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.
Footnote 32: