minister of God in respect to them. Maimonides in Gezelah, v. So David, though anointed by Samuel, is declared not to be their king whilst Saul lived, because the coin which had the image of Saul upon it was still the current coin, Jerus. Sanhed. xx. 2. By admitting therefore in this instance the impression and inscription of the prince on their current coin, they acknowledged their subjection to him: and more particularly so as in this instance the denarius bore the inscription KAICAP. AYTOYC. IOYAAIAC EAANKYIAC.

The Roman emperors were wont to disperse their money through all the provinces belonging to their jurisdiction. This money was stamped with the image or bust of the emperor on one side; and this tribute or capitation tax (which according to Ulpian the males from fourteen, and the females from twelve years old were obliged to pay) was usually collected in this money and no other, as the only current coin at Rome.

-Ta Tov Kaioapos] Sub. népn, Mich. in Bos. Ell. Gr. τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος] p. 169: ovтa, Glass. Phil. Sac. p. 133. The right of Cæsar had its rise from their own act of submission to the Roman government, as formerly they had done to the Assyrian: which national submission, with promise of fidelity having now obtained about a hundred years, was a just ground for Cæsar's right.

Doddridge thinks, that as our Saviour cautions the Pharisees against using religion as a pretence to justify sedition, so he also warns the Herodians, that they should not, as they were too inclinable to do, make a compliment of their religion to the Romans by complying with those things which were forbidden by the Divine law, that they might ingratiate themselves with Cæsar's party. See Prideaux's Connections, 11. 366–368.

22. áκovσavтes élavμaoav] See Porteus, Lect. XVIII. Vol. 11.

p. 144.

23. oi λéyovтes] Several MSS. omit the article, which Middleton says can hardly be right: for the meaning seems not to be, that as they came they made this assertion, but only that the dogma subjoined was notoriously maintained by them. Josephus, B. J. II. 8, 14, ψυχῆς τε τὴν διαμονὴν καὶ τὰς ᾅδου τιμωρίας καὶ τιμὰς ἀναιροῦσι See also Acts xxiii. 8, where it is expressly said that they denied any spirit, and consequently the existence of the soul in a separate state.

24. Mwons eiTev] See Deut. xxv. 5, 6. Moses only confirmed by this injunction what had been in use before among the Patriarchs; see Gen. xxxviii. 8. Dr. Owen says, we have here a signal specimen of the manner of quoting Scripture as practised

by the Jews. And from this specimen it plainly appears that they thought it sufficient to express the sense and substance of the text, without confining themselves to the strict words and phraseology of it.

· ἐπιγαμβρεύσει] Answers to a Hebrew word which the Septuagint, in Deut. xxv. 5, translates by σvvoikeîv, but Aquila by ἐπιγαμβρεύειν, which latter word is used in the Septuagint, in Gen. xxxviii. 8.

The marriage of the widow with the brother-in-law was performed without much ceremony; because the widow of the brother who died without children passed at once for the brotherin-law's wife. Custom, however, required that it should be acknowledged in the presence of two witnesses, and that the brother should give a piece of money to the widow. The nuptial blessing was added, and a writing to secure the wife's dower. Some believe that this law was not observed after the Babylonish captivity, because since that time there has been no distinction of the inheritances of the tribes. The present Jews do not practise this law, or at least very rarely.

— ἀναστήσει σπέρμα, &c.] In Deut. ἀναστῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ. In Ruth it is also ὄνομα.

σπέρμα] i. q. υἱὸς.

Seven brethren who were

25. Tap nuiv] i. e. of our nation. Gentiles, might all marry the same woman without danger of a litigation in the future age, as they would never rise again to dispute about her, according to the general sentiment of the Jews who held a resurrection: for they confined it to the circumcision. The other Evangelists are careful to state the question in such a manner that the law on which it was grounded should be seen to be a national law, peculiar to the Jews; "Moses wrote unto us."

yaunoas] Scil. yuvaîka. See Schoetgen; Bos Ell. Gr. p. 56. The story which they mention here seems to have been a kind of common place objection, as we meet with it in the old Jewish writers. See Lightfoot's Hor. Hebr. and Talm.

26. ouoiws] viz. married his brother's widow, and died without children. Luke xx. 30.

27. VOTEρov de Távτwr] Frequently used in the Septuagint. ὕστερον πάντων] Pausan. Attic. III. λέγεται δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸν Θησέα, ὡς αὐτὸς τε ἐβασίλευσε, καὶ ὕστερον Μενεσθέως τελευτήσαντος, και, &c. In a similar manner Clem. Alex. Protrept. p. 61, tells us of a saying of Theocritus the Chian, ἄνδρες θαῤῥεῖτε ἄχρις ἂν ὁρᾶτε τοὺς Θεοὺς πρότερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀποθνήσκοντας.

28. ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει] Mark xii. 23, adds ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν, év more accurately determining the force of the preceding words. See similar instances Matt. xix. 28: Mark vii. 13: xiii. 19.

— τίνος ἔσται γυνή] A very few MSS. have ἡ γυνή here and Mark xii. 23. In this instance as in many others, Middleton says either reading may be tolerated, the difference being only, Whose wife shall she be, or, Whose shall the woman be. 29. πλανᾶσθε] Scil. τῇ διανοίᾳ.

μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς] It is a common opinion, arising probably from confounding them with the Samaritans, that the Sadducees received only the Books of Moses, and rejected the other *; ypapa's therefore has here been understood of those Books. Whether we allow the correctness of that opinion or not, as the Sadducees produced an argument against the resurrection drawn from the Pentateuch, and our Saviour's answer in confirmation of the doctrine ver. 32, is from the same, we must understand the ypapai here to be the Pentateuch. See Waterland's Works, Vol. 1x. p. 306. It would hence seem that the resurrection of the dead was revealed under the law, that the Pharisees who sate in Moses's chair, did collect it from thence and believe it before our Saviour came into the world, and that the Sadducees who denied it, erred not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Tηv dúvaμiv Toù ecoû] Enabling him to effect a resurrection. See Acts xxvi. 8: Ephes. i. 19, 20: Phil. iii. 21: Heb. xi. 19: 1 Cor. vi. 14: Rom. vi. 4.

* This is questioned by Drusius and Reland: and Scaliger maintains the contrary, and shews from Joseph. Ant. xIII. 10, 6. which is commonly alledged in defence of that opinion, that it only relates to their rejecting all traditions. 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 to evade, without disputing the authority of the texts, though they were not taken from the law of Moses, it is more reasonable to believe with Lightfoot 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. Were this the case, it would be a sufficient reason 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.

30. év tỷ avaotáσei] Even when not joined with the flesh or body, this signifies the resurrection of the flesh or body: and when the resurrection of the dead is mentioned, as here, it never bears any other sense.

OUтe yаμovσi, &c.] This declaration of Christ is directly contrary to the opinion and practice of some of the antient idolaters, and particularly the Persians. From a notion that married people were peculiarly happy in a future state, they used often to hire persons to be espoused to such of their relations as had died in celibacy. Richardson's Dissert. on the East, p. 347.

w's aɣɣeλoι TOû coû] i. e. not in all respects, but as to immortality and incorruptibility, 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 44: explained by St. Luke xx. 36, οὐ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται.

And that in this especially consists their likeness to the angels, we learn from the like words of Philo (lib. de Cain. p. 101) concerning Abraham, that leaving the world роσтídeтαι T Θεοῦ λαῷ, καρπούμενος ἀφθαρσίαν, ἴσος ἀγγέλοις γεγονώς.

dè

TOÙ Ocoû] Some MSS. omit Tou, which Bp. Middleton thinks extremely probable, ayyeλo not having the article. 31. περὶ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως] The argument of the Sadducees, being taken from the supposition that if there was a resurrection there must be a marriage, and the persons raised must be man and wife as they were before, shews plainly that they put the question concerning the resurrection of the body; for marriage belongs not to separate souls, but only to persons in the body.

32. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Θεὸς Ἀβραάμ, &c.] See Exodus iii. 6, 16. Joseph. de Macc. 16. extr. oi dia Tоv Оeоv áπоÐνýσкOUTES (WOL τῷ Θεῷ, ὡσπερ Αβρααμ, Ισαακ καὶ ̓Ιακωβ, καὶ παντες οἱ πατριápya. Waterland, Vol. 1x. p. 308, explains it, I am, not I was: God was then God of those three Patriarchs, the latest of which had been dead above 170 years: still he continued to be their God. Is he a God of lifeless clay? Surely not: besides with what propriety of speech could the ashes of the ground be yet called Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob? Those names are the names of persons, not of senseless earth, and person always goes where the intelligence goes: therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living and intelligent, somewhere or other, when God declared he was still their God; that is to say, they were alive as to their better part, their souls: he is not a God of the dead but of the living; therefore the soul survives the body therefore the Sadducees who denied the separate

:

subsistence of souls or spirits were confuted at once, and that by a very clear and plain text, produced even from the Books of Moses. See Porteus, Lect. XVIII. Vol. II. p. 150.

The argument is differently explained. See Mede's Works, p. 801 Pearson on the Creed, Vol. 1. p. 573: Tillotson, Serm. XXIII. p. 108, &c.: Blomfield's Sermon on Jewish Tradition, &c. p. 14. Nelson's Festivals, p. 213.

There are in the Jewish writings some arguments much like this to prove the resurrection. Manasseh Ben-Israel in his Book de Resur. Mort. p. 68, uses very nearly the same words.

οὐκ ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς, Θεὸς νεκρῶν] The Syr. Sax. and Copt. agree with the Vulg. in using no word answering to the first o Oeos, which is also omitted in the Camb.

34. συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ] Generally understand χωρίον. Hesych. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὁμοῦ, εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον. But Kuinoel thinks it corresponds to a Hebrew word which signifies oμoðvpadov. Campbell says, Flocked about him: it being the manifest design of the Evangelist to acquaint us that the preceding confutation of the Sadducees occasioned a concourse of Pharisees to him, which gave rise to the following conversation. In Ps. ii. 2, we meet with συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κατὰ ... τοῦ Χριστ τοῦ αὐτοῦ. See Acts iv. 5, 26. In some MSS. the reading is én avrov, which has arisen from a gloss.

35. Voμikos] Some have supposed this to have been a Caraite or Textuary: if so, Christ silenced four sects then in vogue in Judea. But we find the word used by Epictet. 1. 13, where he calls νομικόν, ἐξηγούμενον τὰ νόμιμα. St. Mark calls him εἷς τῶν γραμματέων, xii. 28.

TELρά(wν avтov] i. e. to make a trial of his skill. Many have supposed from Mark xii. 32, 33, 34, that this man approved of Jesus Christ's answer, and that Christ was highly pleased with his docility. Theophylact and Chrysostom imagine that he went with an insidious and malignant intention, but during his conversation with Jesus was so struck, as to return with different views.

36. Tola] i. q. Tis; as xix. 18: 1 Macc. ii. 10.

Meyáλn] for peyioτn, as v. 19: Heb. x. 21: xiii. 20. St. Mark here uses porn, which St. Matthew adds ver. 38. See Glass. Phil. Sac. p. 49.

The Jews used to make a distinction of the Divine precepts, dividing them into two classes, great and small; the former including those to which a great promise and reward was an