punish him as a fomenter of sedition. [Mat. xxii. 18..22.] Jesus, however, perceived their wickedness, and said, why tempt ye me ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, whose is this image and superscription? they say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, since, by the use of Cæsar's coin, you acknowledge his authority, render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's. When they had heard these things, they marvelled at his wisdom, and left him, and went their

way.

The Pharisees and Herodians being thus repulsed, the Sadducees resolved, the same day, to try the success of their subtilty.

[Luke xx. 27..33.] And they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife and he died childless. And the third took her and in like manner the seven also. And they left no children and died Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, (here the word evidently signifies a future state simply) 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, there is no need of procreation to propagate or continue the kind. [Mat. xxii. 29.] Jesus answered and said unto them, ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. [Luke xx. 34.] The children of this world, the inhabitants of this world, marry, and are given in marriage. But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage Neither can they die any more for they are equal unto the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. They, in some degree, partake of the felicity and immortality of God himself, blessings which they obtain by being raised from the dead. From this latter clause it is plain that our Lord is here speaking of the resurrection of the just, who are called God's children on account of the inheritance bestowed on them at the resurrection and particularly on account of their being dignified with immortality.

Having thus demonstrated that they were ignorant of the power of God, Jesus. shewed the Sadducees that they were ignorant of the scriptures likewise, and particularly of the writings of Moses, from whence they had drawn their objection; for out of the law itself he demonstrated the certainty of a resurrection, at least, of just men, and thereby quite overturned the opinion of the Sadducees, who, believing the materiality of the soul, affirmed that men were annihilated at death, and that the writings of Moses supported their opinion. His argument was this: as a man cannot be a father without children, nor a king without subjects, so God cannot properly be called God, unless he has his people, and be Lord of the living. Since, therefore, in the law he calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, long, °°°

after these patriarchs were dead, the relation denoted by the word God still subsisted between them; for which reason, they were not annihilated, as the Sadducees pretended, when they affirmed that they were dead, but were still in being, God's subjects, and covenanted people.

Perceiving that the Sadducees were thus silenced, one of the scribes inquired of Christ, [Mat. xxii. 36..40.] saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Mark informs us that the scribe declared his full approbation to this answer. [Mark xii. 32..34.] And the scribe said unto him, well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is none other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

The Pharisees having, in the course of our Lord's ministry, proposed many difficult questions to him with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose, he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning Messiah's pedigree, arising from the hundred and tenth Psalm. [Mat. xxii. 41.] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, what think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, the son of David. [Mark'xii. 35.] And Jesus answered and said while he taught in the temple, how say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? The words in Mark being a reply to the Pharisees' answer recorded by Matthew, their meaning is, I know your doctors tell you that Christ is the Son of David; but how can they support their opinion, and render it consistent with David's words in the hundred and tenth Psalm? [Mark xii. 36.] For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, the Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. [Mat. xxii. 45.] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shewed them their error: for if Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings, from whom he was himself descended; and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come; the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at God's right hand, till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet," made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christ's enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where, by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state.

"

The disputations and conversations which Jesus had with the literati afforded great entertainment to all the common people who happened to be present in the temple. [Mark xii. 37.] And the common people heard him gladly: they heard him with great attention and pleasure. For the clear and solid answers which he returned to the ensnaring questions of his foes gave them an high opinion of his wisdom, and shewed them how far he was superior to their most renowned Rabbies, whose arguments to prove their opinions, and answers to the objections that were raised against them, were, generally speaking, but mean and trifling in comparison of his. [Mat. xxii. 46.] And no man was able to answer him a word: none of them could propose the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed; neither durst any man, from that day forth, ask him any more questions. The repeated proofs which they had received of the prodigious depth of his understanding, impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to entangle him in his talk: for which reason they left off attempting it and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions.

Thus did our Lord silence his most virulent opposers; and following up his blow, solemnly admonished the people to beware of the scribes and Pharisees, to practise indeed whatever duty they proved from the law, but by no means to take their conduct as an example for imitation. He charged these hypocrites, especially, with doing every thing to be seen of men; and, for this purpose, making broad their phylacteries, (certain slips of parchment containing portions of the law, which they wore upon their foreheads and their arms,) and enlarging the borders of their garments, (or, as Michaelis renders it, the tassels which hung at the four corners of their mantle) in pretended conformity to Deut. xxii. 12, with loving the uppermost rooms at feasts, the chief seats in the synagogue, and the high sounding titles of Rabbi and master. Concerning these titles, which the disciples of Jesus were exhorted to avoid, Dr. Campbell makes the following pertinent observations.

"1 propose now to make a few observations on the word teacher, and some other titles of respect current in Judea in the days of our Saviour. After the Babylonish captivity, when Jerusalem and the temple were rebuilt, and the people restored to their antient possessions, care was taken, under the conduct of Ezra, and those who succeeded him in the administration of affairs, to prevent their relapsing into idolatry, which had brought such accumulated calamities on their country. It was justly considered as one of the first expedients for answering this end, as we learn partly from scripture, and partly from Jewish writers, to promote amongst all ranks the knowledge of God and of his law, and to excite the whole people throughout the land to join regularly in the public worship of the only true God. For their accommodation, synagogues came, in process of time, to be erected in every city and village, where a sufficient number of people could be found to make a congregation. Every synagogue had its stated governors and president, that the service might be decently conducted, and that the people might be instructed in the sacred writings both of the law and the prophets. The synagogues were fitted for answering among them the like purposes with parish churches amongst us Christians: but this was not all. That the synagogues might be provided with knowing pastors and wise rulers, it was necessary that there should also be public seminaries or schools, wherein those who were destined to teach others were to be taught themselves. And so great was their veneration for these schools or colleges, that they accounted them more sacred than even synagogues, and next, in this respect, to the temple. They maintained, that a synagogue might lawfully be converted into a school, but not a school into a synagogue. The former was ascending, the latter descending. Both were devoted to

the service of God; but the synagogue, say they, is for the spiritual nourishment of the sheep, the school, for that of the shepherds.

"Now their schools were properly what we should call divinity colleges; for in them they were instructed in the sacred language, the antient Hebrew not being then the language of the country; in the law, and the traditions; the writings of the prophets; the holy ceremonies; the statutes, customs, and procedure of their judicatories in a word, in whatever concerned the civil constitution and religion of their country. I make this distinction of civil and religious more in conformity to moderu and Christian notions, than in reference to antient and Jewish. In that polity these were so interwoven, or rather blended, as to be inseparable. Their law was their religion, and their religion was their law; insomuch that with them there was a perfect coincidence in the professions of lawyer and divine. But as to their mode of education, that they had some kind of schools long before the time a bove-mentioned, even from the beginning of their establishment under Joshua in the land of Canaan, or, at least, from the time of Samuel, can hardly be made a question. A certain progress in letters had been made very early by this people, and regularly transmitted from one generation to another. But this seems evidently to have been without such fixed seminaries as were erected and endowed afterwards; else it is impossible there should be so little notice of them in so long a tract of time, of which, as far as religion is concerned, we have a history pretty particular. All that appears before the captivity on this subject is, that numbers of young men were wont, for the sake of instruction, to attend the most eminent prophets, and were therefore called the sons, that is, the disciples of the prophets; and that, in this manner, were constituted a sort of ambulatory schools for communicating the knowledge of letters and of the law. In these were, probably, taught the elements of the Hebrew music and versification. We are informed, also, that Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, sent priests, Levites, and others, to teach in all the cities of Judah. But this appears to have been merely a temporary measure, adapted, by that pious monarch, for the instruction of the people in his own time, and not an establishment which secured a succession and continuance. Now this is quite different from the erection that obtained afterwards, in their cities, of a sort of permanent academies, for the education of the youth destined for the upper stations in society.

"Those who belonged to the school were divided into three classes or orders. The lowest was that of the disciples, or learners; the second, that of the fellows, or companions, those who, having made considerable progress in learning, were occasionally employed, by the masters, in teaching the younger students. The highest was that of the preceptors, or teachers, to whom they appropriated the respectful title of doctor, or rabbi, which differs from rab only by the addition of the affix pronoun of the first person. All belonging to the school were accounted honourable in a certain degree. Even the lowest, the name disciple, was considered as redounding to the honour of those youths who were selected from the multitude, had the advantage of a learned education, and, by their diligence and progress, gave hopes that they would one day fill with credit the most important stations. The title companion, fellow, or associate, was considered as very honourable to the young graduate who obtained it, being a public testimony of the proficiency he made in his studies. And the title rabbi was their highest academical honour.

"Hence we may discover the reason why our Lord, when warning his disciples against imitating the ostentation and presumption of the scribes and Pharisees, in affecting to be denominated rabbi, father, guide, or conductor, does not once mention kyrios, sir, though of all titles of respect the most common.. It is manifest, that his view

to check them from arrogating what might seem to imply a superiority and understanding over others, and a title to dictate to their fellows a species of arrogance which appeared but too plainly in the scribes and learned men of those days. As to the title kyrios, he knew well that, from their worldly situation and circumstances, (which, in this matter, were the only rule) they could expect it from none but those in the lowest ranks, who would as readily give it to an artisan or a peasant, and that therefore there could be no danger or vanity from this quarter. But the case was different with titles, expressive, not of Leeting relations, but of these important qualifications which denote a fitness for being the lights and conductors of the human race. The title of father, in the spiritual or metaphorical sense, the most respectful of all, he prohibits his disciples from either assuming or giving, chusing that it should be appropriated to God; and, at the same time, claims the title of guide and spiritual instructor to himself."

was not to prohibit them from giving or receiving the common marks of wisdom

The above discourse against the scribes and Pharisees was pronounced in the hearing of many of the order. They were, therefore, greatly incensed, and watched for an opportunity to destroy Jesus but it was not a time for him now to be afraid of them. This being the last sermon he was ever to preach in public, it was necessary to use violent remedies, especially as gentle medicines had hitherto proved ineffectual. Wherefore, with a kind severity, he threatened them in the most awful and solemn manner, denouncing dreadful woes against them, not on account of the personal inju ries they had done to him, although they were many, but on account of their excessive wickedness. They were public teachers of religion, who abused every mark and character of goodness to all the purposes of villany, than which a more atrocious sin in the sight of God cannot be perpetrated. Under the grimace of a severe sanctified air, they were malicious, implacable, lewd, covetous, and rapacious. In a word, instead of being reformers, they were corrupters of mankind; so that their wickedness being of the very worst sort, it deserved the sharpest rebuke that could be given. The woes are denounced against the scribes for the following reasons: 1. Because they shut up the kingdom of heaven from men, by taking away "the key of knowledge, as it is called in the parallel passage, [Luke xi. 52.] or the right interpretation of the antient prophecies concerning Messiah, by their example and authority; for they both rejected Jesus themselves, and excommunicated those who did not in short, by doing all they could to hinder the people from repenting of their sins and believing the gospel. 2. Because they committed the grossest iniquities, being covetous and rapacious; under a cloak of religion, they devoured widows' houses; and, at the same time, made long prayers in order to hide their villany. This, says Calvin, was as if pretending to kiss the feet of God, one should rise up and audaciously spit in his face. 3. Because they expressed the greatest zeal imaginable in making proselytes, compassing sea and land, that is, making long journeys and voyages, and leaving no Brt unpractised for that end; while, at the same time, their intention in all this was not that the Gentiles might become better men through the knowledge of true religion, but more friendly to them, yielding them the direction of their purses as well as of their consciences. Accordingly, in the heathen countries, these worldlings accommodated religion to the humours of men, placing it, not in the eternal and immutable rules of righteousness, but in ceremonial observances; the effect of which was either that their proselytes became more superstitious, more immosal, and more presumptuous, than their teachers; or that, taking them for impostors, they reiapsed again into their old state of heathenism; and, in both cases, became two-fold more the children of hell than even the Pharisees themselves, that is more openly and unlimitedly