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 Arrian▪ de exp. A­lex. ii. 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 [Page 16] 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 Ezek. 26. 2. 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.

[Page 17]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 Jos. Ant. xi. 6. 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 Pl [...]t. in Alex. 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 [Page 18] 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.

[Page 19]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 Conv [...]. chap. 30. p. 63. 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 Conv [...]. can. 30. p. 65. 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 chap [...] ▪ p. 64. hold it Canonical no more than the Books of the Maccabees and other ancient Hi­storiographers; [Page 20] 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 Convo [...]. chap. 31. beginni [...]g. with the Story: Alexander by Gods Pro­vidence having vanquisht the Persians; (that is, having Ib. ch. 29. 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 [Page 21] Darius. In consequence hereof, the Convocation declare their Can. 31. p. 67. 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 Convo [...]. c. 31. p. 67. 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 Can. 31. beginning. 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, [Page 22] 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.

[Page 23]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 Mal. iv. 3. 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 1 Macc. ix. 27. 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) [Page 24] 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 Mal. iv. 3. 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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.

[Page 28]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 p. 11. 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 [Page 29] 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 Ganz. p. 58. make the last of the Men of the great Synagogue; there was also B [...]nsira, as Ganz. p. 66. 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 Eccl. 50. 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 [Page 30] 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 p. 19. 20, 21. 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.

[Page 31]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.

[Page 32]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.

[Page 33]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