This member of the parable represents the last judgment, and teaches us, that though the Gentiles obeyed the call of the gospel with more alacrity than the Jews, they should not all be saved by it.

Our Lord concluded this parable as he had done that of the labourers in the vineyard. Matt. xxii. 14. For many are called, but few are chosen. Which words are proverbial, and must be referred first to the Jews, who, though they were called in great numbers by the preaching of the gospel, few of them were chosen, for they did not believe; see on Matt. xx. 16. § 105. They must be referred also to the Gentiles, who though they embraced the gospel, many of them rejected the wedding-garment when it was offered to them. The parable is concluded in this manner to shew us, that the profession of the Christian religion will not save a man, unless he lives in a manner worthy of that religion. Wherefore, to use the words of Dr Doddridge, let us who have obeyed the call, and are by profession the people of God, think often of that awful day, when the king will come in to see his guests; when God will, with the greatest strictness, view every soul laying claim to the joys of heaven; let us think of the speechless confusion that will seize such as have not on the wedding-garment, and of the inexorable severity with which they will be consigned to weeping and gnashing of teeth; and let us remember, that to have seen for a while the light of the gospel, and the fair beamings of an eternal hope, will add deeper and more sensible horrors to these gloomy caverns. On the other

hand, to animate and encourage us, let us think also on the happy time when the marriage-supper of the Lamb shall be celebrated, and all the harmony, pomp, and beauty of heaven shall add to its solemnity, its magnificence, and its joys.

Mark xii. 12. And they left him, and went their way. The chief priests, and scribes, and elders, had come, by order of the senate, to examine his pretensions. They made no doubt but they would be able fully to confute them. They therefore chose to attack him in the temple, while he was surrounded with s great crowd of followers and admirers, whose eyes they propos

ed

serves a place here. "It is needless to dispute about the wedding-garment, whether it be faith or a pious holy life. For neither can faith be separated fro a good works, nor can good works proceed except from faith. Christ's meaning is only that we are called in order that we may be renewed in our minds after his image. And therefore, that we may remain always in his house, the old man, with his filthiness, must be put off, and a new life designed, that our attire may be such as is suitable to so honourable an invitation." Doddridge observes, that this circumstance of the parable is admirably adapted to the method of God's dealing with us. For he requires repentance indeed, and holiness in order to our partaking of the happiness of heaven: but at the same time, he graciously offers to work it in us, by his holy Spirit; and therefore may justly punish our nes glect of so great a favour,

ed to open; but their project issued in their own confusion, for the very first sentence which Jesus spake in return to their ques, tion concerning his mission, absolutely silenced them all, though they were the most learned men of the nation. And the description which in his three parables he gave of their sin and punishment as the depositaries of Divine revelation, so abashed them, that they went away without saying a word more to him about his authority and mission.

$ CXVII. Concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute. Matt. xxii. 15,-22. Mark xii. 13,-17. Luke xx. 20,-26.

THE parable of the marriage-supper incensed the Pharisees to such a degree, that they went immediately, and combined with the Herodians or Sadducees, (see Jewish Antiq. Disc. i. chap. 4. 1.) in order to put him to death. Matt. xxii. 15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. 16. And they sent out unto him their disciples (Mark, certain of the Pharisees) with the Herodions, (Mark, to catch him in his words.) It seems their hatred of Jesus was more violent than the bitter enmity that had been long rooted in the breasts of the two sects against each other. Having therefore resolved to send certain of their disciples to catch him in his words, they directed them to feign themselves just men, men who had a great veneration for the Divine law, and dread of doing any thing inconsistent therewith; and under that mask to beg him, for the ease of their consciences, to give his opinion whether they might pay taxes to the Romans consistently with their zeal for religion. It seems this question was much debated in our Lord's time; one Judas of Galilee having taught the unlawfulness of paying the taxes, and gathered a numerous faction, especially among the common people. The priests, therefore, imagined that it was not in his power to decide the point without making himself obnoxious to some of the parties who had divided upon it. If he should say it was lawful to pay the taxes, they believed the people in whose hearing the question was proposed (see Luke, ver. 26.) would be incensed against him, not only as a base pretender, who, on being attacked, publicly renounced the character of Messiah, which he had assumed among his friends; but as a flatterer of princes also, and a betrayer of the liberties of his country, one that taught doctrines inconsistent with the known privileges of the people of God. But if he should affirm that it was unlawful to pay, the Herodians resolved to inform the go

vernor

The notion which the generality of the ration formed of Messiah was, that he would deliver them from foreign servitude. If therefore he, who called himself Messiah, recommended the paying of taxes to the Romians, this they thought was inconsistent with his pretensions, nay, it was a renouncing of them altogether.

vernor of it, who they hoped would punish him as a fomenter of sedition. Luke xx. 20. And they watched him, and sent forth spies which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor. Highly elated therefore with their project, they came and proposed the question, after having first passed an encomium on the truth of his mission, and upon his courage, integrity, and impartiality, with a design, no doubt, to make him believe that they were his friends, and that he ought boldly to declare what the will of God was in the matter. Mark xii. 14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, (Luke, that thou sayest and teachest rightly) and carest for no man; for thou regardest (Luke, acceptest) not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth. Matt. xxii. 17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar or not? (Mark, Shall we give, or shall ave not give?) 18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? He called them hypocrites, to signify, that though they made conscience, and a regard to the Divine will, their pretence for asking the question, he saw through their design, and knew that they were come to ensnare him. However, said, he 19. Shew me the tribute-money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21. They say unto him, Cesar's. It seems the Romans chose to receive this tribute in their own coin. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's. The Jews were so tenacious of the customs of their country, and had so high an opinion of their own holiness, that they would not make use of heathen money, as appears from the business of the money changers mentioned in the gospels. Probably it was for this reason that the Romans insisted on having the taxes paid in their own coin, because, by making it current, they taught the Jews that they were their masters. Hence the force of our Lord's argument appears. Since this money bears Cesar's image, it is his; and by making use of it, ye acknowledge his authority. If so, I leave it to yourselves to judge whether tribute ought to be paid toward the support of that government, which ye have acknowledged, which ye cannot shake off, and by which your tranquillity is preserved. That this was our Lord's meaning, appears from the illative particle therefore, by which his answer is connected with the Pharisees question: "They say unto him, Cesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cesar."-Having thus declared the lawfulness of paying taxes to the civil powers, he ordered them at the same time to be careful to pay to God what was his due, as their Maker and Preserver: Render therefore unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's; and unte

God

God the things that are God's, In discharging your duty to the civil magistrate, you should never depart from the duty you owe to God; but should remember, that as you bear the image of the great King omnipotent, you are his subjects, and ought to pay him the tribute of yourselves; that is, ought to yield yourselves to him, soul and body, serving him with both, to the utmost of your power. The Pharisees, and their adherents, under pretence of religion, often justified sedition; but the Herodians, in order to ingratiate themselves with the reigning powers, made them a compliment of their consciences, complying with whatever they enjoined, although directly contrary to the Divine law. Our Lord therefore when he returned this answer, had both in his view exhorting them in their regards to God and the magistrate, to give each his due; because there is no inconsistency between their rights, when nothing but their rights are insisted on.

Thus the crafty counsel, formed by the opposite factions for discrediting Jesus with the people, was of none effect. Luke xx. 26. And they could not take hold of his words before the people. Moreover, Matt. xxii. 22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. Luke xx. 26. They marvelled at his answer, and held their peace. Mark, They marvelled at him. So unexpected an answer, in which Jesus clearly confuted them on their own principles, and shewed that the rights of God and the magistrate do not interfere in the least, because magistrates are God's deputies, and rule by his authority, quite disconcerted and silenced those crafty enemies. They were astonished at his having perceived their design, as well as at the wisdom by which he avoided the snare, and went off inwardly vexed, and not a little ashamed.

§ CXVIII. The Sadducees are confuted. Matt. xxii. 23,—83. Mark xii. 18,-27. Luke xx. 27,-38....

AND now enemies issue forth against Jesus from different quarters. But the first that renewed the attack were the Saddu cees, a sect which denied the existence of angels and spirits, Acts xxiii. 8. See Jewish Ant. Disc. i. ch. 4. § 1. and consequently affirmed, that there would be no future state. Some of this persuasion therefore coming up to Jesus as he taught in the temple, proposed their strongest argument against the resurrection. Matt. xxii. 23. The same day came to him the Sadducees, (Luke, certain of the Sadducees) which say that there is no resurrection.

The

Matt. 23. No resurrection.] Some are of opinion, that by the resurrec tion which the Sadducees denied, is to be understood the resurrection of the body. Others contend that it significs simply the existence of men in a future state. Properly speaking, however, the two nations coincide; for as the Sadducees denied the immateriality of the soul, à future state, according

The argument by which the Sadducees endeavoured to confute the notion of a resurrection, was taken from the Jewish law of marriage, which, to give their objection the better colour, they observed was God's law, delivered by Moses. Luke xx. And they asked him, 28. Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us,(Matt. said, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children. (Mark, die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children) that his brother should take (Matt. marry) his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29. There were therefore seven brethren (Matt. with us); and the first took a wife, and died without children (Matt. deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother). 30. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31. And the third took her: and in like man ner the seven also. And they left no children, and died.

32. Last

of all the woman died also. 33. Therefore in the resurrection' (here the word evidently signifies a future state simply, Mark, in the resurrection therefore when they shall rise) whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. As the Sadducees believed the soul to be nothing but a more refined kind of matter, they thought if there was any future state, it must resemble the present; and that men being in that state material and mortal, the human race could not be continued, nor the individuals made happy, without the pleasures and conveniencies of marriage. Hence they affirmed it to be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the resurrection or future state, that every man's wife should be restored to him. This argument Jesus confuted, by telling the Sadducees, that they were ignorant of the power of God, who has created spirit as well as matter, and who can make men completely happy in the enjoyment of himself. He observed farther, that the nature of the life obtained in the future state, makes marriage altogether superfluous, because, in the world to come, men being spiritual and immortal like the angels (ayy), there is no need of procreation, to propagate or continue the kind. Matt. xxii. 29. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. (Mark, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God?) Luke xx. 34. The children of

this

according to their conceptions of it, could mean nothing else but the resurrection of the body; and their denying the resurrection of the body, was the same thing with their denying a future state. Withal, as they had no idea of spirit, they were obliged to make use of terms relative to the body, when they spake of an after-life. Hence came the familiar use of the word resurrection in their disputes, to denote a future state simply; and this sense of it is not more unusual than the meaning which they affixed to the word dead, when they made it signify persons annihilated, or who have no existence at all; see Luke xx. 38. Our Lord's reasonings in behalf of a future state, against the Sadducean arguments, placed in this view, are clear and conclusive. But the resurrection of the Lody, in the literal sense, does not so plainly follow from them.