said unto him, Cesar's. And they depart confounded at his answer. 203 SECT. cliv. Mark hath] And they without perceiving his design, immediately an[LUKF, answered and] swered and said to him, It is Cæsar's: thereby in [MAT. XXII.-19, 20, effect acknowledging that they were under his 21.-LUKE XX.-24.] dominion, by their admitting his coin as cur- XII. 17. 17-And Jesus an rent among them. And Jesus answering said swering said unto them, unto them, Render therefore to Cæsar the things Render [therefore] to Cesar the things that which are Caesar's and to God the things which are Cesar's, and to are God's; and labour so to adjust your regards God the things that and duties to both, that you may not on the one are God's. [MAT. hand, under pretence of religion, do any injury XXII.-21. XX. 25. to Cæsar, nor on the other band, under pretence of duty to Cæsar, violate any of the commands of God, or fail of that respect to him which he requires: whereby he plainly intimated that tribute was to be paid to Cæsar as due to his government; yet did it in such a manner, and with such restrictions, as prevented the inconvenience of a more express declaration. LUKE XX. 26. And [when they had heard people and they mar : velled at his answer, and held their peace 22. And when they had heard [his] wise and unex- Luke these words], they ceptionable [answer], they plainly found that XX. 26. could not take hold of they could not take hold of his words before the his words before the people, so as to incense and stir them up against him, as no friend to their liberties; and they were equally unable to accuse him to the Romans of sedition, on account of any thing he had then said as derogating fromthe rights of Cæsar. They therefore wondered at the prudence and address of his reply, by which he had effectually disentangled himself from what they thought must unavoidably have ensnared him; and were so perfectly confounded, that they held their peace, and left him; and deeply sensible of the disgrace, as well as disappointment they had met with, they went away amazed and ashamed. tion among them, that to admit of the title of any prince on their current coin, was an acknowledgment of subjection to him. It is certain, their not daring to refuse this coin, when offered them in payment, was in effect a confession that they were conquered by the Romans, and consequently that the emperor had a right to their tribute. d And to God the things which are God's.] Diodate, Raphelius, and some other commentators, interpret this as a caution against omitting the sacred tribute, on pretence of answering the demands of Cæsar, who VOL. VII. IMPROVE (they say) had claimed it to himself. But C c 1 201 Reflections on the duties we owe to God and the king. ВЕСТ. IMPROVEMENT. AGAIN does our Lord renew the repeated lesson he had before cliv. given us, both by precept and example, of uniting wisdom and innocence. How admirable was this mixture of prudence and xx. 25,26 integrity with which he confounded these Pharisees and Herodi Luke ans, who, contrary as their principles and interests were, conspired 20 against him! For of a truth, O Lord, against thine holy Child Jesus, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, and the people of Israel, were gathered together (Acts iv. 27); and their words were softer than oil, when war and murder was in their hearts. (Psal. lv. 21.) 21 xxii. 16. Let us not, with the simple, believe every flattering word (Prov. xiv. 15), since sometimes the highest encomiums may be designed as the instruments of mischief: and too often they prove so, when they are not treacherously intended. Mat. Our Lord was indeed the Person whom these artful hypocrites described; and was in that respect an excellent Pattern to all his followers, and especially to his ministers. He knew no man in the discharge of his office; but, without regarding the persons of any, neither seeking their favour nor fearing their resentment, he taught the way of God in truth, and declared the whole of his counsel. 21 Let us particularly attend to his decision in the present case, and learn with the utmost readiness to render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's. Our civil magistrates, by virtue of their office, justly claim our reverent regard; and tribute is most reasonably due to those who attend continually to the service of the public, and are, under God, the pillars of our common tranquility and happiness. (Rom. xiii. 6, 7.) Let that tribute therefore be justly and freely rendered with honour, and with cheerfulness; as he is surely unworthy to share in the benefits of government who will not contribute his part towards its necessary expence. But let it also be remembered that the rights of God are sacred and inviolable: he, and he alone, is the Lord of conscience; and when that is invaded, it is easy to judge whether man or God is to be obeyed; (Acts iv. 19.) Let us be daily thankful that in our own age and country these rights are so happily united. May a guardian Providence continue to watch over both! and may we seriously consider how impossible it is, under such a government, to be good Christians, without being obedient subjects, or to fear God, if we do not honour the king! (1 Pet. ii. 17.) SECT. The Pharisees urge a difficulty against the resurrection. 205 SECT. CLV. Our Lord proves the resurrection to the Sadduccees, and answers their foolish objection against it. Mat. XXII, 23—33; Mark XII. 18-27; Luke XX. 27-10. LUKE XX. 27. THEN [the same day] came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection and they asked him, [MAT. XXII. 23. MARK XII. 18.] unto us, If any man's LUKE XX. 27. THEN on that day in which our Lord had ECT, b clv. thus confounded the Pharisees and the He. rodians, some of the Sadducees came to him, who (as Luke it was before observed) were a set of pretended XX. 27, free thinkers among the Jews, that deny there is any resurrection of the dead, or any future state in which the soul exists after death to receive the reward of its actions. And they applied themselves to Jesus, and asked him a question, in which they put a case which they used often to urge against those who were of a different opinion from themselves, and with which 28 Saying, Master, they also hoped to puzzle him: Saying, Master, 28 Moses [said and] wrote if there be, as we know thou teachest, a resurbrother die. [MARK, rection of the dead, how can this difficulty and leave his wife be- which we are going to propose be adjusted? hind him, and leave Moses, as thou well knowest, said, [and] wrote no children], that his brother should take his to us this precept (Deut. xxv. 5), That if a man's wife, and raise up seed brother die, and leave a wife and no children beunto his brother. hind him, his surviving brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother; the first child of this second marriage being esteemed Now there were with the child of the deceased, so as to inherit his brethren; whole estate and bear up his name. had married a wife, so happened, that there were with us, in a certain XXII.25 deceased, and having family in our neighbourhood, seven brethren; no [LUKE, children], and the first of these brethren when he had marleft his wife unto his ried a wife, died quickly after, and having had [MAT. XXII. 24. MARK XII. 19.] MAT. XXII. 25. US seven and the first, when he brother. [MARK XII. 20. LUKE XX. 29.] a Who deny there is any resurrection.] It is generally known that their master Sadoc, from whom the Sadducees took their name, taught that God was not to be served from mercenary principles, that is (as he crudely explained it), from hope of reward, or fear of punishment. His followers interpreted this as an implicit denial of a future state, and so imbibed that pernicious notion of the utter destruction of the soul at death, equally uncomfortable and absurd. See Drusius, in loc.-The story which they mention here seems to have been a kind of common-place ob Now it Mat. no jection, as we meet with it in the old b Or any future state, &c.] As it is 206 SECT. clv. Luke Jesus shews their mistaken notion of the resurrection. LUKE XX. 30. And the second took her to wife, and he [likewise] XXII. 26.-MARK 31 And the third And they left no chil.. no children. left his wife of course to be married to his brother. And upon this the second followed the direction of the law, and took her to XX. 30. wife; and he likewise, after he had been some died childless. [MA1. time married, died childless, as his elder brother 31 did. And then the third took her, and he also XII, 21.—] died as the others had done, without issue: and took her: and in like in like manner also all the rest went on, till every manner the seven also one of the seven brothers had married her; and [MARK, had her]: they all died, and left no children behind them. 32 And last of all the woman herself also died without any issue, not having married into any other 33 family but this. The question therefore is, When they shall rise, as you say they all will, the general resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for all the seven had her to wife and as they stood in an equal relation to her in this world, they all seem to have exactly an equal claim to her in the next. Mat. XXII.29 Luke XX. 34. in dren, and died [MAT, XXII. 27. 33 Therefore in the resurrection [MARK, 28. [And] Jesus answered and said unto them, Thus they attempted in a sneering manner to overthrow all the arguments for a future state, which might be advanced either from reason, or from scripture. And Jesus therefore answered and said to them, It plainly appears from your ye do err, not knowmanner of stating the question, that you are ing the scriptures, nor greatly mistaken, and go entirely on a wrong sup- the power of God. position; not knowing, on the one hand, what is [MARK XII. so plainly intimated in the scriptures of a resurrection, which, if well understood, implies no contradiction at all; nor attending on the other hand, to the power of God, which is able with infinite ease to effect what to man seems most difficult and improbable. you LUKE XX. 34.-] 24. LUKE XX.-94. The children of this given in marriage : world marry, and are 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that And as to this particular difficulty which now object, it ought to be considered, that the children of this world do indeed marry, and are given in marriage, according to the wise provision which God has made by that institution, for repairing the wastes of mortality by the pro35 duction of new generations. But they who shall be counted worthy to obtain that blessed world which God has prepared for his people above, and to be admitted to the never-fading honours rection from the dead that will succeed the resurrection of good men shall rise, neither mar[MARK, when they from the dead, will be in very different circum- ry, nor are given in marstances when they shall rise, and neither marry, riage. [MAT. XXII.30. 36 nor are given in marriage: For they can die 36 Neither can no more, and therefore the rise of new genera- they die any more: tions is no longer necessary; since in this respect for they are equal unto the angels [of they world, and the resur -MARK XII. 25.-] God He proves the resurrection from the law of Moses. being the children of 207 elv. Luke God in heaven], and they are equal to the angels of God in heaven, SECT. are the children of God, and are the children of God, and heirs of immorthe resurrection [MAT. tality and glory, being the children of the resurXXII.-30. MARK rection, which shall instate them in a complete XX. 36. XII.-25.] felicity, answerable to so near a relation to the Divine Being and consequently all such difficulties as you have now been urging are entirely superseded by the happiness and perfection of so exalted a state. 37 [But as touching the resurrection], that the dead are raised, But as for the evidence of the resurrection in 37 general, not to insist on many plainer passages even Moses showed at in the other books of scripture, for which you the bush, when he do not profess so great a regard, I may say, calleth the Lord, the that even Moses in effect shewed that the dead are God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and to be raised, when speaking of what happened at God of Jacob: the burning bush (Exod. iii. 6), he calls the Lord, [MARK, have ye not from whom he there received his commission, Moses, how in the bush "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, read in the book of God c Are equal to the angels of God in heaven.] Matthew and Mark say only that they ate as the angels (ws ayiño), and though Luke expresses it by a stronger word (a), that they are equal to the an geis, yet all arguments drawn from hence, as proving an entire equality of glorified saints with angels in all respects, must be apparently weak and inconclusive. It is indeed the glorious scheme of redeeming love to incorporate angels and saints into one happy society under Christ as their common Head, (Eph. i. 10.) but there are subordinations in united societies. And if the fall of the apostate spirits occasioned any thing like a vacancy in the celestial hierarchy, it would seem most probable it might be filled up from heavenly spirits of an inferior order, who might be preferred to the rank their degenerate brethren lost, as a reward for their approved fidelity to God. But it becomes us to be exceeding modest in our conjectures on such subjects as these, lest we incur the censure of intruding into things which we have not seen. Col. ii. 18. d And are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.] This plainly intimates that good men are called God's children, with a view to the inheritance to which they are adopted, on the final possession of which they enter at the resurrection. Compare Rom. viii. 17. Gal. iv. 7. 1 John iii. 2. and Rom. viii. 29. See the Essay on Divine Dispensations, p. 8, 9. e Other books of scripture, for which you do not profess so great a regard.] The Sadducees are thought by many to have agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all and the other parts of holy scripture but the five books of Moses; which is particularly contended for by Serrarius. (Trihæres, lib. ii. cap. 21, and Minerval lib. iv. cap. 14.) But this is questioned by Drusius (de tribus sectis, lib. iii. cap. 9), and Reland (Antiq. Heb. part ii. cap. 11.) and Scaliger maintains the contrary, and shews that the passage from Josephus (Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. 10 (al. 18), § 6), which is commonly alledged in defence of that opinion, only relates to their rejecting all traditions. (Elench. Trikeres, cap. 16.) And indeed, as it appears from the Talmud that other parts of the Old Testament were often quoted by the Sadducees, and arguments were brought from thence against them by the Pharisees to prove the resurrection, which they endeavoured only to evade, without disputing the authority of texts, though they were not taken from the law of Moses; it is more reasonable to believe with Dr. Lightfoot (in his Hor. Hebr. on John iv. 25), that they did not reject the other books of the Old Testament, but only gave a great preference to the five books of Moses; and, laying it down as a principle, to receive nothing as an article of faith, which could not be proved from the law, if any thing was urged from other parts of scripture that could not be deduced from Moses, they would explain it in some other way. And this might be sufficient to induce our Lord to bring his argument to prove the resurrection from what Moses had said, and to confirm it by that part of scripture which was most regarded by the Sadducees, and upon which they now had grounded their objection to it, { I an. |