9thly, The scripture often makes use of a figurative way of speaking, generally called an hendyadis, whereby one complex idea, is expressed by two words, which is very common in the Hebrew language. Thus in Jer. xxix. 11. when God promises his people, that he would give them an expected end, intending hereby their deliverance from the Babylonish captivity; the words, if literally translated, ought to be rendered, as it is observed in the margin, an end and expectation; whereas, our translators were apprized that there is such a figurative way of speaking contained in them, and therefore they render them, an expected end: And this figure is sometimes used in the New Testament; as when our Saviour tells his disciples, in Luke xxi. 15. I will give you a mouth and wisdom; that is, I will give you ability to express yourselves with so much wisdom, that all your adversaries shall not be able to gain-say it. And some think, that there is the same way of speaking used in John iii. 5. ‘Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;’ that is, except a man be born of the Holy Spirit, or regenerated, which is signified by being born of water, he cannot, &c.
10thly, Nothing is more common than for the Holy Ghost, in scripture to make use of metaphors, which are a very elegant way of representing things, by comparing them with, and illustrating them by others, and borrowing such modes of speaking from them, as may add a very considerable beauty to them. Thus repentance and godly sorrow, together with the blessed privileges which shall hereafter attend them, are compared to sowing and reaping, in Psal. cxxvi. 5, 6. ‘They that sow in tears, shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.’ And the prophet sets forth the labour and pains which Israel had taken in sin; and exhorts them, by a metaphor taken from husbandry, to be as industrious in pursuing what would turn to a better account, in Hos. x. 12, 13. where he speaks of their having plowed wickedness, and reaped iniquity; and advises them to sow to themselves in righteousness, and reap in mercy; which, as he farther adds, they should do by seeking the Lord; and it is time, says he, to seek him, till he come and rain righteousness upon you; which is necessary to a plenteous harvest of blessings, which you may hope for in so doing. And, in chap. vii. 4. he reproves their adulteries by a metaphor, taken from an oven heated by the baker; and their hypocrisy by another, taken from a cake not turned, ver. 8. and their being weakened, and almost ruined hereby, he compares to the gray hairs of those who are bowed down under the infirmities of age, ver. 9. and for their cowardice and seeking help from other nations, and not from God, he calls them a silly dove without an heart, ver. 11.
And we may observe, that there is oftentimes a chain of metaphors in the same paragraph. Of this kind is that elegant description of old age, sickness, and death, which Solomon gives, in exhorting persons to remember their Creator in the days of their youth, Eccl. xii. 1-6. while the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars be not darkened; by which, it is probable, he intends the impairing the intellect, the loss of those sprightly parts which once they had, or, of the memory and judgment; upon which account men are sometimes said to, out-live themselves. And he speaks of the keepers of the house trembling; that is, the hands and arms, designed for the defence of the body, being seized with paralytic disorders; the strong men bowing themselves; that is, those parts which are designed to support the body being weakened, and needing a staff to bear up themselves; the grinders ceasing because they are few, signifies the loss of teeth; and they that look out of the windows being darkened, a decay of sight; their rising up at the voice of the bird, implies their loss of one of the main props of nature, to wit, sleep; so that they may rise early in the morning, when the birds begin to sing, because their beds will not afford them rest: And the daughters of music being brought low, denotes a decay of the voice and hearing, and being not affected with those sounds which were once most delightful to them. The almond-tree flourishing, plainly signifies the hoary head; the grashopper being a burden, is either a proverbial speech, importing a want of courage, strength, and resolution to bear the smallest pressures; or, as others understand it, their stooping, when bowed down with old age. The silver cord loosed, or, the golden bowl broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, signifies a decay of the animal spirits, a laxation of the nerves, the irregular circulation of the blood, or the universal stoppage thereof; and then the frame of nature is broken, and man returns to the dust[45].
In the New Testament there are several metaphors used; some of which are taken from the Isthmian and Olympic games, practised by the Greeks and Romans. Thus the apostle Paul compares the Christian life to a race in which many run; but they do not all receive the prize, 1 Cor. ix. 24. And, in ver. 25. he alludes to another exercise, to wit, wrestling; and recommends temperance as what was practised by them, as a means for their obtaining the crown. And, ver. 26. he uses a metaphor, taken from another of the games, to wit, fighting, in hope of victory; by which he illustrates his zeal in the discharge of his ministry. And in Heb. xii. 1. he speaks of the Christian race, and the necessity of laying aside every weight, to wit, allowed sins, which would retard our course, or hinder us in the way to heaven. And in Phil. iii. 13, 14. he speaks of himself both as a minister and a Christian, as ‘forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,’ and, ‘pressing towards the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus;’ where he plainly alludes to the purpose, industry, and earnestness of those who run in a race. And, in Eph. vi. 11-16. he speaks of the difficulties, temptations, and opposition that believers are exposed to, in the Christian life; and advises them, to put on the whole armour of God; and so carries on the metaphor or allegory, by alluding to the various pieces of armour, which soldiers make use of when engaged in battle, to illustrate the methods we ought to take, that we may come off conquerors at last.
(6.) It will be very useful, in order to our understanding scripture, for us to know some things, relating to the different forms of civil government, and the various changes made therein, among the Jews, and other nations, with whom they were conversant. At first we find, that distinct families had the administration of civil affairs committed unto them, and the heads thereof were, as it were, the chief magistrates, who had the exercise of civil power, in some instances; especially if it did not interfere with that of the country wherein they lived. Some think, indeed, that it extended to the punishing capital crimes with death; and that Judah, who was the head of a branch of Jacob’s family, when he passes this sentence concerning Tamar, in Gen. xxxviii. 24. Bring her forth, and let her be burnt, does it as a civil magistrate: But, if it be not deemed a rash and unjustifiable expression in him, when he says, Let her be brought forth, and burnt, we must suppose the meaning to be, let her first be confined till she is delivered of her child, and then tried by the civil magistrate, the consequence whereof will be, her being burnt, when found guilty of the adultery that was charged upon her. So that it does not appear that the heads of families, when sojourning in other countries, had a power distinct from that of the government under which they lived, to punish offenders with death; though, I think, it is beyond dispute, that they had a government in their own families, that extended, in many respects, to civil affairs, as well as obliged them to observe those religious duties which God required of them.
It may be farther observed, that this government extended so far, as that the Patriarchs, or heads of families, had, sometimes, a power of making war, or entering into confederacies with neighbouring princes, for their own safety, or recovering their rights when invaded. Thus when Lot and the Sodomites, were taken prisoners by the four kings that came up against them, we read, in Gen. xiv. 13, 14. that Abraham called in the assistance of some of his neighbours, with whom he was in confederacy, and armed his trained servants, three hundred and eighteen, born in his house, and rescued him, and the men of Sodom from the hands of those that had taken them prisoners.
We have little more light as to this matter, so long as the government continued domestic, and the church in the condition of sojourners: But, when they were increased to a great nation, their civil, as well as religious government, was settled, by divine direction, under the hand of Moses, in the wilderness. The first form thereof, was a theocracy, in which God gave them laws in an immediate way; condescended to satisfy them, as to some things, which they enquired of him about; gave them particular intimations how they should manage their affairs of war and peace; and appeared for them in giving them victory over their enemies, in a very extraordinary, and sometimes, miraculous way. But, besides this great honour that God put on them, he established a form of government among them, in which they were divided into thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, Exod. xviii. 31. Deut. i. 15. each of which divisions had their respective captain or governor; who are, sometimes, styled the nobles of the children of Israel, Exod. xxiv. 11. And these governors were generally heads of considerable families among them; which were also divided in the same way, into thousands, fifties, and tens, in proportion to the largeness thereof; thus Gideon, speaking of his family, in Judges vi. 25. calls it, as the Hebrew word signifies, his thousand. And, in the same manner, their armies were divided, when engaged in war; thus when Jesse sent David with a present, into the army, to his brethren, he bade him deliver it to the captain over their thousand, 1 Sam. xvii. 18. and chap. xviii. 13. And we read, that Saul made David his captain over a thousand; which is the same with what we, in our modern way of speaking, call a commanding officer over a regiment of soldiers. Again, when David’s soldiers went out to war against Absalom, it is said, They came out by hundreds and by thousands, 2 Sam. xviii. 4. each distinct company, or regiment, having their commanding officer.
Thus the government was settled as to civil and military affairs, in such a way, that the head of the respective division, had a power of judging in lesser matters. But since there were some affairs of the greatest importance to be transacted in the form of their government, by divine direction, God appointed seventy men of the children of Israel, to assist Moses in those matters, in which they had more immediately to do with him; and accordingly he gave them the Spirit, Numb. xi. 16, 17. that is, the extraordinary inspiration of the Spirit; whereby he communicated his mind and will to them. This was the first rise of the Sanhedrim; and these had a power of judging in civil matters, throughout all the ages of the church till the Jews were made tributary to the Romans; and after that, this body of men were as vile and contemptible as they had before been honourable in the eyes of just and good men, as appears by their tumultuous and unprecedented behaviour in the trial of our Saviour, and the malicious prosecutions, set on foot by them, against the apostles, without any pretence or form of law.
After the death of Joshua, and the elders that survived him, there was an alteration in the form of government, occasioned by the oppression which they were liable to from their enemies, who insulted, vexed, and sometimes plundered them of their substance. Then God raised up judges, who first procured peace for them, by success in war; and afterwards governed them; though without the character or ensigns of royal dignity. And, this government not being successive, they were, on the death of their respective judges, brought into great confusion, every one doing that which was right in his own eyes, till another judge was raised up, as some future emergency required it. Thus the posture of their affairs continued, as the apostle observes, about the space of four hundred and fifty years, Acts xiii. 20. and then it was altered, when, through their unsettled temper, they desired a king, in conformity to the custom of the nations round about them; which thing was displeasing to God: nevertheless, he granted them their request, 1 Sam. viii. 5-7. and so the government became regal. And then followed a succession of kings, set over the whole nation, till the division between Judah and Israel; when they became two distinct kingdoms, and so continued, till their respective captivity. These things being duly considered, will give great light to several things contained in scripture; especially as to what relates to the civil affairs of the church of God.
And, for our farther understanding thereof, it will be necessary that we take a view of the government of other nations, with whom they were often conversant. We read almost of as many kings in scripture, as there were cities in several of those countries which lay round about them; thus, in Gen. xxxvi. we read of many dukes and kings, (whose power was much the same) who descended from Esau. These had very small dominions, each of them being, as it is probable, the chief governor of one city, or, at most, of a little tract of land round about it; and, indeed, besides the Assyrian, and other monarchies, that were of a very large extent, and had none who stood in competition with them, under that character, while they subsisted; all other kingdoms were very small; therefore four kings were obliged to enter into a confederacy, to make war with Sodom, and the four neighbouring cities, which a very inconsiderable army might, without much difficulty, have subdued, Gen. xiv. 1, &c. One of them, indeed, is called king of nations; not as though he had large dominions, but because he was the chief governor of a mixed people, from divers nations, who were settled together in one distinct colony; and the king of Shinar, there spoken of, is not the king of Babylon, who was too potent a prince to have stood in need of others to join with him in this expedition; but it was a petty king, who reigned in some city near Babylon, and was tributary to the Assyrian empire. These four kings, with all their forces, were so few in number, that Abraham was not afraid to attack them; which he did with success.
Again, we read, that in Joshua’s time, the kings in the land of Canaan, whom he subdued, had, each of them, very small dominions, consisting of but one capital city, with a few villages round about it. Thus we read of thirty one kings that reigned in that country, which was not so big as a fourth part of the kingdom of England, Josh. xii. And afterwards most of these kingdoms were swallowed up by the Assyrian empire. Thus the king of Assyria, as Rabshakeh boasts, had entirely conquered the kings of Hamath, Arphad, Gozan, and Haran, with several others, 2 Kings xix. 12, 13. these had very small dominions, and therefore were easily subdued by forces so much superior to any that they could raise. Egypt, indeed, was more formidable; and therefore we often read in scripture of Israel’s having recourse to them for help, and are blamed for trusting in them more than God: And, in Arabia, there were some kings who had large dominions, as appears by the vast armies that they raised: Thus Zerah the Ethiopian came forth against Asa, with a thousand thousand men, 2 Chron. xvi. 19. Nevertheless, the church of God was able to stand its ground; for, whether the neighbouring kings were many of them, confederate against them, or the armies they raised, exceeding numerous, like the sand on the sea shore; they had safety and protection, as well as success in war, from the care and blessing of providence; of which we have an account in the history of scripture relating thereunto.
(7.) It will be of some advantage, in order to our understanding the sense of scripture, for us to enquire into the meaning of those civil and religious offices and characters, by which several persons are described, both in the Old and New Testament. Concerning the Priests and Levites, we have had occasion frequently to insist on their call and office: Among the former of these, one is styled high-priest; who was not only the chief minister in holy things under the Jewish dispensation; but presided over the other priests in all those things that respected the temple-service. There was also another priest, who had pre-eminence over his brethren, that was next to the high-priest in office, who seems to be referred to, in 2 Kings xxv. 18. where we read of Seriah, the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest. This office is not often mentioned in scripture, but is frequently spoken of by Jewish writers: They call him, who was employed therein, as the author of the Chaldee paraphrase does on that text, the Sagan: And, some think, that this office was first instituted in Numb. iii. 32. in which Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest was to be chief over the chief of the Levites, and to have the oversight of them, that kept the charge of the sanctuary: And elsewhere, we read of Zadok and Abiathar, being, by way of eminency, priests at the same time, 2 Sam. xv. 35. by which, it is probable, we are to understand, as many expositors do, that one was the high priest, the other the Sagan; who was to perform the office that belonged to the high priest in all the branches thereof, if he should happen to be incapacitated for it.
Besides these, there were others who were styled chief-priests, as being the heads of their respective classes, and presided over them when they came to Jerusalem, to minister in their courses. There was also the president of the Sanhedrim, who is generally reckoned one of the chief priests. Moreover, when any one was by the arbitrary will of the governors, in the degenerate and declining state of the Jewish church, deposed from the high-priesthood, barely to make way for another favourite to enjoy that honour, he was, though divested of his office, nevertheless called chief priest. This will give light to several scriptures in the New Testament, in which we often read of many chief priests at the same time, See Luke iii. 2. Mark xiv. 53.
Again, as to the Levites, these were not only appointed to be the high priest’s ministers in offering gifts and sacrifices in the temple; but many of them were engaged in other offices; some in instructing the people, in the respective cities where they dwelt, who were to resort to them for that purpose, or in synagogues, erected for this branch of public worship. Others were employed as judges in determining civil or ecclesiastical, matters.
Again, we often read, in scripture, of Scribes: These were of two sorts; some were employed only in civil matters; and we sometimes read of one person, in particular, who was appointed to be the king’s scribe. Thus in David’s reign, we read of Shemaiah the scribe, and in Hezekiah’s of Shebna, 1 Chron. xxiv. 6. 2 Kings xviii. 18. This seems to have been a civil officer, not much unlike a secretary of state among us; and we seldom find mention made of more than one scribe at a time, except in Solomon’s reign in which there were two, 1 Kings iv. 4.
But besides this, we often read of scribes who were engaged in other works; thus it is generally supposed, that many of them were employed in transcribing the whole, or some parts of scripture, for the use of those who employed them therein, and gratified them for it; which was necessary for the propagating religion in those ages, in which printing was not known.
There were others who explained the law to the people. Thus Ezra is styled, a ready scribe in the law of Moses, Ezra, vii. 6. This was an honourable and useful employment, faithfully managed by him and many others, in the best ages of the church. But, in our Saviour’s time, there were scribes who pretended to expound the law, and instruct the people; but the doctrines they propagated, were very contrary to the mind of the Holy Ghost in Moses’s writings; and their way of preaching was very empty and unprofitable: Upon which occasion it is said, that our Lord taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes, Matt. vii. 29.
Moreover, we sometimes read in the New-Testament, of Lawyers, against whom our Saviour denounces woes, for opposing him and his gospel. This is supposed by some, to be only a different name given to the scribes; inasmuch as they practised the law in public courts of judicature, and pleaded causes in the Sanhedrin, or taught in their schools or religious assemblies; both which the scribes did. And the evangelist Matthew, speaking concerning a lawyer, who asked our Saviour a question, Which is the great commandment, chap. xxii. 35, 36. Mark mentioning the same thing, calls him one of the scribes, Mark xii. 28. So that the same thing, for substance, seems to be intended by both of them; or if there was any difference between them, as others suppose there was, from what is said in Luke xi. 44, 45. that when our Saviour had been reproving the scribes and Pharisees, One of the lawyers said unto him, thus saying thou reproachest us also, where they speak as though they were distinct from them: yet it is evident from hence, that however they might be distinguished from them, in other respects, they agreed with them as engaged in expounding the law, and herein are said to lade men with heavy burdens and grievous to be born; which they themselves would not touch with one of their fingers.
As for those civil officers which we read of in the Old Testament before the captivity, especially in David and Solomon’s reign, they were either such as were set over the tribute, the principal of which was at the head of the treasury, 1 Kings iv. 6. and others were employed under them, to see that the taxes were duly levied and paid: These are called receivers, Isa. xxxiii. 18. Others were employed in keeping and adjusting the public records, of which, one was the chief; who, by way of eminence, is called the recorder: And others were appointed to manage the king’s domestic affairs, of which, the chief was set over the household, 2 Kings xviii. 18. Another is said to be set over the host, 1 Kings iv. 4. who either had the chief command of the army, or else was appointed to muster and determine who should go to war, or be excused from it. And there is another officer we read of once in scripture, viz. he that counted the towers, Isa. xxxiii. 18. whose business seems to have been to survey and keep the fortifications in repair; but these not being so frequently mentioned in scripture as others, we pass them over, and proceed more especially to consider some characters of persons we meet with in the New Testament.
There was one sort of officers who were concerned in exacting the public revenues, after the Jews were made tributary to the Roman empire: These are called publicans; the chief of which were generally persons of great honour and substance, who sometimes farmed a branch of the revenue, and they were, for the most part, Romans of noble extract, of whom we have an account in Cicero[46], and other heathen writers; but there is no mention of them in scripture. This honourable post was never conferred on the Jews; nevertheless, we read of Zaccheus, who is said to have been one of the chief among the publicans, though a Jew, Luke xix. 2. the meaning of which is, that he was the chief officer in a particular port, who had other publicans under him; whose business was, constantly to attend at the ports, and take an account of the taxes that were to be paid there, by those of whom they were exacted. Of this latter sort was Matthew, who is called the publican, i. e. one of the lowest officers concerned in the revenue, Matt. x. 3. compared with chap. ix. 9. These were usually very profligate in their morals, and inclined to oppress those of whom they received taxes, probably to gain advantage to themselves; and were universally hated by the Jews.
There was another sort of men often mentioned in the New Testament, that made the greatest pretensions to religion, but were most remote from it, and justly branded with the character of hypocrites, to wit, the Pharisees, who made themselves popular by their external shew of piety. There is not, indeed, the least hint of there being such a sect amongst the Jews before the captivity; though, it is true, the prophet Isaiah, Isa. lxv. 5. speaks of a sort of people that much resembled them, which said, Stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou; from whence, it seems, that there were some of like principles in his day; unless we suppose that this scripture had its accomplishment when the sect of the Pharisees appeared in the world in a following age; which was not long after the reign of Alexander the great[47], between two and three hundred years before our Saviour’s time. They are generally described in scripture, as pretending to be more expert than all others in the knowledge of the law; but, in reality, making it void, by establishing those oral traditions, which were contrary to the true intent and meaning thereof, and, as setting up their own righteousness, and depending on the performance of some lesser duties of the law, as that from whence they expected a right to eternal life. These were the greatest enemies, in their conduct, as well as their doctrines, to Christ, and his gospel.
There was another sect that joined with the Pharisees, in persecuting and opposing our Saviour; though otherwise they did not, in the least, accord with one another; and these were the Sadducees, who appeared in the world about the same time with the Pharisees: These were men generally reputed as profligate in their morals, and for that reason, as much hated by the common people, as the Pharisees were caressed by them. They adhered to the Philosophy of Epicurus; and took occasion, from thence to deny the resurrection, angels, and spirits, as they are said to do in scripture, Acts xxiii. 8. It is true they did not desire to be thought irreligious, though they were really so; yet our Saviour describes them, as well as the Pharisees, as hypocrites, and inveterate enemies of the gospel.
There was another sort of people sometimes mentioned in the New Testament, viz. the Samaritans, who separated from the Jews, out of a private pique, and built a distinct temple on mount Gerizzim[48]; and for this they were excommunicated by the Jews, and universally hated, so that there was no intercourse between them, John iv. 9, especially in those things in which one might be said to be obliged to the other: These did very much corrupt the worship of God, so that Christ charges them with worshipping they knew not what, ver. 12. and it is observed concerning them, after the ten tribes were carried captive into Assyria, and they who were left in the land feared not the Lord, that he sent lions amongst them, 2 Kings xvii. 25. upon which occasion a priest was dismissed by the king of Assyria, under pretence of instructing them in the manner of the God of the land; and he erected a strange medly of religion, consisting partly of those corruptions therein, which had been practised by the Israelites for some ages past, and partly of the Heathen idolatry, which they brought from Assyria; upon which account it is said, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence, 2 Kings xvii. 33.
There is another sort of men, mentioned in the New Testament, who are called Herodians: These seem to have been a political rather than a religious sect. Some of the Fathers, indeed, think that they were so called because they complimented Herod with the character of the Messiah[49], who, as they supposed, would be a very flourishing prince, who was to reign over them, according to the ancient prediction of the patriarch Jacob, after the sceptre was departed from Judah: But this seems to be a very improbable conjecture; for Herod the Great was dead, before we read any thing of the Herodians in scripture: And the Jews had an opinion, about this time, that the Messiah should never die, John xii. 34. Therefore, the most probable opinion is, that these Herodians were, in their first rise, the favourites and courtiers of Herod, and disposed to give into any alterations that he was inclined to make in the religious or civil affairs of the Jews[50]. By what is said concerning them in scripture, it is supposed, that they were, for thy most part, Sadducees; for if we compare Matt. xvi. 6. with Mark viii. 15. our Saviour warns his disciples upon the same occasion, to wit, their having forgot to take bread, to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees; as the former evangelist expresses it, and of the leaven of Herod, viz. the Herodians, as it is in the latter: Now, though these Herodians, or court-parasites, might take their first rise in the reign of Herod the Great; yet there was a party of men succeeded them, who held the same principles, and were disposed to compliment their governors with their civil and religious rights; but they more especially distinguished themselves, by their propagating principles of loyalty among the people: And, whereas the Jews, under a pretence that they were a free nation, were very unwilling to give tribute to Cesar, (though they would not venture their lives as Judas of Galilee, and some others had done, by refusing it;) these Herodians laid it down as an article of their faith, that they ought to pay tribute to Cesar; and therefore, when they came with this question to our Saviour, Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not? Matt. xxii. 17. he soon discovered their hypocrisy, and knew the design of that question as he might easily do from their being Herodians. Thus concerning the various characters of persons mentioned in scripture, as subservient to our understanding thereof.
(8.) After all these helps for the understanding the sense of scripture, there is one more which is universally to be observed; namely, that no sense is to be given of any text, but what is agreeable to the analogy of faith, has a tendency to advance the divine perfections, stain the pride of all flesh, in the sight of God, and, promote practical godliness in all its branches.
1st, Scripture must be explained agreeably to the analogy of faith. It is supposed that there is something we depend on, which we can prove to be the faith of scripture, or demonstrably founded upon it: This we are bound to adhere to; otherwise we must be charged with scepticism, and concluded not to know where to set our feet in matters of religion. Now, so far as our faith herein is founded on scripture, every sense we give of it must be agreeable thereunto; otherwise we do as it were suppose that the word of God in one place destroys what, in another, it establishes, which would be a great reflection on that which is the standard and rule of our faith. I do not hereby intend, that our sentiments are to be a rule of faith to others, any farther than as they are evidently contained in, or deduced from scripture: Yet that which we believe, as thinking it to be the sense of scripture, is so far a rule to us, that, whatever sense we give of any other scripture, must be agreeable to it; or else, we must be content to acknowledge, that we are mistaken in some of those things which we called articles of faith, as founded thereon.
2dly, No sense given of scripture, must be contrary to the divine perfections: Thus, when human passions are ascribed to God, such as grief, fear, desire, wrath, fury, indignation, &c. these are not to be explained, as when the same passions are ascribed to men, in which sense they argue weakness and imperfection. And when any phrase of scripture seems to represent him defective in power; as in Jer. xiv. 9. ‘Why shouldst thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save?’ we are to understand it as a charge that would be unjustly brought against God, if he did not appear in the behalf of his people, by those who are disposed to reproach and find fault with the dispensations of his providence: But, since we have taken occasion, in explaining many scriptures and doctrines founded upon them, to apply this rule; I shall content myself, at present, with the bare mentioning of it.
3dly, We are to explain scripture in such a way, as that it may have a tendency to promote practical godliness in all its branches; which is the main end and design thereof. Many instances might be given, in which this rule is to be applied; as when we are said, in Rom. vii. 14. not to be under the law, but under grace; we are not to understand this as though we were discharged from an obligation to yield obedience to whatever God commands; but either, as denoting our being delivered from the condemning sentence of the law; or, from the ceremonial law, to which the gospel-dispensation, which is a display of the grace of God, is always opposed. And when it is said in Eccl. vii. 16. ‘Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thyself overwise: Why shouldst thou destroy thyself?’ We are not to understand thereby, that there is any danger of being too holy, or strict in the performance of religious duties; but as forbidding an hypocritical appearing to be more righteous than we are, or entertaining a proud and vain-glorious conceit of our own righteousness, because we perform some duties of religion.
Again, there are other scriptures which are sometimes perverted, as though they intimated, that prayer, or other religious duties, were not incumbent on wicked men; as when it is said, in Prov. xxi. 27. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord: And, chap. xxviii. 9. that his prayer is so, or that he has nothing to do with those duties; because it is said to such, in Psal. l. 16. What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or, that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth. But these scriptures do not imply, that they are not obliged to perform religious duties; but, that it is contrary to the holiness of God, and a great provocation to him when they regard not the frame of spirit with which they perform them, who draw nigh to him with their lips, when their heart is far from him, or lay claim to the blessings of the covenant of grace, while continuing in open hostility against him. To apply this rule fully, would be to go through the whole scripture, and to shew how all the great doctrines of religion which are founded upon it, are conformed thereunto; But this we have endeavoured to do in all those instances in which we have had occasion to give the sense thereof; and therefore shall content ourselves with this brief specimen, and leave it to every one to improve upon it in his daily meditations, in enquiring into the sense of scripture, in order to his being farther established in that religion which is founded thereon.