gade Jew, that through the love that he had to unjust gains, fell off in his affections from his brethren, adhered to the Romans, and became a kind of servant to them against their brethren, farming the heathenish taxations at the hand of strangers, and exacting of them upon their brethren with much cruelty, falsehood, and extortion. And hence, as I said, it was, that to be a Publican, was to be so odious a thing, so vile a sinner, and so grievous a man in the eyes of the Jews. And would it not be an insufferable thing? Yea, did not that man deserve hanging ten times over, that should, being a Dutchman, fall in with a French invader, and take place or farm at his hands, those cruel and grievous taxations, which he in barbarous wise should at his conquest lay upon them; and exact and force them to be paid him with an over and above of what is appointed.* Why this was the Publican, he was a Jew, and so should have abode with them, and have been content to share with his brethren in their calamities; but contrary to nature, to law, to religion, reason, and honesty, he fell in with the heathen, and took the advantage of their tyranny, to pole, to peel,† to rob and impoverish his brethren. this Publican. Nor can he by Heathen Man, intend the person, and by the term Publican, the office or place of the heathen man; but by Publican is meant the renegade Jew, in such a place, &c. as is yet further manifest by that which follows. For, 2. Those Publicans, even every one of them that by name are made mention of in the New Testament, have such names put upon them; yea, and other circumstances thereunto annexed, as doth demonstrate them to be Jews. I remember the names of no more but three, to wit, Matthew, Levi, and Zaccheus, and they were all Jews. (1.) Matthew was a Jew, and the same Matthew was a Publican; yea, and also afterward an apostle. He was a Jew, and wrote his gospel in Hebrew; He was an apostle, and is therefore found among *the twelve. That he was a Publican too, is as evident by his own words: For though Mark and Luke in their mentioning of his name and apostleship, do forbear to call him a Publican. (Mar. iii. 18. Lu. vi. 15.) Yet when this Matthew comes to speak of himself, he calls himself Matthew the Publican, Mat. x. 3. for I count this the self-same Matthew that Mark and Luke maketh mention of, because I find no other Matthew among the apostles but he: Matthew the Publican, Matthew the man so deep in apostacy, Matthew the man of that ill fame among his brethren. Love in Mark and Luke, when they counted him among the apostles, did cover with silence this his publican state; and it is meet for Peter to call Paul his beloved brother, when Paul himself shall call himself the chief of sinners; but faithfulness to the world, and a desire to be abased, that Christ thereby, and grace by him, might be advanced, made Matthew, in his evangelical writings, call himself by the name of Matthew the Publican. Nor has he lost thereby; for Christ again to exalt him, as he hath also done by the apostle Paul, hath set, by his special providence, the testimony that this Matthew hath given of his birth, life, death, doctrine, and miracles, in the front of all the New Testament. But for proof that the Publican was a Jew. 1. They are, even then, when compared with, yet distinguished from the heathen; Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a Publican, Mat. xviii. which two terms, I think, must not here be applied | to one and the self-same man, as if the heathen was a Publican, or the Publican a heathen, but to men of two distinct nations; as that Publican and Harlot, is to be understood of sinners of both sexes. The Publican is not an harlot, for he is a man, &c. and such a man as has been described before. So by Publicans and Sinners, is meant Publicans, and such sinners as the Gentiles were; or such as, by the text, the Publican is distinguished from: Where the Pharisee saith he was not an extortioner, unjust, adulterer, or even as The glorious revolution, conducted by William, Prince of Orange, afterwards King William the 3rd, took place soon after Bunyan's decease. It was probably on this account that this paragraph was omitted from the edition of September, 1688, and all the subsequent ones to the present time. The popular opinion, in those times, was, that Dutchman and extortioner were nearly synonymous. 'We trade wid de Yankey, we deal wid de Scot. Old Song. To pole, to peel,' to take off the top and branches of a tree, and then to peel off the bark; terms used to designate violent oppressions under pretended legal authority. Which pols and pils the poor in piteous wise.' Fairy Queen. Pilling and polling is grown out of request, since plain pilfering came into fashion.' Winwood's Memorials. They had rather pill straws than read the scriptures.' Dent's Pathway.-Ed. (2.) The next Publican that I find by the testament of Christ, made mention of by name, is Levi, another of the apostles of Jesus Christ. This Levi also, by the Holy Ghost in holy writ, is called by the name of James. Not James the brother of John, for Zebedee was his father; but James the son of Alpheus. Now I take this Levi also to be another than Matthew; first, because Matthew is not called the son of Alpheus; and because Matthew and Levi, or James the son of Alpheus, are distinctly counted where the names of the apostles are mentioned, Mat. x. 3. for two distinct persons: And that this Levi, or James the apostle was a Publican, as was the apostle Matthew, whom we mentioned before, is evident; for both Mark and Luke do count him such. First, Mark | Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinsaith, Christ found him when he called him, as he ners, and eateth with them.' Lu. xv. 1,2. also found Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom; yea, Luke words it thus: He went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.' Mar. ii. 14. Lu. v. 27. Now that this Levi, or James the son of Alpheus, was a Jew, his name doth well make manifest. Besides, had there been among the apostles any more Gentiles save Simon the Canaanite; or if this Levi James had been [one] here, I think the Holy Ghost would, to distinguish him, have included him in the same discriminating character as he did the other, when he called him Simon the Canaanite. Mat. x. 4. Matthew, therefore, and Levi or James, were both Publicans, and, as I think, called both at the same time;* were both Publican-Jews, and made by grace the apostles of Jesus Christ. (3.) The next Publican that I find by name, made mention of in the testament of Christ, is one Zaccheus. And he was a chief Publican; yea, for ought I know, the master of them all. There was a man, (saith Luke,) named Zaccheus, which was the chief among the Publicans, and he was rich.' Lu. xix. 2. This man, Christ saith, was a son of Abraham, that is, as other Jews were; for he spake that to stop the mouths of their pharisaical cavillations. Besides, the Publican shewed himself to be such an one, when under a supposition of wronging any man, he has respect to the Jewish law of restoring four-fold. Ex. xxii. 1. 2 Sa. xii. 6. the you, But by what answer doth Christ repel their objections? Why, he saith, 'What man of having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost until he find it?' Doth he not here, by the lost sheep, mean the Pubpoor lican? Plenty of whom, while he preached this sermón, were there, as objects of the Pharisees' scorn; but of the pity and compassion of Jesus Christ! he did without doubt mean them. For, pray, what was the flock, and who Christ's sheep under the law, but the house and people of Israel? Exe. xxxiv. 30, 31. So then, who could be the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but such as was Matthew, James, Zaccheus, and their companions in their, and such like transgressions. 4. Besides, had not the Publicans been of the Jews, how easy had it been for the Pharisees to have objected, that an impertinency was couched in that most excellent parable of the lost sheep? They might have said, We are offended, because thou receivest the Publicans, and thou for vindication of thy practice, propoundest a parable of lost sheep; but they are the sinners of the house of Israel, and the Publicans are aliens and Gentiles. I say, How easily might they thus have objected? But they knew full well, that the parable was pertinent, for that the Publicans were of the Jews, and not of the aliens. Yea, had they not been Jews, it cannot, it must not be thought, that Christ, in sum, should call them so; and yet he did do so, when he called them lost sheep. Now that these Publicans were Jews, what follows, but that for this they were a great deal the more abominated of their brethren. And, as I have also hinted before, it is no marvel though they were; for a treacherous brother is worse than an open enemy. Ps. Iv. 12, 13. For, if to be debauched in open and common transgressions is odious, how It is further manifest that he was a Jew, because Christ puts him among the lost; to wit, among lost sheep of the house of Israel, Lu. xix. 8-10. and Mat. xv. 24. for Zaccheus was one that might properly be said to be lost, and that in the Jews account: Lost I say, and that not only in the most common sense, by reason of transgression against the law, but for that he was an apostate Jew; not with reference to heathenish religion, but as to heathen-odious is it for a brother to be so? For a brother ish, cruel, and barbarous actions; and therefore he was, as the other, by his brethren counted as bad as heathens, gentiles, and harlots. But salvation is come to this house, saith Christ, and that notwithstanding his Publican practices, forasmuch as he also is the son of Abraham. 3. Again, Christ by the parable of the lost sheep, doth plainly intimate, that the Publican was a Jew. 'Then drew near unto him all the Publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and * Immediately after the calling of Matthew and of James, our Lord sat at meat in Levi's [James!] house, and made that gracious declaration, 'I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance;' compare Matt. ix. 10-13, with Mark 14-17 and Luke v. 27-32-ED. in nature and religion to be so? I say again, if these things are intolerable, what shall we think of such men, as shall join to all this compliance with a foreign prince to rob the church of God? Yea, that shall become a tenant, an officer, a man in power under them, to exact, force, and wring out of the hand of a brother his estaté; yea, his bread and livelihood. Add to all this, What shall we say to him that shall do for an enemy against a brother in a way of injury and wrong, more than in strictness of law they were commanded by that same enemy to do? And yet all this they did, as both John insinuates, and Zaccheus confesses.t Nearly half this paragraph is omitted from every edition since 1688, probably from a fear lest it should be misinter The Pharisee therefore was not so good, but the Publican was as bad: Indeed, the Publican was a notorious wretch, one that had a way of transgressing by himself; one that could not be sufficiently condemned by the Jews, nor coupled with a viler than himself. 'Tis true, you find him here in the temple at prayer; not because he retained in his apostacy, conscience of the true religion, but God had awakened him, shewn him his sin, and bestowed upon him the grace of repentance, by which he was not only fetched back to the temple, and prayer, but to his God, and to the salvation of his soul. The Pharisee, then, was a man of another complexion, and stood as to his own thoughts of himself; yea, and in the thoughts of others also, upon the highest and better ground by far. The Publican was a notorious sinner; the Pharisee was a notorious righteous man. The Publican was a sinner out of the ordinary way of sinning; and the Pharisee was a man for righteousness in a singular way also. The Publican pursued his villanies, and the Pharisee pursued his righteousness; and yet they both meet in the temple to pray. Yea, the Pharisee stuck to, and boasted in the law of God; but the Publican did forsake it, and hardened his heart against his way and people. Thus diverse were they in their appearances; the Pharisee, very good; the Publican, very bad. But as to the law of God, which looked upon them with reference to the state of their spirits, and the nature of their actions, by that they were both found sinners; the Publican an open outside one, and the Pharisee a filthy inside one. This is evident, because the best of them was rejected, and the worst of them was received tó mercy. Mercy standeth not at the Publican's badness, nor is it enamoured with the Pharisee's goodness: It suffereth not the law to take place on both, though it findeth them both in sin, but graciously embraceth the most unworthy, and leaveth the best to shift for himself. And good reason that both should be dealt with after this manner; to wit, that the word of grace should be justified upon the soul of the penitent, and that the other should stand or fall to that, which he had chosen to be his master. There are three things that follow upon this discourse. [Conclusion.] 1. That the righteousness of man is not of any esteem with God, as to Justification. It is passed by as a thing of naughtiness, a thing not worth the taking notice of. There was not so much as notice taken of the Pharisee's person, or prayer, because he came into the temple mantled up in his own good things. [Conclusion.] 2. That the man that has nothing to commend him to God, but his own good doings, shall never be in favour with him. This also is evident from the text: The Pharisee had his own righteousness, but had nothing else to commend him to God; and therefore could not by that obtain favour with God, but abode still a rejected one, and in a state of condemnation. [Conclusion.] 3. Wherefore, though we are bound by the law of charity to judge of men, according as in appearance they present themselves unto us: yet withal, to wit, though we do so judge, we must leave room for the judgment of God. Mercy may receive him that we have doomed to hell, and justice may take hold on him, whom we have judged to be bound up in the bundle of life. And both these things are apparent by the persons under consideration. We, like Joseph, are for setting of Manasseh before Ephraim; but God, like Jacob, puts his hands across, and lays his right hand upon the worst man's head, and his left hand upon the best, to the amazement and wonderment even of the best of men. Ge. xlviii. 14. [THE PHARISEE'S PRAYER.] 'Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a Publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. ** ing. In these words many things are worth the notAs, FIRST. THE PHARISEE'S DEFINITION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; the which standeth in two things: 1. In negatives. 2. In positives. In negatives; to wit, what a man that is righteous must not be: I am no extortioner, no unjust man, no adulterer, nor yet as this publican. In positives; to wit, what a man that is righteous must be: I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I possess, &c. That righteousness standeth in negative and positive holiness is true; but that the Pharisee's definition is, notwithstanding, false, will be manifest by and by. But I will first treat of righteousness in the general, because the text leadeth me to it. First then, A Man that is righteous, must have negative holiness; that is, he must not live in actual *This proud beggar shews not his wounds but his worth; not his rags, but his robes; not his misery, but his stoutheartedness: he brings in God Almighty as a debtor to him preted as reflecting upon the glorious revolution under William for his services, and thanks God more that others were bad, and Mary. See page 220.-ED. than for his own fancied goodness.- Ryland. transgressions: He must not be an extortioner, unjust, an adulterer, or, as the Publican was. And this the apostle intends, when he saith, 'Flee fornication, 2 Ti. ii. 22. flee also youthful lusts, 1 Co. vi. 18. flee from idolatry,' 1 Co. x. 14. and 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols.' 1Jn. v. 21. For it is a vain thing to talk of righteousness, and that ourselves are righteous, when every observer shall find us in actual transgression. Yea, though a man shall mix his want of negative holiness, with some good actions, that will not make him a righteous man. As suppose, a man that is a swearer, a drunkard, an adulterer, or the like, should, notwithstanding this, be open handed to the poor, be a greater executor of justice in his place, be exact in his buying, selling, keep touch with his promise and with his friend, or the like. These things, yea, many more such, cannot make him a righteous man; for the beginning of righteousness is yet wanting in him, which is this negative holiness: For except a man shall leave off to do evil he cannot be a righteous man. Negative holiness is therefore of absolute necessity to make one in one's self a righteous man. This therefore condemns them, that count it sufficient if a man have some actions that in themselves, and by virtue of the command are good, to make him a righteous man, though negative holiness is wanting. This is as saying to the wicked, Thou art righteous, and a perverting of the right way of the Lord. Negative holiness therefore must be in a man before he can be accounted righteous. man then, and that man only, is, as to actions a righteous man, that hath left off to do evil, and hath learnt to do well, Is. i. 16, 17. that hath cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of light. Flee also youthful lusts, (said Paul,) but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. | 2 Ti. ii. 22. The Pharisee therefore, as to the general description of righteousness, made his definition right; but as to his person and personal righteousness, he made his definition wrong. I do not mean, he defined his own righteousness wrong; but I mean, his definition of true righteousness, which standeth in negative and positive holiness, he made to stoop to justify his own righteousness, and therein he played the hypocrite in his prayer: For although it is true righteousness, that standeth in negative and positive holiness; yet that is not true righteousness, that standeth but in some pieces and ragged remnants of negative and positive righteousness. If then the Pharisee would in his definition of personal righteousness, have proved his own righteousness to be good, he must have proved, that both his negative and positive holiness had been universal: to wit, that he had left off to act in any wickedness, and that he had given up himself to the duty enjoined in every commandment. For so the righteous man is described, Job i. 8. As it is also said of Zacharias and Elizabeth his wife, They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.' Lu. i. 6. Here the perfection, that is, the universality of their negative holiness is implied, and the universality of their positive holiness is expressed: They walked in all the commandments of the Lord; but that they could not do, if they had lived in any unrighteous thing or way. They walked in all blamelessly, that is, sincerely with upright hearts. The Pharisee's righteousness therefore, even by his own implied definition of righteousness, was not good, as is manifest these two ways. 1. His negative holiness was not universal. 2. His positive holiness was rather criminal* than moral. Second. As negative holiness is required to declare one a righteous man; so also positive holiness must be joined therewith, or the man is unrighteous still. For it is not what a man is not, but what a man does, that declares him a righteous man. Suppose a man be no thief, no liar, no unjust man; or, as the Pharisee saith, no extortioner, no adulterer, &c., this will not make him a righteous man. But there must be joined to these, holy and good actions, before he can be declared a righteous man. Wherefore, as the apostle, when he pressed the Christians to righteousness, did put them first upon negative holiness, so he joineth thereto an exhortation to positive holiness; knowing, that where positive holiness is wanting, all the negative holiness in the whole world cannot declare a man a righteous When therefore he had said, 'But thou, O man of God, flee these things,' (sins and wickedness) he adds, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.' 1 Ti. vi. 11. Here Timothy is exhorted to negative holiness, when he is bid to flee sin. Here also he is exhorted to positive holiness, when he is bid to follow after righteousness, &c., for righteous-in modern editions to ceremonial; but it was not only cerc* The word 'criminal,' used by Bunyan, has been altered ness can neither stand in negative nor positive monial but superstitious, and therefore more criminal than holiness, as severed one from another. man. 1. His negative holiness was not universal. He saith indeed, he was not an extortioner, nor unjust, no adulterer, nor yet as this Publican: but none of these expressions apart, nor all, if put together, do prove him to be perfect as to negative holiness; that is, they do not prove him, should it be granted, that he was as holy with this kind of holiness, as himself of himself had testified. For, That moral. (1.) What though he was no extortioner, he might yet be a covetous man. Lu. xvi. 14. (2.) What though, as to dealing, he was not unjust to others, yet he wanted honesty to do jus tice to his own soul. Lu. xvi. 15. (3.) What, though he was free from the act of adultery, he might yet be made guilty by an adulterous eye, against which the Pharisee did not watch, of which the Pharisee did not take cogni zance. Mat. v. 28. (4.) What, though he was not like the publican, yet he was like, yea, was a downright hypocrite; he wanted in those things wherein he boasted himself, sincerity; but without sincerity no action can be good, or accounted of God as righteous. The Pharisee therefore, notwithstanding his boasts, was deficient in his righteousness, though he would fain have shrouded it under the right definition thereof. ceremonial duties. Nor will that help him at all to say, he gave TITHES of all that he possessed. It had been more modest to say, that he had paid them; for they, being commanded, were a due debt; nor could they go before God for a free gift, because by the commandment they were made a payment; but proud men and hypocrites, love so to word it both with God and man, as at least to imply, that they are more forward to do, than God's commandment is to require them to do. The second part of his positive holiness was superstitious; for God hath appointed no such set fasts, neither more nor less, but just twice a week: I fast twice a week. Ay, but who did command thee to do so;* commanded to fast when occasion required if thou wast, but that thou shouldest have any occasion to do so as thou doest, other than by thy being put upon it by a superstitious and erroneous conscience, doth not, nor canst thou make to appear. This part therefore of this positive Yet this let me say in commendation of the Pharisee: In my conscience he was better than many of our English Christians; for many of them are so far off from being at all partakers of positive righteousness, that all their ministers, bibles, good books, good sermons, nor yet God's judgments, can persuade them to become so much as negatively holy, that is, to leave off evil. 2. Nor doth his positive holiness help him at all, forasmuch as it is grounded mostly, if not altogether, in ceremonial holiness. Nay, I will recol-righteousness, was positive superstition, an abuse lect myself, it was grounded partly in ceremonial, of God's law, and a gratification of thy own erroand partly in superstitious holiness, if there be such neous conscience. Hitherto therefore, thou art a thing as superstitious holiness in the world, this defective in thy so seemingly brave and glorious paying of tithes was ceremonial, such as came in righteousness. and went out with the typical priesthood. But what is that to positive holiness, when it was but a small pittance by the by. Had the Pharisee argued plainly and honestly; I mean, had he so dealt with that law, by which now he sought to be justified, he should have brought forth positive righteousness in morals, and should have said and proved it too, that, as he was no wicked man with reference to the act of wickedness, he was indeed a righteous man in acts of moral virtues. He should, I say, have proved himself a true lover of God, no superstitious one, but a sincere worship-God, I thank thee (said he) that I am not as other per of him; for this is contained in the first table, men are. He seemed to be at this time, in more Ex. xx. and is so in sum expounded by the Lord than an ordinary frame, while now he stood in the Christ himself. Mar. xii. 30. He should also in the presence of the divine majesty: for a prayer made next place have proved himself truly kind, com-up of praise, is a prayer of the highest order, and passionate, liberal, and full of love and charity to his neighbour; for that is the sum of the second table, as our Lord also doth expound it, saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Mar. xii. 31. True, he says, he did them no hurt; but did he do them good? To do no hurt is one thing; and to do good, is another; and it is possible for a man to do neither hurt nor good to his neighbour. What then, Is he a righteous man because he hath done him no hurt? No verily; unless, to his power, he hath also done him good. It is therefore a very fallacious and deceitful arguing of the Pharisee, thus to speak before God in his prayer: I am righteous, because I have not hurt my neighbour, and because I have acted in SECOND. The second thing that I take notice of in this prayer of the Pharisee, is, HIS MANNER OF DELIVERY, as he stood praying in the temple. is most like the way of them that are now in a state beyond prayer. Praise is the work of heaven; but we see here, that an hypocrite may get into that vein, even while an hypocrite, and while on earth below. Nor do I think that this prayer of his was a premeditated stinted form, but a prayer extempore, made on a sudden, according to what he felt, thought, or understood of himself. Here therefore, we may see, that even prayer, as well as other acts of religious worship, may bo performed in great hypocrisy; although, I think, It is singular that our modern pharisees continue the custom of fasting twice a week, on Wednesday and Friday. This is not so monstrous as pretending to do what God manifest in the flesh' alone could do-to fast for forty consecutive days.-ED. |