found Iaddus charged with any Immorality whatsoever . Nor we have not found him in any Error but this , that he thought himself bound to Darius while he was living . This was an Error indeed , if he meant as the Words strictly signifie . For an Oath of Allegiance to any King , can bind one no longer than while he is that King 's Subject . It doth not bind , saith the * Objector , in case of Cession or Submission . Nor , say other Divines , in Case of Conquest : And Iaddus , when he became subject to Alexander , was plainly of this later Opinion , by which he explain'd or corrected what he said formerly . Now Iaddus being a Man of that high place in the Church , of so clear a Repute ever since in all Ages ; what should make the Objector and his Party ( which I hope is not great ) make so light of such an eminent and venerable Example ? He tells us Iaddus 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 Tobia , is an Argument for us to act contrary to the express Laws of God. This is home to the purpose , and being said at the first , might have sav'd him and me all this trouble . Now all the Question is , 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 of this Oath , and how they were chang'd at the time of his submitting to Alexander . First , 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 . Secondly , The right that Darius had over the Iews , was no other than what descended to him from Cyrus : And that was by his Conquest over the Babylonians , that were their former Lords . Thirdly , 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 . Fourthly , 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 Alexander , as they had formerly to Darius or Cyrus . This seems to be the ground that Iaddus went upon . And if it was , he had reason to think he did not contrary to his Oath . For he kept it to the last , till there was no such King as he had sworn to : And then , having no Revelation to Guide him , he yielded to the Providence of God , in submitting to him that had won the Kingdom from Darius . The Objector having said , because he will have it so , that this Submission of Iaddus was contrary to his Oath ; goes on , and compares it with that Fact of Elashib , which the Scripture it self saith , was contrary to express Laws of God. And therefore he would have us take heed of following Iaddus for our Pattern ; as if we were as well assur'd of what he saith , as we are of what we read in the Scripture . He values his own Opinion too much , that would impose it upon others at this rate . And yet he that will not submit to it , falls under all the heavy Censures of his Book . They must be Deserters of Principles , and guilty of Rebellion and Perjury ; and why not ? Should we think to come off better than Iaddus who is condemned already , and with him all the Iewish Church of that Age. But all other Churches of God have done like them , as oft as they have come into their Circumstances . I do not except that which he fills his Book with namely the Iewish Church in Iehoiada's time ; for they were in much different Circumstances , as I doubt not you will shew . He cannot pretend to shew , that any other Church hath done otherwise then that under Iaddus , which he hath condemned already . He will shortly see , that they are all against him in this Cause ; and then we are to expect the like Judgment upon all Churches , Iewish and Christian ; unless the Objector think better , and change his mind , or at least forbear such unjust and uncharitable Censures , which I wish he may both for his own and for the Churches sake . This I hope will be the Fruit of your Answer to his Postscript , which is earnestly expected by SIR , Your Friend and Servant . F A Catalogue of Books sold by Thomas Jones at the White-Horse without Temple-Barr . I. SIR John Chardins Travels into Persia , &c. Folio . II. A Moral Essay upon the Soul of Man : Containing , 1. The Preference due to the Soul above the Body , from the reason of it's Spiritual and Immortal Nature . 2. Of our Duties of Religion and of Morality , whether towards God , whether towards our selves , whether towards Man , and of our Duty of all Gospel Self-denial ; which result from the manner how our Souls Are and Operate in our Bodies under the Visible Empire of God. 3. Concerning our Duties of Time and Eternity , of the present Life and of the Life to come , of the present World and of the World to come ; which result from the manner how our Souls ought to be out of our Bodies , first of all ; and then in our Spiritualiz'd Bodies after the Universal Resurrection . Octavo . III. A Pious Office for sick and weak Persons ; wherein many Directions and useful Instructions are given them ; with Supplications , Prayers , and Meditations , proper for their Condition ▪ Octavo . IV. Weeks-Exercise . Twelves . V. In the Press , A choice Collection of Lessons for 2 and 3 Flutes . With an Addition of Aires , in Three Parts , for Violins , &c. Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A70476-e200 * Diodor. Sic. Edit . 1559. p. 566. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * p. 11. * p. 17. * Ezr. 7. * Neh. 12. 36 , 37. * p. 8. * Ezr. 7. 1. &c. * Neh. 12. 23. * 12. 10. * p. 7 ▪ p. 7. * Neh. 12. 22. * v. 22 , 23 ▪ * Neh. 12. 1 , 7. ‖ v. 12. 21. ‖ v. 8 , 9. & 24 , 25 , 26. * v. 22 , 23. ‖ v. 22. ‖ v. 10. ‖ Vsser . Ann. A. M. 3589. ‖ Neh. 12. 28. ‖ Neh. 13. 1. ‖ Neh. 13. 28. ‖ Vsser . Annal. A. M. 3602 ‖ Jos . Ant. x● . ending . a p. 9. b Jos . An. 9. 7. c Jos . An. 9. 14. d Ib. 9. 7. e Es . 19. 5 Jer. 48. 3 , 5 , 34. f Neh. 11 10 , 19. &c. g Neh. 13. 1 , 23. h Ib. 4. 28. ‖ Neh. 13. 1. ●● ▪ 11. 2. ‖ ch . 13. 28. p. 6. a Iohn iv . 20. b p. 10. c Ios . Ant. xiii . 17. d Ganz . p. 57. & 64 e p. 59. f Ganz . p. 58. g p. 10. h p. 60 , 6. Ganz . p. 56 , 57 ▪ i Arrian ▪ de exp . Alex . ii . k Ezek. 26. 2. 〈◊〉 . * Jos . Ant. xi . 6. * Pl●t . in Alex. * Conv●● . chap. 30. p. 63. * Conv●● . can . 30. p. 65. * chap ●● ▪ p. 64. * Convo● . chap. 31. beginni●g . * Ib. ch . 29. * Can. 31. p. 67. * Convo● . c. 31. p. 67. * Can. 31. beginning . * Mal. iv . 3. * 1 Macc. ix . 27. * Mal. iv . 3. * p. 11. * Ganz . p. 58. * Ganz . p. 66. * Eccl. 50. * p. 19. 20 , 21.