SADDUCEES.

Sadducees, a sect which arose among the Jews two hundred years or thereabouts, before the birth of the Messias. It is thought that Sadok, a disciple of Antigonus Sochæus, was the founder of it. He and Baithus, who was also a disciple of the same Antigonus, put a wrong sense on the doctrine which their master taught them; they concluded that there is neither paradise nor hell, that there are neither rewards nor punishments after this life, from his exhorting them to serve God, not like mercenaries who act only in hopes of getting by it, but like those generous servants who are faithful and obedient to their masters without expecting any reward. This fine

maxim ill interpreted by those two disciples of Antigonus, set them up for heads of a party. They founded two pernicious sects, which utterly subverted religion; and foreseeing that they should be put to death, if they ventured to declare publicly all the consequences arising from their principles, they durst not reject the authority of the Scriptures, they only rejected the traditions. Those who embraced the sect of Sadoc were called Sadducees; they made already a considerable figure in the time of Jonathan, brother to Judas Maccabeus, that is, about the year of Rome, 600; for Josephus informs us that there were at that time three sects among the Jews, vis. that of the Pharisees, that of the Sadducees, and that of the Essenes. He adds that the Sadducees rejected the doctrine of predestination, and taught, that man is the only cause of his own prosperity or adversity, according as he makes a good or an ill use of his free-will. He says in another place that the Sadducees and Pharisees had many quarrels between them, and that the rich people sided with the Sadducees, but the vulgar stood for the Pharisees. The latter prescribed many rites as being transmitted and handed down to them from their ancestors, though they were not written in the law of Moses; on the contrary, the Sadducees rejected all doctrines and ceremonies not contained in the Scripture. We read in the same passage of Josephus, that the high priest Hircanus, who had been a disciple of the Pharisees, forsook and abused them, having declared for the sect of the Sadducees at the suggestion of his favourite Jonathan, who was one of diem. We are told in another place by the same historian, that the Sadducees did not believe the immortality of the soul, nor that God concerned himself with evil, either to do it or to take notice of it.

Josephus farther observes that the number of the Sadducees was not considerable, but that they were

generally invested with the highest dignities, notwithstanding which they had no great interest, for few things were done according to their advice; and those among them who exercised the magistracy were obliged to comply, though against their will, with the decisions of the Pharisees, otherwise they would not have been tolerated by the populace. Josephus makes two observations, which I think will give a great light in the matter; one of them is, that the Sadducees were not severe in inflicting punishments; the other is, that the Sadducees showed great severity in the functions of judicature; lastly, he says that there was no good understanding among them, that they lived like wild beasts, and that friends were not better used in their conversation than if they had been Strangers. It is not easy to reconcile this with what he says in another place, that this sect was not beloved by the meaner sort of the people but by the rich; for the latter do not much agree with morose and peevish humours, but are for introducing the sweets and conveniences of life in all places where they have any intercourse. We ought perhaps to suppose that what he says concerning the discord of the Sadducees and their clownish conversation, signifies nothing more than that they accounted it a virtue to take the liberty of disputing with their masters. It was almost an unavoidable consequence from their principles, since they boldly rejected the authority of tradition, and did not care whether the several texts of the Scripture had been explained by the ancients in such a manner or not; this being laid down, a disciple had as much right to contradict his master, as the latter had to contradict his predecessor, and so on.

The Sadducees are often mentioned in the Holy Scripture, but though it inform us Willemur in Dissertat. Philologica de Sadduceis. ⁶⁴ that they denied

the resurrection of the dead arid the existence of angels and spirits, and that the Pharisees believed both, yet it gives us a worse character of the Pharisees than of the Sadducees. I shall examine what has been said of the immortality of the latter, and will make it appear that no good proofs can be given of it. Mr Willemer charges them with cruelty, and to prove it he says that they induced king John Hircanus to persecute the Pharisees violently. He refers us to the eighteenth chapter of the thirteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities. I have consulted that passage, wherein I find only that Hircanus, a disciple of the Pharisees and very well beloved by them, entirely lost their friendship. They conceived a great hatred against him, and because upon a certain occasion they gave him great reason to be angry with them, he forsook their sect and embraced that of the Sadducees, at the instigation of Jonathan his favourite. He abolished the ordinances of the Pharisees, and severely punished those who observed them; at last he put an end to the sedition which those two sects had raised, and spent the remaining part of his life in peace and felicity. Mr Willemer adds that Alexander Janneus being flattered and instigated by the Sadducees, was more cruel than his father Hircanus, and that having extricated himself out of a thousand difficulties in which he had been entangled by the Jews, he caused eight hundred of the chief men among the Pharisees to be crucified, and that before they expired, he ordered their wives and children to be murdered in their sight. During those executions he gave a grand entertainment to his concubines and to the chief men among the Sadducees. This author refers us to the twenty-second chapter of the thirteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities, where I do not find that the Sadducees are mentioned in the least. As for the author of the Cabbala Historica quoted by him, I have not been able to consult him; but though he should say what Mr Willemer alleges out of his book, can we believe him? Can the testimony of a man who lived at so great a distance from those times, be valid in opposition to the silence of Josephus? The German author goes on thus: “At last queen Alexandra by her husband’s advice, and with die assistance of the Pharisees, undertook to restrain the turbulent spirit of the Sadducees by severities, but could not reduce them to reason, nor prevent the new broils which they occasioned in the state between Hircanus and Aristobulus; and when Herod had rid himself of those two princes, the Sadducees made use of their interest with him to commit all manner of crimes. Josephus, in the seventeenth chapter of the sixteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities, is of opinion that Herod was moved by the counsels of the Sadducees; and their impious doctrine concerning the fatal necessity of all things, to the barbarous cruelty he was guilty of in causing his sons to be strangled, and three hundred captains to be stoned to death.” This is Mr Willemer’s account, and thence he concludes that it has been truly said that the Sadducees were very immoral men; that they were Epicurean swine, and very pernicious heretics. Ex vero igitur dictum est, Sadducæos fuisse moribus pessimis, et Epicuri de grege porcos: ita qua doctrinam perniciosos omnino hæreticos.

To confute this author is not very difficult; for first, the matters of fact on which he builds are not to be found in Josephus, the author he alleges to prove them; and secondly, though they were true, it would not follow that the Sadducees wallowed in sensual pleasures as those do who are called Epicuri de grege porci. All that could be proved is, that they made an ill use of their interest with princes to oppress the Pharisees, of whom they had great reason to be afraid, since that sect was animated with a superstitious zeal, and supported by the populace. I confess

that such a conduct is unjust; but the like is to be seen in all parties, or in all factions of state or religion· Those who teach the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, have not been less Careful to take hold of favourable opportunities in order to oppress their rivals. They are generally severe and cruel in their counsels, and therefore there would be nothing singular, nor any character of distinction in the proceedings of the Sadducees, though the matters of fact mentioned by the German writer were true. What will he say then if I shew that they are false or uncertain? which it is not difficult to do.

It is certain that the Jewish historian makes no more mention of the Sadducees than of the Great Mogul, in the chapter where he tells us how Herod caused his sons and the three hundred captains to be put to death. He would have made himself extremely ridiculous if he had said that the doctrine of those men concerning the fatality of all things, moved Herod to such cruelty; for it was notorious that they entirely rejected the doctrine of predestination, and whenever he mentions them, he observes, that according to their principles, a man’s fate depends wholly upon his free-will. I do not deny that Josippus says that the Sadducees occasioned the insurrection of the Jews against Alexander Janneus, and the cruelty of that prince towards that people, because they advised him to persecute the Pharisees and their adherents; but the testimony of such an author is very inconsiderable, especially when we may oppose against it the silence of an historian like Josephus, who never shows the least partiality to the Sadducees. Rabbi Abraham of Salamanca is too modern a writer to give any weight to facts otherwise uncertain, and therefore we are not obliged to believe upon his word, what he says of the immorality of those heretics. Once more, if they had been in general disrespected for their debaucheries and wicked

actions, it is scarcely possible that Josephus, who speaks of them so often, would have been wholly silent on that head, and that the only thing mentioned by him concerning their morals, should strongly incline us to believe that they did not live a sensual life. He says that they were men of a clownish and rough conversation, who showed no move civility to their friends than to strangers. This is not the character of voluptuous men; for on the contrary, they are very Complaisant to one another, their whole study is to multiply the sweets of their conversation, and they banish every thing that diminishes the pleasures of it. Mr Willemer lays a great stress upon St John the Baptist’s calling the Sadducees a generation of vipers; he runs back to the first serpent that seduced Eve. Let him say what he pleases, I need only answer him that the Pharisees were called So as well as they; and therefore if any thing be concluded from it concerning the immoral lives of those who denied the immortality of the soul, it will no less affect those who believed future rewards and punishments. The same may be said of the leaven which our Saviour would have his disciples to beware of; the Pharisees are as much concerned in it as the Sadducees.

Observe, that.it is the opinion of many authors, that the Sadducees called themselves so from a word Which signifies justice or righteousness. Those who approve this etymology remark, that these heretics were called Sadducees because they were ambitious of being accounted just or upright men, and others bestowed that encomium upon them. Mr Willemer cites for this opinion Isidorus, Beatus Rhenanus, Bernard de Breitenbach, and Dr Richard Montague. He says it is disputed from what sort of justice those sectaries were denominated. It was, according to St Jerome, inherent justice or righteousness, for they pretended to have acquired it perfectly by the

observation of the law. Others will have it to be distributive justice, and they are again divided; for some say it is that which consists in rewarding, and others that which consists in punishing. The former pretend, that according to the Sadducees, justice is administered wholly in this world; good men are rewarded and wicked men punished here, and nothing remains to be done after this life. The latter say that those heretics were very severe in the administration of justice, and that they were called Sadducees upon that account. We may easily suppose that the Sadducees were very strict administrators of justice; for since they did not believe that a malefactor would be punished after this life, it was natural for them to think that he was to be condemned to a very severe punishment in this world.

It would be less surprising that the Sadducees should have been good men, than that a follower of Epicurus should have been wise and virtuous: for that part of religion which they retained, might influence their lives by the motives of hope and fear. All things duly considered, I do not think that I ought to retract what I have said in another book: “There was a sect among the Jews which openly denied the immortality of the soul, viz. the Sadducees. I do not find that notwithstanding so detestable an opinion, they were worse livers than the other Jews; on the contrary, it is very likely they were more honest men than the Pharisees, who valued themselves so much on their punctual observation of the law of God.” I must only add a short observation to that passage, viz. that the good life of the Sadducees might have proceeded from the doctrine of a providence: for it is thought they believed that God punishes men in this world for their wicked actions, and rewards their virtue. This opinion may very probably serve for a curb and spur; it may induce men to the practice of virtue, in hopes

of worldly happiness, and deter them from evil through the fear of temporal punishments. Nay, it may seem to be a more powerful motive than the other doctrine, because good and evil when present or near at hand, make a much greater impression, though they be inconsiderable, than good or evil though ever so great, that are viewed only at a great distance. This is what may be said by those who examine the thing superficially; but those who go to the bottom of it, judge otherwise. They believe that generally speaking, the true and principal power of religion with respect to virtue, consists in the persuasion of eternal rewards and punishments; and that those who deny the immortality of the soul, break the best springs of religion.

This thought may be confirmed by two remarks: one is, that it it hardly possible to persuade people that they shall prosper upon earth if they live a good life, and that they shall be unhappy if they live an ill one. Every body thinks he sees daily a thousand instances of the contrary; and where are the divines eloquent enough to persuade people of a thing which they fancy is contradicted by continual experience? They may indeed tell us in answer to our objections, that we know but little wherein true prosperity and true adversity consist; and that wicked men are sufficiently punished by the remorses of their conscience, in the midst of their wealth and glory, whilst an honest man is sufficiently rewarded by the sole possession of virtue, and the testimony of a good conscience. They will tell us a thousand fine things upon this subject, and form in us a kind of persuasion; but they will strike no durable impression upon us, it will only be an intermitting faith, and they will always have reason to fear that in our bad intervals, we shall be apt to call them false doctors, and reproach them as Brutus did virtue. If you object to me that there is a certain impression in

the minds of men which frequently rouses itself, is very active, and persuades us contrary to experience, that piety is attended with temporal blessings, and that the transgression of the law of God will be punished in this world, I say if you make this objection, I answer that the orthodox will feel the activity of that impression as well as the Sadducees, and that being moreover persuaded of a future state, religion will have a greater influence upon their lives.

To conclude, I say it cannot be denied that if a man be fully persuaded that the divine justice distributes rewards and punishments only in this life, and that our destiny is wholly limited to that, he may abstain from evil and practise virtue out of a religious motive. But then it must be said that there is so little probability that such an opinion should overcome the depravation of our nature, that it may well be affirmed that the Sadducees destroyed the true foundations of religion, and that the good life of a Sadducee may be looked upon as a kind of instance of the conjunction of moral honesty with impiety. Mr Willemer will grant it, for he says that a Sadducee not believing the immortality of the soul, could not be a good man. Willemer, ubi supra, p. 41. ⁶⁵ “How could they refrain,” said he, “from the most abominable vices and the greatest of crimes, who in denying the immortality of the soul, could not affirm, but obstinately rejected the doctrines which had the strictest connection with it, viz. the resurrection of the body, a future judgment, the eternal glorification of the good, and the condemnation of the wicked.” The author of these words brings for proof of a fact, a reason of right which will not always hold, because men do not always live according to their principles. In general, when the question is about a matter of fact, experience ought to be consulted much rather than speculative

reasoning. Observe well these words of Moreri which he had from Godeau. Godeau, Hist. Eccles. Tom. i. p. 126, of the Paris edition in folio, 1674. ⁶⁶ “It is true that if the Sadducees were more impious than the Pharisees in their doctrine, they were not however so vain and so great hypocrites in their morals, nor did they appear so cruel enemies to Jesus Christ.”

We have reason to wonder that the Sadducees were not excommunicated; as Lucas Brugensis observes, “How came it to pass that notwithstanding the Sadducees held erroneous opinions, and those too of a very heinous nature, yet they were never by the ancient synagogue pronounced heretics, that is, deserters of the faith and the law delivered by God, nor expelled the synagogue like the Samaritans, as seducers of the people. Nay, the Pharisees and priests themselves conversed promiscuously with them, both in sacred and profane places, and they often joined in council against Christ and his disciples. In short, it was lawful for every one to side with which party he pleased; but that is to be attributed to the great corruption of those times. It must be owned that it was an excessive toleration, for the errors of the Sadducees did not consist in indifferent things, but concerned the most essential doctrines of religion. The modern writers for a toleration do not desire it should be so comprehensive as that of the Jews was at that time; they do not desire an ecclesiastical toleration for all sects, but are contented with a civil and political one. We have seen that Mr Willemer ascribes the toleration of the synagogue in favour of the Sadducees, to the corruption of those times. He gives other reasons for it, and particularly the care those heretics took to comply in all things with the public worship. It is certain that the most enormous diversity of opinions as to speculative doctrines of religion, is more tolerated than the least

dispute about the public worship. Be careful to practise all the outward duties prescribed by the prevailing religion, and notwithstanding you may hold capital heresies, you will be less molested than if you should oppose the outward worship without being guilty of those heresies. It is said, but with very little reason, that the Sadducees admitted only the five books of Moses, and that therefore Christ in disputing with them cited only the Pentateuch. There is a negative argument against it, which appears to me very good. The Holy Scripture speaking of the Sadducees and their errors, never says that they rejected the prophets. I confess this silence is not a convincing reason, but what shall we say of Josephus who does not impute to them any such rejection? It is impossible to conceive that he would have omitted so remarkable and important an article, even when he observes that this sect rejected traditions. What makes the argument yet stronger is, that he not only says nothing of their rejecting any part of the Scripture, in a place where he could not have been silent about it, but positively affirms that when they denied the authority of unwritten traditions, they gave this reason for it: “Nothing ought to be accounted lawful but what is written.” Joseph Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. xviii, pag. 454. ⁶⁷ Can a historian speak thus of a sect that rejects the greatest part of the Scripture, without being a madman? I know that a caviller may say that Josephus’s words concern only the written laws, and consequently the Pentateuch; but I know also that this historian could not have forborne mentioning in that place, the contempt which it is said those heretics had for the other books of the Scripture. Simon is positively against those who affirm that they acknowledged no other books to be canonical besides the Pentateuch, and alleges the testimony of Josephus.

There are also many passages in the Babylonian Talmud and in the writings of the rabbins, whereby it appears that the Sadducees acknowledged the Hagiographia and the prophetical books of the Scripture to be divine, and only despised the explications of their doctors. Some think that the Samaritans have been confounded with the Sadducees, and take that to be the reason why several writers fancied that the latter as well as the former, rejected all the books of the Scripture besides the Pentateuch. But it is certain that these two sects ought to be distinguished, for the Jews had no communication with the Samaritans, and at the same time maintained ecclesiastical communion with the Sadducees; nay, sometimes a Sadducee was their high-priest, and it is not improbable that the high-priest Caiaphas was of that sect.

It would be a wrong way of reasoning to urge that the Sadducees chose such books of the Scripture as did not formally contradict their errors; that they acknowledged these to be canonical, and rejected the rest because they found there plainly asserted the immortality of the soul and the doctrine of the resurrection, and that their idleness made them pitch upon this short way of disputing. Such an argument is fallacious; matters of fact ought to be proved by arguments grounded upon facts, and not by probabilities supported by speculative reasons. Besides, we do not want such reasons; for men may so easily invent subterfuges, glosses, and distinctions, that they need not reject the authenticity of a book, to answer the arguments alleged against them out of it. Do not the Socinians profess to acknowledge all the New Testament, and yet it contains more passages against their errors, than the Old Testament against those of the Sadducees? Nay, what is more surprising, many Christians who still acknowledge the truth of the Holy Scripture, laugh at magic and maintain that the devils have no power. I must observe that a modem

rabbi questions the truth of what is said in the Scripture, that the Sadducees did not believe in spirits. “It would hence follow,” he says, “that they rejected the Pentateuch, which makes mention of angels in several places.” He argues wrong: the Sadducees made use of distinctions in order to elude the force of these passages; see Willemer and the writers quoted by him, and particularly Grotius; consult also Vossius whom he does not quote. What is certain is, that they practised the rites of the Jews, and professed to hope that therefore God would bestow upon them the favours he has promised to those who observe his law, and that they should avoid the curses wherewith the transgressors were threatened. According to some, they ascribed an organized body to God. Arnobius relates this in a manner that is somewhat liable to censure. “Let no man oppose to us,” says he, “the fables of the Jews and Sadducees, as if they ascribed a form and a mouth to God; for this is thought to be said in their writings, and to be confirmed as a thing certain by authority. But these fables are either nothing at all to us, and are in no respect common to us with them; or if they likewise affect us as they are supposed to do, you must consult doctors of a deeper penetration, from whom you may learn in what manner it is necessary to explain the figurative expressions in the Scriptures” Arnob. lib. iii. pag. in. 106, 107. ⁶⁸ One of those who have commented upon him, censures him in the following manner. “ Desid. Heraldus, in Arnobium, pag. m. 134. ⁶⁹ Arnobius’s reasoning is too confused and even dangerous; for it is both impious and horrible to speak of the books of the Old Testament so rashly. He says this, because the books of the rabbins are stuffed with an infinite number of fables. Arnobius betrays great want of judgment here. Numenius Pythagoreus did much better, who in his first book 'de Summo Bono,' reckoned the Jews first among those nations which believed God to be an incorporeal being, alleging even the testimonies of the prophets, and explaining those figurative expressions which seemed to warrant a contrary opinion.”

This censure is not altogether groundless, but it should have been less severe; for Arnobius only means that we are not answerable for the idle fancies of the Jews; but there is no harm in the things that are common to us with them, if the mystical sense be understood. He could not deny, that according to the literal sense of the Scripture, God has hands and feet, a mouth and eyes. Therefore it was necessary for him to inform the heathens that the truth lies concealed under those figurative expressions. He showed himself to be a dexterous and able rhetorician by not insisting on that objection, and by only telling his adversaries in four or five lines, that the Christians do not ascribe to God any figure or organical composition. Had he attempted to enter upon a more exact discussion of the matter, as Numenius did, he would have enervated his work; for since he was writing an invective against the Pagans, it was not his business to lose any time in answering them. It was better for him to act all along the part of an assailant; an author ought to be upon the defensive as little as he can, when he writes books of this nature.

Art. Sadducees.