they had no great occasion to consider 5. That it was the A. Bp's Judgment and as our Author tells me with respect to the Convocation P. 20. he may be aware how much the Archbishop's Judgment 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 easie as possible for he tells us That Alexander might well doe 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 malitious 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 Suspition on this Head The next thing which our Authour 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 doe 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 asking 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
but to gratifie him I will tell him once again how I infer it Nehemiah in his Book intimates Jaddus being High Priest Nehemiah according to Briet dyed the last year of Artaxerxes and his Book was written some time before he dyed and therefore according to Briet's Account Jaddus must have been High Priest at least the last year of Artaxerxes and whether our Author knows it or no this Inference was plain enough before and it is impossible for any Man besides our Author to make any other But this is idle and amusing and therefore our Author tells us again Though I do not see which way he proves this I see very clear Reasons to the contrary which I think are unanswerable Now I wish I could see them too for I confess that unanswerable Reasons are certainly Reasons But I doubt he hath turned the Prospective and looks upon his own Reasons with the magnifying end as he did mine with the other for that his Reasons as he calls them are no clear Reasons at all much less unanswerable ones will appear upon considering them they are these 1. That the Book of Nehemiah was not written till after the death of Longimanus 2. That Jaddus was not High Priest at the death of Artaxerxes nor probably born then nor long after till the end of Darius Nothus First That Nehemiah did not write in any part of Artaxerxes 's Reign but either in or after the time of Darius his immediate Successor But why this Disjunctive in or after and after in great black letters too And he says he insists upon it that it was after the Reign of Darius and therefore to return him his Observation the page before I suppose there is not more difference in saving if I had said it That I take it for granted and yet I take it onely as probable than there is in saying that it is in or after and yet immediately to insist upon it that it is after Well But our Authour does insist upon it that it was after And how does he prove this Why truly by a Hebrew Criticism for he adds so the Hebrew Words shew that he writ when that Reign was expired for there it is said that the Heads of the Levites and also the Priests were recorded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over or throughout the Reign of Darius it appears that the words are so to be understood by what follows in the next verse where it is said that the Heads of the Levites were recorded in the Books of the Chronicles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the days of Johanan that is till he came to be High Priest Now all our Author's Proof depends upon this Hebrew Criticism and upon the difference between Hhal and Hhadh in that Language and to which I answer 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does generally signifie super or supra upon or over But then those Senses are determin'd by the subject Matter as Exod. 29.20 21. Thou shalt kill the Ram and take of his Blood and put it upon the Tip of the Right Ear of Aaron and upon the Tip of the Right Ear of his Sons and upon the Thumb of his Right Hand and sprinkle the Blood upon the Altar in all which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used so likewise for over 2 Kings 18.18 〈◊〉 who was over the Houshold there also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used and it signifies praâ—â—situs over by way of Authority or Government But for our Author 's over i. e. as he interprets it throughout is I suppose a Mistake throughout i. e. from one end to the other And I desire our Author to shew me where it means so either in Scripture or is so interpreted by any Hebrew Lexicon and I hope there is some difference between over a Household and throughout a Reign And I wonder what sense he will make of being recorded over a Reign He found that would not doe and therefore he must put in his own word throughout though he hath no manner of Authority for it onely it would signifie nothing to his purpose except he had done so And therefore 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and means as much as ad or usque ad to or till and so Vatablus would have it rendred in this very place usque ad Regnum Darii to or till the Reign of Darius and to say no more so all Interpreters that I have met with render it And does our Author think that his little Criticism and singular Interpretation is sufficient to bear down the Authority of all Interpreters P. 22. He tells me afterwards and he may now take it to himself He values his own Opinion too much who would impose it on others at this rate However 3. If this was granted him it will by no means serve his turn for suppose the Heads of the Levites c. were recorded throughout the Reign of Darius the Persian why then Jaddus must have been high Priest in the Reign of that Darius which notwithstanding is directly contrary to our Author 's Chronology who places his Grandfather Joiada in that Reign and Jaddus himself 68 years after in the Reign of Ochus for thus it is in Nehemiah Ch. 12. ver 23. The Levites in the days of Eliashib Joiada and Johanan and Jaddua were recorded chief of the Fathers also the Priests to the Reign of Darius the Persian Now suppose to the Reign meant throughout the Reign then Jaddas must have been High Priest in the Reign of Darius Nothus for otherwise the Levites could not be recorded in his days throughout that Reign But this will serve our Author's turn as little as if Jaddus had been High Priest in the Reign of his Predecessor Artaxerxes and so he might be too though his Criticism was allowed him But for that Our Author tells us I take Nehemiah's meaning in two verses to be thus in short Ver. 22 23. Neh. 12.1.7 V. 12 21. V. 8 9 24 25 26. Having given Account of the Heads of the Priests that were in time of Jeshua the High Priest and afterwards of them that were in the time of his Son Joiakim Having also given Account of the Heads of the Levites that were in Joiakim's time he thought some Account would be expected of them that were in the days of the following High Priests Very well He had given account of the Heads of the Priests in Jeshua's time and he had given account of the Heads of the Priests and Levites in his Son Joiakim's time and he thought some account might be expected of them that were in the days of the following High Priests but I hope no body expected that he should give an account of more than he knew or of more than was in his own time or if they did I suppose he neither could nor would offer to doe it to humor any Man's Expectation except he did it by the Spirit of
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 judgment they give of Josephus and his History of those times and which judgment 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 tho 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 mention'd who do not only give the same account of Josephus but come home to the very Story and plainly intimate their suspition 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 forc'd 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 Authors 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 prov'd the Inconsistency by Chronology says It is necessary that the Sanballat and Jaddus in the History of Josephus either they are diverse 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 concern'd in the present Controversie and consequently could have no byass on their Judgments 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 fansie our Author suspected his Answer would not hold out any longer and hatred and malice and particular quarrel had quite spent it self 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 e'en let them alone and has nothing to say to them tho 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 call'd in Calvisius to be my Second and that I could not have found a fitter man to take my part and yet there were two others almost in the same place and neither of them inferiour 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 tho at the same time he charges me with Suspition 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 intire quotations that make against him Our Author now comes to the Convocation Book Pag. 19. and begins 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 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 Now all this business which our Author puts into such a spruce Form is nothing else but an Objection which I had rais'd 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 propos'd so that if our Author had pleas'd 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 dispatch'd 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 sence we are enquiring into And to which I thus answer I say so too but I say likewise that their sence 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 shew what they have inserted and consequently to what part of it they can only be presum'd 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 it self Well! Convoc Ch. 30. p. 63. but they expresly 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 Convocation arising from a Story true or false which they have inserted in their Book to do with his Compositions Provisoes Conditions and Limitations If Dr. Sherlock had the handling of this He could have told him 2. Vind of the Case pag. 71. I desire he would keep to my words for I will answer for none of his Sences unless I were better satisfied I shall not add the rest it being a strain of Elocution peculiar to the Dr. and which I have no delight to Transcribe from him In the mean time all I shall observe is that no body knows the vertue of Prefaces and Paraphrases which with a little Art will make a man say any thing in the World and whatsoever his Answerer pleases After this Introduction our Author at length comes my Answer And says he therefore he tells you they of the Convocation mention and thereby approve Jaddus 's answer to Alexander That he had sworn Allegiance to Darius and therefore could not violate his Oath so long as Darius lived From hence the Objector infers that their sence is That an Oath of Allegiance was binding to a Prince so long as he lived and had not given up his Right tho he was beaten in the Field and fled before his Enemies To this he answers This is what the Objector would have Very well if this be what I would have why did not our Author answer it is the mentioning of this answer of Jaddus an Evidence of their approbation of it or no But not a word of that which notwithstanding is the foundation of my Answer And is not what they say in their Canon a further confirmation of it Gan. 30. pag. 65. If any Man shall affirm that Jaddus having so sworn he might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have sollicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto He doth greatly err This I think is as fair a proof of their sence of this Matter as need to be and consequently that the Doctrine before is their sence But tho our Author will not answer this yet he doth not think so and therefore tells us The sence of the Convocation will best appear by their own words And thus they go on with the Story Alexander by Gods Providence having vanquish'd the Persians that is having overthrown Darius the King of the Persians upon which the Monarchy of the Grecians began These words within the Parenthesis are our Authors not the Convocations The Jews among many other Nations became his Subjects He dealt favourably with them releas'd them of some Payments and granted them Liberty to live according to their own Laws Our Author adds These last are the words of Josephus in that very Chapter which was quoted before in the Convocation-book and the things here spoken were done by Alexander then when he was at Jerusalem two years before the Death of Darius In Consequence hereof the Convocation declare in their Canon That if any man shall affirm That the Jews generally both Priests and People were not the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them as they had been before the Subjects of the King of Babylon and Persia He does greatly err In answer to this I have these things to observe 1. That which our Author cites here out of the Convocation is not from the Chapter in which the answer of Jaddus is mention'd and thereby approv'd nor yet from the Canon of that Chapter but from another and which is of a distinct Consideration and which plainly concerns quite another state of affairs than what they consider in the foregoing Chapter and Canon Now in the foregoing Chapter they mention Jaddus's answer to Alexander and approve of it They likewise take notice of Darius's over throw by Alexander and particularly at the end of Jaddus's answer they add as their own Remark Darius being by flight escaped when his Army was discomfited i.e. Darius was alive tho beaten and overthrown and therefore Jaddus could not agree to the Request of Alexander without violating his Oath And if any Man can make any other sence of it I should be glad to see it And this is the plain state of this Matter in this Chapter and then in the latter end of the Canon to the same Chapter they intimate that Jaddus having so sworn it was unlawful for him to take up Arms against Darius or to persuade others thereunto Now if this Canon refers to the Chapter and 't is ridiculous to think otherwise then 't is as plain as the Sun that the Convocation thought his Oath bound Jaddus not to take up Arms himself against Darius nor to persuade others when he was overthrown and discomfited but yet so as he himself by flight had escaped But here according to Promise I must consider what Dr. Sherlock says Case of Alleg. p. 8. who makes some answer to this tho our Author doth not and he saith The Convocation in their Canon take no notice that Jaddus having sworn to Darius could not submit or swear to any other Prince while Darius lived They do not say so indeed in so many words but they are very particular in the Chapter and in the Canon they intimate that by vertue of this Oath he was not to take up Arms himself against Darius nor to sollicit others Jews or Aliens And if there be any Connexion between the Canon and the Chapter it is plain this refers to what they had said concerning Jaddus and his answer in the Chapter and the sence is that notwithstanding the overthrow and discomfiture they mention in the Chapter yet Darius being himself escaped The Obligation of his Oath to Darius held him so as it was not lawful for him to take up Arms against Darius nor sollicit others i.e. in the Circumstances mention'd in the Chapter when he was escaped by flight and his Army discomfited And this is plain and natural and the Chapter and Canon are all of a piece and the Contexture uniform but to suppose that what they say relative to the Oath in the Chapter and what they say relative to the same Oath in the Canon of the same Chapter That they are of a distinct nature and Consideration is to suppose that the fairest way of interpreting Men is in contradiction to themselves Well but the Doctor says It is plain Jaddus himself did not mean this by it for he immediately submitted to Alexander before the last fatal overthrow of Darius The meaning then of Jaddus 's Answer to Alexander was no more but this That the having sworn Allegiance to Darius Dr. Sherlocks Alleg consid p. 2. could not make a voluntary Dedition of himself to Alexander which was the thing desired This hath already been very well answered by a learned Pen and thither I shall refer the Doctor and the Reader and shall only add that what the Doctor gives as the Reason and meaning of Jaddus's answer why he could not submit to Alexander was notwithstanding
to our Author And they add in their Canon to it and which also plainly refers to it that by vertue of his Oath to Darius it was not lawful for him to take up Arms against Darius nor to sollicit 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 mention'd 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's 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 sollicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto he does greatly err which plainly and in all points concurs with Jaddus's 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 sollicit 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's answer and seems directly to refer to it when he was requir'd 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 sence 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 tho 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 sence 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 believ'd any of the Story upon Josephus 's Authority for the same reason they must believe all and if they pass their judgment 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 judgment 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 judgment on one matter of Fact and ought 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 judgment 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 tho they be in the same place or refer to the same Person and if he does not must his Judgment and Wisdom be call'd 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 tho 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 concern'd in it nor intitled 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 father'd 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 tho 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 shews 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 then I suppose those Men did believe Darius's being living or dead made a great difference with respect to Jaddus's 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 suppos'd 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
say what he hath a mind to And here as he hath placed the Words and put in his own Additions he would make his Reader believe that Josephus represented it as if he had already concluded to meet Alexander in a posture of Submission whereas there is no such thing in Josephus nor any thing like it Here he says And for their Meeting and from thence infers they were resolv'd to do it before whereas both for their meeting and the placing of it which plainly alters the Sense is purely his own all that Josephus says is that God bad him be of good courage and to crown the City and open the Gates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest in white Garments but him with the Priests in the Vestments which the Law prescrib'd or legal Vestments to meet him And where now I wonder is this And for their Meeting which our Author begins the matter with tho Josephus placed it last and from whence he would fain conclude that this Meeting was resolv'd on before whereas 't is plain enough by the placeing of these Words in Josephus and by the connecting the Sentence by Conjunctives that the same Command that bad him be of good courage bad him also to meet him But this would not serve our Author's turn and therefore he is for beginning at the latter end and not only so but for putting in Words of his own He tells indeed here is every word of the Revelation Right and somewhat more to even some Words of our Author and these very Words of the Revelation are put out of their order which make a new Sense of them and the very thing in controversie is plainly if not industriously perverted Is there no difference with our Authour between God's commanding them to be of good courage and to meet him and bidding him be of good courage and for their meeting But if Josephus is not for our Authour's purpose he hath an Art to make him 't is but slipping in a Particle and placing his Words to the best advantage and then he may do very well and whether he speaks his own Sense or no he shall be sure to deliver our Author's Sense The Sum of all this matter is contain'd in these two Questions 1. Whether a Divine Revelation be not a sufficient warrant to practise contrary to ordinary and standing Rules 2. Whether as Josephus tells the Story Jaddus had not a Divine Revelation authorizing and appointing his and the Peoples particular Behaviour in this matter it is plain enough that the whole Action as Josephus relates it was directed by God himself the Habit the Solemnity the Meeting all were of Divine Appointment But these Gentlemen would fain confine the Revelation to the Manner only and not to the Meeting it self as if the same Revelation that directed them to meet Alexander in their Pontificalibus and in that solemn manner did not as well direct the Meeting as the Manner of it And it is a pure Consequence God directed them to meet in such a Manner and therefore he directed the Manner and not the Meeting Just as if a Master should command a Servant to put on such a Habit and attend on another Person why truly he commands him to put on his best Cloaths but as for his Attendance he may do as he sees good his Master's Command does not extend to that And therefore I would ask these Two Authors Whether Meeting be not in the Revelation And then I would fain see a reason why the Revelation does not extend to the Meeting as well as to all the rest Well Dr. Sherlock hath one thing yet behind and he tells us Vindic. p. 20. that When God is said to appear to him Jaddus in his Dream he answered no Question about the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander which is a very pleasant Reason to come from Dr. Sherlock My Answer is that Jaddus as Josephus relates it acted by Divine Revelation and not by ordinary and standing Rules and the Dr. tells us God answered no Question about the Lawfulness that is to say God did not declare it to be an ordinary and standing Rule for practice for to answer the Question about the Lawfulness of a thing is resolving a Case of Conscience which hath respect to an antecedent Law And therefore I must needs own that God answered no Question about the Lawfulness of Submitting which indeed would have been declaring it to be lawful and either making it or else referring to an ordinary Rule but for all that God by revealing it to be his Will made it lawful to them When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his Son he answer'd no Question about the Lawfulness of such Sacrifice when he commanded the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians he answered no Question about the Lawfulness of their taking their Jewels and Goods from them when notwithstanding by virtue of a Divine Revelation those respective Actions were lawful and a Duty to them which otherwise would have been utterly unlawful And it is very pleasant to talk of a Revelation answering the Question about the Lawfulness when the Lawfulness it self depends upon the Revelation At last our Author comes to another Objection which he tells me p. 28. He thinks it was put out of its place and ought to have come in for a Reserve and such like Reflections Now I will not stand with our Author upon this Point if he does not like my placing my own Objections let him place them himself according as he can best answer them all that I desire is that he will answer them and as to his Method first or last it is all one to me I will not quarrel with him in Dr. Sherlock's Language Vindic. p. 1. and tell him of more Art than Honesty in altering my Method and Order For I am contented to take Answers let them come in what Method they will Part of the Objection as our Author repeats it is this Answ p. 11. The Practice of the High Priest in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church will not signifie much to us and no more in this than in their other Immoralities upon which our Author thus animadverts This was frankly said but I think not very ingeniously And why so I pray Did not I give an Instance immediately of Eliashibs building a Chamber in the Temple for Tobiah Nehem. 〈◊〉 4. and where is the frankness or disingenuity That which is frankly said is without proof and that which is disingeniously said is without truth But here I had prov'd the Point and in an Instance our Author cannot deny But he is not for mentioning that and taking things altogether but he likes cutting an Objection into halves nay into quarters as we shall see presently and then disputing upon it Now tho our Author likes his own Method best in answering my Objections yet methinks he might have taken all the Objection along with him and not have minc'd it and divided
it and not only so but have left out a great part of it when notwithstanding 't is all of a piece and the strength of it appears when 't is united But of all the Disputers I ever met with I never saw such a one as our Author who is for snatching and catching and in the whole of his Answer hath not taken one single Paragraph scarcely one Reason intire and yet talks as magisterially and dogmatically as if he had answer'd every word And besides what hath been observ'd before the Reader may have yet a further taste of our Author's faculty in the matter before us now what he here pretends to dispute against is a summary Conclusion from one part of the Discourse and it lies thus in my Answer Answ p. 11. An Argument from Example is at best but a poor one but it must be very poor indeed when the Example it self is doubtful The practice of the High-Priest in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church will not signifie much to us and no more in this than in their other Immoralities And Jaddus becoming a Subject to Alexander contrary to his Oath is no more a Pattern for us to follow than Eliashib's building a Chamber in the Temple for Tobiah is an Argument for us to act contrary to the express Law of God But then it must needs signifie much less when that practice wants sufficient clearness and evidence to prove it Now if our Author had put this altogether and taken it as he found it his Animadversions of putting this out of its place would have appear'd very pleasant for where I wonder could this have been so pertinently brought in as to confirm my Inference from the suspiciousness of that Example And it would have been very proper indeed to talk of an Example according to ordinary Rules after the consideration of the peculiar and exempt Case of Divine Revelation For let the Practice be evident or not evident let that state of the Jewish Church be corrupt or not corrupt if they acted by Divine Revelation it does not come under common and ordinary Consideration and consequently does not at all affect that Argument And by his favour that ought to have been spoke to when I was speaking of ordinary Cases It is plain enough therefore that our Author's Animadversion was not to correct my Method but to make way for his own he could not tell how to speak to this in its proper place for then he must either have answered it all or at least have mention'd it and therefore forsooth it is put out of its place that is to say our Author hath put it out of its place for his own purpose and not only so but out of its sense too for the force of it lies in the Connection An Argument from Example is a poor one especially a suspicious Example and this confirm'd by an Instance The Practice of the High-Priest in that corrupt state of the Jewish Church signifies no more than their other Immoralities and Jaddus 's Submission no more than Eliashib 's building a Chamber in the Temple for Tobiah c. And if this had been mention'd together our Author's Answer would have been much to the purpose for he tells us He speaks as if Jaddus were single in this act of Submission p. 29. when it is evident that the whole Church of God at that time went along with him and suppose it what then Is an Example from a corrupt state of a whole Church a better Argument for practice than the Example of the High-Priest To prove his Point he might if he had pleas'd have produc'd the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf But to shew our Author the Vanity of his Method I answer as Josephus tells the story they acted by Divine Revelation and therefore let it be Jaddus himself or the whole Church 't is all one neither of them are an Example for us when their Case and Circumstances were peculiar and extraordinary And by this time I suppose our Author sees who hath put this out of its place Well! Our Author adds he tells us of that corrupt state of the Jewish Church in Jaddus's time Our Author answers This is News that is to say our Author never heard of it before I am sorry for that for I thought that the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah the minor Prophets yea and Josephus too might have a little inform'd him about that matter Well but our Author says All ancient Writers speake of these times as the best that ever were under the second Temple Now methinks our Author should have oblig'd his Readers with one of these antient Writers at least But no such matter if you will have them you must look them your self for he has not named one no not so much as refer'd to one in the Margent and yet to tell us all antient Writers speake so is somewhat extraordinary Now I must earnestly desire our Author for the credit of this peremptory Assertion that he will be pleased to name one antient Writer that ever said so or any thing like it and if he cannot do that as I am bold to say I utterly despair of that he will name some modern Writer and if he cannot do that neither this must go for a bold Stroke For when a Man calls in All Writers to his assistance the incredulous World are apt to think themselves impos'd upon if he has not so much as one single Writer ready at hand to justifie what he says And therefore once again I must press our Author for his own sake to make this out by plain proof from any one Writer besides himself in all the World I confess our Author's Assertion is stout and generous that the Times of Jaddus were the best with respect to the Virtue of the Jewish Church and not only so but more superlatively the best that ever were under the second Temple And here to speak plainly I doubt our Author cannot only not produce one single Writer that ever asserted it but not one single Man that heretofore or now ever believ'd it Well but our Author proves it The Church was much reform'd by those excellent Men that flourished in the Age next before namely by Nehemiah Ezra and Malachi Very good and therefore I hope the Age next before that was reform'd by these Excellent Men was the best that ever was under the second Temple and not the Age that follow'd and yet if any Man looks into the Books of Ezra Nehemiah or Malachi he will find sufficient reason to believe that notwithstanding the Care and Endeavours of those Excellent Men the Jewish Church was very corrupt in their Practices in those times and there is much more reason to believe it when the Authority and Perswasion of those Excellent Men were ceased with their Persons Ganz p. 58. Id. p. 66. But our Author adds At this very time beside Jaddus himself whom the Jews make the last of the Men
the truth for all our Authors talk of Eminent and venerable Examples he hath plainly quitted the Example it self 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 gain'd tho our Author will not admit the Premisses 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 Controversie about the vindication of Josephus for the present ends For if there be any difference between the Practises 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 Controversie The present Question is about the Example of Jaddus and our Author himself pretends to justifie it from other Topicks 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 Countrey 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 shew 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 hew as on the Throne and his being beaten at Naseby Field deliver'd up by the Scots imprisoned c. 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 Cromwel that had overcome him in War and so made himself Lord of that Countrey 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 then I perceive had our Author been Governour of a Town for the King in those days after the fatal Battel 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 shew 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 shew 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 tho 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 Prise 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 shew me one single Author who treats of the Question then uses it in such a sence 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 justifie the taking away the Prince and Peoples Right i. e. when all things considered the taking away that Right is a Reparation equivalent to the Injury for what is above that is Robbery and Rapine and can no more give one Prince a Title to another Princes Dominion than he that takes a thousand Pound for the injury of six pence hath a just Title to the overplus I know these things cannot be adjusted by Mathematical measures but for all that there are Rules of Justice to be observed tho in such Cases they may admit of some Latitude and what exceeds them is plain wrong and it is Nonsence to say that wrong creates Right 2. That is not a Conquest where the Subjects of a Prince are not Conquered tho he himself should be overcome or taken Prisoner And this is as clear as any Proposition in Euclid King Richard the First was taken Prisoner by Leopold Duke of Austria and did he by vertue of that acquire a Right and Title to the Crown and People of England and it is a pleasant Business to say that People are absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance and from the duty of Subjects because they are not conquered and it is a pure Argument to dissolve the Obligations of Oaths and to transfer Allegiance because they may keep them if they please and have power to do their Prince Right whenever they have a mind to it This is to prove a Conquest by denying it And to suppose that a Right to a Government and People is conveyed by Conquest when at the same time that People is not conquered is neither more nor less but to suppose all People out of their wits and such Doctrines are fit for any thing rather than an Answer I know well enough some men say here That it is all one with respect to particular Men if a Nation is not conquered particular Men are but it is plain these Men know not what they say and venture their Consciences upon Fancy and Imagination They have heard of Jus Belli and a Right by Conquest and without considering the Question are resolved to suppose themselves conquered tho at the same time they suppose themselves conquered by no body but their Fellow Subjects which is a pure way of Conquest indeed to convey a Title to the Crown and consequently to their Allegiance Heretofore Conquest was a terrible thing and appeared in Blood and Destruction but now 't is grown as mild and soft as can be and if you have a mind to find it you must not look into the Field and consider fighting and the Effects of the Sword but you must search into the most peaceable places of the Kingdom in the Parhament-House and Westminster-Hall which I must confess of all places a Man would hardly have thought to have found Conquest in 3. That is not a Conquest so as to convey a Right and Title to the Dominion of a Country where the Legal and natural Prince of that Countrey is not destroyed or so conquered as either virtually or expresly to resign his Right and submit to the Conqueror And this is plainly founded on the eternal and immutable Rules of Equity and Justice For no Man let him be under what Force he will can give away another Man 's Right without his own consent If therefore a Prince hath a Right to his Kingdom no force upon himseif much less upon his Subjects can extinguish that Right and till that is extinguish'd a Conqueror can have no right to it for two opposite persons cannot have the same Right to the same thing And here I would ask our Author who talks so pleasantly of winning of Right which way unjust Force should extinguish just Right And if this Right be not extinguished then it remains with him and if the Right remains with him then the Conqueror is an unrighteous Possessor i. e. he hath no Right and Title for no Man has a Right and Title to what he possesses unjustly And then I would fain know how Allegiance and Duty ceases to Right and follows Wrong and Injustice in opposition to Right But of this our Author and the Reader may be much better inform'd from the Learned Author of the Duty of Allegiance in Answer to Doctor Sherlock But after all what has the Question of Conquest to do in the Business for suppose Conquest in our Author's Notion would do all these won ders I hope No-Conquest would not do all these extraordinary matters too And where I pray is this Conquest they talk on 't is invisible to every body but themselves Did ever any Men before dispute and argue and take pains to prove themselves conquered when the person whom they pretend the Conqueror and all the Nation besides perfectly disowned it Those that insist upon this Argument it seems as if their Consciences were hard set when they have nothing to say to justifie themselves but what contradicts their own Eyes and common Sense A Man would imagine a little Modesty without any Reason would answer such Arguments And if they can stop the Mouth of their Consciences with Chimera's and Figments much good may it do them Should any sober Foreigner hear of the abdicating Vote ' of giving and accepting the Crown and the Revenue belonging to it of confining the Soveraign Power and limiting the Succession c. And at the same time hear of a sort of Divines that were might and main stretching their Wits to prove that a Conquest I believe he would think something or other which I will not name for certainly such a Conquest was never heard of when the Conqueror must take Terms from the Conquered For my part I think Men that talk at this rate are to be looked upon as the Betrayers of English Liberty and Property For how much soever they may play with it Conquest is a very hard word and means no less than a Title to the Property of the whole Kingdom And all these Arguments plainly centre in this That whatever was done and transacted in the Convention was nothing else but Mercy and Condescension in the Prince and he vouchsafed to accept of the Crown upon these Terms when it was his own before by the Rights of War So that by these Mens Arguments the Sovereign Power not being as absolute as in France or Turkey and the Property of the whole Kingdom is pure free Gift and Gracious Condescension which is a Tenure not very grateful to English Men. And I have often wondered that a Nation so jealous of its Liberties and Privileges would suffer such Doctrines and Arguments to pass abroad without Publick Animadversion And therefore in Defence of the Liberties of my Native Country which these Arguments totally overthrow and betray I will enter the List with him when he pleases And to make good his Hypothesis here are two things for him to prove 1. That Conquest in his Notion that is Force Power or Victory is a sufficient Title to Dominion and Government and gives a just Right to it 2. That the Revolution here is a Conquest the one is a general Doctrine and the other the Application of it to the particular Case And when our Author hath done these by the Grace of God he shall hear what Answer I have to return For the present I shall take my leave of our Author and of his Argument from Conquest with this one Remark That those who have been early in a Revelation and have set their Heads and Shoulders to it For them to justifie their Compliances by Conquest is abominable Hypocrisie before God and Man FINIS