344 Sect. 154. Ver. 21. Mat. xxii. 16. Ver. 21. Reflections on the Duties we owe to GOD and the King. Let us not, with the Simple, believe every flattering Word; (Prov. xiv. 15.) fince fometimes the highest Encomiums may be defigned as the Inftruments of Mischief: And too often they prove fo, when they are not treacherously intended. Our Lord was indeed the Perfon, whom these artful Hypocrites defcribed; and was in that refpect an excellent Pattern to all his Followers, and especially to his Minifters. He knew no Man in the Discharge of his Office; but without regarding the Perfons of any, neither feeking their Favour, nor fearing their Refentment, he taught the Way of GOD in Truth, and declared the whole of his Counfel Let us particularly attend to his Decifion in the present Cafe, and learn with the utmost Readiness to render unto Cæfar the Things which are Cafar's, and unto GOD the Things which are GOD's. Our Civil Magistrates, by Virtue of their Office, juftly claim our reverent Regard; and Tribute is most reasonably due to thofe, who attend continually to the Service of the Publick, and are, under Go D, the Pillars of our common Tranquillity and Happiness. (Rom. xiii. 6, 7.) Let that Tribute therefore be justly and freely rendered, with Honour, and with Chearfulness; as he is furely unworthy to share in the Benefits of Government, who will not contribute his Part towards its neceffary Expence. But let it also be remembered, that the Rights of GOD are facred and inviolable: He, and He alone, is the Lord of Confcience; and when that is invaded, it is cafy 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 thefe Rights are fo happily united. May a Guardian Providence continue to watch over both and may we feriously confider how impoffible it is, under fuch a Government, to be good Chriftians, without being obedient Subjects, or to fear GOD, if we do not honour the King! (1 Pet. ii. 17.) SECT. CLV. Our LORD proves the Resurrection to the Sadducees, and anfwers their foolish Objection against it. Mat. XXII. 23,---33. Mark XII. 18,---27. Luke XX. 27,---40. LUKE XX. 27. LUKE XX. 27. Sect. 155. THEN on that Day in which our Lord had THEN [the fame Day] 27. thus confounded the Pharifees and the Hero Luke XX. dians, fome of the Sadducees came to him, who (as it was before obferved,) were a Sect of pretended Free came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that that there is any Refurrection; and they asked him, [MAT. XXII. 23. MARK XII. 18.] 28 Saying, Master, Mofes [faid and ] wrote unto us, If any Man's Brother die, [MAR. and leave his Wife behind him, and leave no Children,] that his Brother fhould take his Wife, and raise up Seed unto his Brother. [MAT. XXII. 24. MARK XII..19.] 345 Luke XX. 27. The Sadducees urge a Difficulty against the Resurrection. Free-thinkers among the Jews, that deny there is Sect. 155. any Refurrection of the Dead (a), or any Future State in which the Soul exifts after Death (b) to receive the Reward of its Actions. And they applied themselves to Jefus, and afked him a Question, in which they put a Cafe, which they used often to urge against those who were of a different Opinion from themselves, and with which they alfo hoped to puzzle him : Saying, Mafter, if 28 there be, as we know thou teacheft, a Refurrection of the Dead, how can this Difficulty, which we are going to propofe, be adjusted? Mofes, as thou well knoweft, faid, [and] wrote to us this Precept, (Deut. xxv. 5.) " That if a Man's "Brother die, and leave a Wife and no Children "behind him, his furviving Brother should take "his Wife, and raise up Seed to his Brother;" the first Child of this fecond Marriage being esteemed the Child of the Deceased, fo as to inherit his whole Eftate, and bear Now it Mat. XXII. his Name. fo happened, that there were with us, in a certain 25. Family in our Neighbourhood, Seven Brethren and the First, when he had married a Wife, died quickly after, and, having no Children, left his Wife of Course to his Brother. And upon this, Luke XX. the Second followed the Direction of the Law, 30. and married her; and he likewife after fome Time died Childless, as his elder Brother had done. And then the Third took her, and he alfo died, as 31 the others had done, without Iffue: And in like Manner also they went on, till every one of the Seven Brothers had married her; and they all died, and died.[MAT.XXII.-26. and left no Children behind them. And laft 32 MARK XII.-21, 22.-] MAT. XXII. 25. Now there were with us Seven Brethren; and the First when he had married a Wife, deceafed, and having no [LUK. Children,] left his Wife unto his Brother. [MARK XII. 20. LUKE XX. 29.] LUKE XX. 30. And the Second took her to Wife, and he [likewife] died Childlefs. [MAT. XXII. 26. MARK XII. 21.-] Seven alfo [MAR. had her :] up ; of (a) Who deny there is any Refurrection.] It is generally known, that their Mafter Sadoc, from whom the Sadducees took their Name, taught that GOD was not to be ferved from mercenary Principles, i. e. (as he crudely explained it,) from Hope of Reward, or Fear of Punishment. His Followers interpreted this as an implicite Denial of a Future State, and fo imbibed that pernicious Notion of the utter Deftruction of the Soul at Death, equally uncomfortable and abfurd. See Drufius, in loc.-The Story they tell, feems to be a Kind of Common-Place Objection, which we meet with in the old Jewish Writers. See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in loc. (6) Or any Future State, &c.] As it is exprefsly faid, Acts xxiii. 8. that they denied any Spirit, and confequently the Exiftence of the Soul in a feparate State; fo our Lord's Answer here, and much of St. Paul's Reasoning in 1 Cor. xv. goes on the Suppofition of fuch a Denial on their Part. See 2 Mac. xii. 42,-44. where the Author proves, that Judas believed a Refurrection, from his offering Sacrifices for the Souls of the Slain. VOL. II. X x (c) Are 346 Sect. 155. of all, the Woman herself alfo died without Iffue, not having married into any other Family but Luke XX. this. The Question therefore is, when they fball rife, as you fay they all will, in the general Refurrection, whofe Wife shall he be of the Seven? for all the Seven had her to Wife; and as they ftood in an equal Relation to her in this World, they all feem to have exactly an equal Claim to They understood not the Scriptures, nor the Power of GOD. 33. Mat. XXII. 29. Luke XX. 34. her in the next? your Thus they attempted in a fneering Manner to overthrow all the Arguments for a Future State, which might be advanced, either from Reafon, or from Scripture. And Jefus therefore answered and faid to them, It plainly appears from Manner of stating the Queftion, that you are greatly mistaken, and go entirely on a wrong Suppofition; not knowing, on the one hand, what is fo plainly intimated in the Scriptures of a Refurrection, 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 Eafe to effect, what to Man feems most difficult and improbable, And as to this particular Difficulty which you now object, it ought to be confidered, that the Children of this World do indeed marry, and are given in Marriage, according to the wife Provifion which GOD has made by that Inftitution, for repairing the Waftes of Mortality, by the 35 Production of new Generations. But they, who fhall be counted worthy to obtain that bleffed World which GOD has prepared for his People above, and to be admitted to the never-fading Honours that will fucceed the Refurrection of good Men from the Dead, will be in very different Circumftances when they shall rife, and neither marry, 36 nor are given in Marriage: For they can die no more, and therefore the Rife of new Generations is no longer neceffary; fince in this Refpect they are equal to the Angels of GOD in Heaven (c), and are the Children of GOD, and Heirs of 32 [And] last of all the Woman died also. [MAT. XXII.27. MARK XII.-22.] 33 Therefore in the Refurrection [MAR.when they fhall rife,] whofe Wife [fhall [all] [MAR. the] Seven had her to Wife. [MAT. XXII. 28. MARK XII. 23.] fhe be of the Seven?] for (c) Are equal to the Angels of GOD in Heaven.] Matthew and Mark fay only, that they are as the Angels, (ws ay fixo,) and tho' Luke expreffes it by a ftronger Word, (a feno,) that CHRIST proves the Refurrection out of the Law of Mofes. dren of GoD, being the Children of the Refurrection. [MAT. XXII.-30. MARK XII.-25.] 37 [But as touching the Refurrection,] that the Dead are raised, even Mofes fhewed at the Bush, when he calleth the Lord, the GOD of Abraham, and the Go D, of Ifaac, and the GOD of Jacob: [MAR. Luke XX. 347 of Immortality and Glory, being the Children of Sect. 155. the Refurrection (d), which fhall inftate them inex a compleat Felicity, answerable to fo near a Relation to the Divine Being; and confequently all fuch Difficulties as you have now been urging, are entirely fuperfeded by the Happiness and Perfection of fo exalted a State. 36. But as for the Evidence of the Refurrection in 37 "the that they are equal to the Angels, yet all Arguments drawn from hence, as proving an entire Equality of glorified Saints with Angels in all Refpects, must be apparently weak and inconclufive. It is indeed the glorious Scheme of Redeeming Love, to incorporate Angels and Saints into one happy Society under Chrift as their common Head; (Eph. i. 10.) but there are Subordinations in united Societies. And if the Fall of the Apoftate Spirits occafioned any thing like a Vacancy in the Celestial Hierarchy, it would feem most probable, it might be filled up from Heavenly Spirits of an inferior Order, who might be preferred to the Rank their degenerate Brethren loft, as a Reward for their approved Fidelity to GOD. But it becomes us to be exceeding modeft in our Conjectures on fuch Subjects as these, left we incur the Cenfure of intruding into Things which we have not feen. Col. ii. 18. (d) And are the Children of GOD, being the Children of the Refurrection.] 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 Poffeffion of which they enter at the Refurrection. Compare Rom. viii. 17. Gal. iv. 7. 1 John iii. 2. and Rom. viii. 29. See the Essay on Divine (e) Other Books of Scripture, for which you do not profefs fo great a Regard.] The Sadducees are thought by many to have agreed with the Samaritans, in rejecting all the other Parts of holy Scripture, but the Five Books of Mofes; which is particularly contended for by Serrarius: (Tribæres. lib. ii. cap. 21. and Minerval. lib. iv. cap. 14.) But this is queftioned by Drufius, (de tribus Sectis, lib. iii. cap. 9.) and Reland; (Antiq. Heb. part ii. cap. 11.) and Scaliger maintains the contrary, and fhews that the Paffage from Jofephus, (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. Tribæres. cap. 16.) And indeed, as it appears from the Talmud, that other Parts of the Old Teftament were often quoted by the Sadducees; and Arguments were brought from thence againft them by the Pharifees to prove the Refurrection, which they endeavoured only to evade, without difputing the Authority of Texts, tho' they were not taken from the Law of Mofes; it is more reafonable to believe with Dr. Lightfoot (in his Hor. Hebr. on John iv. 25.) that they did not reject the other Books of the Old Teftament, but only gave a great Preference to the Five Books of Mofes; 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 Mofes, they would explain it in fome other Way. And this might be fufficient to induce our Lord, to bring his Argument to prove the Refurrection from what Mofes had faid, and to confirm it by that Part of Scripture which was moft regarded by the Sadducees, and upon which they now had grounded their, Objection to it. X x 2 (f) I'am 348 Luke XX. 37. 38 GOD is not the GOD of the Dead, but of the Living. Sect. 155." the GOD of Jacob." And he had the highest Authority for the Expreffion; for have ye not read it in the Book of Mofes, how GOD Spake to him in the Bush by this Title? and have ye not obferved what was then in effect spoken to you by GOD, faying in exprefs Terms, "I am the GOD of Abraham, and the GOD of Ifaac, and the "GOD of Jacob (f)?" Now certainly GOD is not to be called the GOD of them who are entirely destroyed, and left to continue in the State of the Dead, but the GOD of those who may be yet confidered as the Living: Nor would he ever own the high Relation of a GOD to those, whom he finally abandons, and fuffers to fink into nothing; much less would what he did for the holy Patriarchs, whofe Names he commemorated with fo much Honour, answer fuch a Title, fince he left them exposed to so many Trials and Calamities, which Multitudes escape, of whom he has never spoken in fuch Language: So that thofe good Men must be confidered as still in Existence and therefore it may be concluded, by a strong Train of Confequences, that all the Faithful live unto him (g); for he, on the Foot of Abraham's Covenant, [MAR. Have ye not read in the Book of Mofes, how in the Bush GOD spake unto him, [that which was spoken unto you by GOD,] faying, I [am] the GoD of Ifaac, and the GOD of Jacob ?] [MAT. XXII. 31, 32.-MARK XII. 26.] GOD of the Dead, but 38 For [GOD] is not a [MAR. the GOD] of the Living; for all live unto Abraham, and the GoD of him: (f) I am the GOD of Abraham, &c.] It is furprizing to me to find Learned Men fo much divided in their Sentiments on this eafy Text. The Force of the Argument cannot furely reft on the Word [am ;] because, tho' it be in the Greek, it is not in the Hebrew, where the Words may poffibly fignify, I [have been] the GOD of Abraham, &c. and the Poffibility of fuch a Verfion would affect the Conclufion on that Suppofition. But our Lord's Argument is equally forcible either Way; for it is evident, that it cannot properly be said, that GOD either actually is, or hath been, the GOD of any whom he has fuffered finally to perifh; and (as the Apostle ftrongly intimates,) he would, humanly fpeaking, be ashamed, or think it infinitely beneath him, to own that Relation to any, for whom he had not provided a City, or a State of more permanent Happiness than any which could be enjoyed in this mortal Life. (See Heb. xi. 16.) So that the Argument by no means turns, (as Archbishop Tillotson and Grotius fuppofe,) on the calamitous Circumstances in which these Patriarchs often were; but would have held good, had all their Lives been as profperous and glorious, as that of Abraham feems generally, notwithstanding his Peregrinations, to have been. I cannot, as fome modern Writers of Note do, fall in with Mr. Mede's Notion, (in his Works, pag. 801, 802.) that our Lord refers to the Neceffity of Abraham's being raifed. from the Dead to inherit Canaan, in order to the Accomplishment of GOD's Promife to give it to him; both because I can fee no fuch Neceffity, and because then I think it would have been much more to our Lord's Purpose to have quoted the Promife of the Land of Canaan, than these general Words. (g) So that all the Faithful live unto him.] It is evident, that yas muft here have the Force of an Illative Particle, and may be rendered [therefore,] or [So that ;] for what it introduces is plainly the main Propofition to be proved, and not an Argument for what immediately went before. In this Connection the Confequence is apparently juft; for as all the Faithful |