Transcribed from the 1845 Thomas Nelson “Works of the Puritan Divines
(Bunyan)” edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org
THE
PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN.
_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_.
_And the Publican_, _standing afar off would not lift up so much as
his eyes unto heaven_, _but smote upon his breast_, _saying_, _God be
merciful to me a sinner_.—Luke, xviii. 10–13.
IN the beginning of this chapter you read of the reason of the parable of
the unjust judge and the poor widow; namely, to encourage men to pray.
“He spake a parable to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not
to faint;” and a most sweet parable for that purpose it is: for if
through importunity, a poor widow woman may prevail with an unjust judge,
and so consequently with an unmerciful and hard-hearted tyrant, how much
more shall the poor, afflicted, distressed, and tempted people of God,
prevail with, and obtain mercy at the hands of, a loving, just, and
merciful God? The unjust judge would not hearken to, nor regard the cry
of, the poor widow, for a while: “But afterward he said within himself,
Though I fear not God, nor regard man; yet because this widow troubleth
me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.”
“Hark,” saith Christ, “what the unjust judge saith.” “And shall not God
avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him?—I tell you that
he will avenge them speedily.”
This is therefore a very comfortable parable to such of the saints as are
under hard usage by reason of evil men, their might and tyranny: for by
it we are taught to believe and expect, that God, though for a while he
seemeth not to regard, yet will, in due time and season, arise and set
such in safety from them that puff at them; Psalm xii. 4.
Let the good Christian pray always; let him pray, and not faint at
seeming delays; for if the widow by importunity prevailed with the unjust
judge, how much more shall he with his heavenly Father. “I tell you,”
says Christ, “that he will avenge them speedily.”
But now, forasmuch as this parable reacheth not (so directly) the poor
Publican in the text, therefore our Lord begins again, and adds to that
other parable, this parable which I have chosen for my text; by which he
designeth two things: First, The conviction of the proud and
self-conceited Pharisee: Secondly, The raising up and healing of the cast
down and dejected Publican. And observe it, as by the first parable he
chiefly designeth the relief of those that are under the hands of cruel
tyrants, so by this he designeth the relief of those that lie under the
load and burden of a guilty and disquieted conscience.
This therefore is a parable that is full of singular comfort to such of
the sinners in the world that are clogged with guilt and sense of sin;
and that lie under the apprehensions of, and that are driven to God by
the sense of the judgment that for sin is due unto them.
In my handling of this text, I shall have respect to these things—
1. To the persons in the text.
2. To the condition of the persons in the text.
3. To the conclusion that Christ makes upon them both.
_First_, For the persons. They were, as you see, far one from another in
their own apprehension of themselves; one good, the other bad; but yet in
the judgment of the law, both alike, both the same, both sinners; for
they both stood in need of mercy. True, the first mentioned did not see
it, as the other poor sinner did; but that altereth not the case: he that
is in the judgment of the law a sinner, is in the judgment of the law for
sin condemned, though in his own judgment he be ever so righteous.
Men must not be judged, or justified, according to what themselves do
think, but according to the verdict and sentence that cometh out of the
mouth of God about them. Now, the sentence of God is, “All have sinned:”
“There is none righteous, no, not one;” Rom. iii. It is no matter, then,
what the Pharisee did think of himself; God by his word hath proclaimed
him a sinner: a sinner, by reason of original sin; a sinner, by reason of
actual transgression. Personally, therefore, with reference to the true
nature of their state, they both were sinners, and both by the law under
condemnation. True, the Publican’s leprosy was outward; but the
Pharisee’s leprosy was inward: his heart, his soul, his spirit, was as
foul, and had as much the plague of sin, as had the other in his life or
conversation.
_Secondly_, As to their conditions (I do not mean by condition, so much a
habit of mind, as the state that they had each of them put themselves
into by that mind.) “The one,” says the text, “was a Pharisee, the other
a Publican.” A Pharisee: that is, one that hath chosen to himself such a
course of life. A Publican: that is, one that hath chosen to himself
such a course of life. These terms, therefore, shew the divers courses
of life that they had put themselves into. The Pharisee, as he thought,
had put himself into a condition for heaven and glory; but the Publican
was for this world and his lusts. Wherefore when the Pharisee stands in
the temple, he boasteth of himself and good condition, but condemneth the
Publican, and bitterly inveigheth against him. But, as I said, their
personal state, by the law, was not at all changed. The Pharisee made
himself never the better; the Publican also abode in his place.
Indeed the Publican is here found to recant, and repent of his condition,
and of the condition that he had put himself into; and the Pharisee to
boast of his. But the Publican’s repentance was not of himself, but of
God, who can also, yea, and sometimes it is evident (Acts ix.) he doth,
make Pharisees also repent of that condition that they have chosen to be
in themselves; Phil. iii. 3–8. The Pharisee, therefore, in commending of
himself, makes himself never the better; the Publican also, in condemning
of himself, makes himself never the worse. Nay, contrariwise, the
Pharisee, by commending of himself, makes himself much the worse, ver.
14; and the Publican, by condemning of himself, makes himself much the
better. “I tell you (says Christ) this man went down to his house
justified rather than the other; for every one that exalteth himself
shall be abased: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
But, I say, as to men’s commending of themselves, yea, though others
should commend them also, that availeth, to God-ward, nothing at all.
“For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord
commendeth.” So then, men in “measuring themselves by themselves, and
comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise;” 2 Cor. x. 12.
Now, this was the way of the Pharisee; I am not, saith he, as other men:
I am no extortioner, nor unjust, no adulterer, nor yet as this Publican.
“Two men went up into the temple to pray;” and they two, as I said, as
opposite one to the other, as any two men that ever went thither to pray.
One of them was over righteous, and the other wicked over much. Some
would have thought, had they not by the word of Christ been otherwise
described, that they had been both of the same religion; for they both
went up into the temple to pray; yea, both to pray, and that at the same
time, as if they did it by appointment, by agreement; but there was no
such thing. The one was a Pharisee, the other a Publican: for so saith
the after words: and therefore persons as opposite as light and darkness,
as fire and water; I mean, as to their apprehensions one of another. The
Pharisee could not abide the Publican, nor could the Publican brook the
Pharisee; and yet both went up into the temple to pray. It is strange to
see, and yet it is seen, that men cross in their minds, cross in their
principles, cross in their apprehensions; yea, and cross in their prayers
too, should yet meet together in the temple to pray.
“Two men;” men not of the middle sort, and them too picked out of the
best and worst that was: two men, a Pharisee, and a Publican.
To be a Pharisee was in those days counted honourable for religion, and
for holiness of life. A Pharisee was a man of esteem and repute among
the Jews, though it is a term of reproach with us; else Paul would not at
such a time as he did it, have said, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee,
the son of a Pharisee;” Acts xxiii, 6; Phil. iii. 5. For now he stood
upon his purgation and justification, especially it appears so by the
place first named. And far be it from any to think, that Paul would make
use of a colour of wickedness, to save thereby himself from the fury of
the people.
A Publican was in those days counted one of the vilest of men, as is
manifest; because when they are in the word, by way of discrimination,
made mention of, they are ranked with the most vile and base; therefore
they are joined with sinners—“He eateth with publicans and sinners,” and
“with harlots.” “Publicans and harlots enter into the kingdom of
heaven.” Yea, when our Lord Christ would have the rebellious professor
stigmatized to purpose, he saith, “Let him be to thee as an heathen man
and a publican.”
We therefore can make no judgment of men upon the outward appearance of
them. Who would have thought, but that the Pharisee had been a good man?
for he was righteous; for he prayed. And who could have thought, that
the other had been a good man? for he was a Publican; a man, by good men
and bad men, joined with the worst of men, to wit, with sinners, harlots,
heathens.
The Pharisee was a sectarian; the Publican was an officer. The Pharisee,
even because he was a sectarian, was had the more in esteem; and the
Publican, because he was an officer, was had the more in reproach. To
speak a little to both these:
1. The Pharisee was a sectarian; one that deviated, that turned aside in
his worshipping from the way of God, both in matter and manner of
worship; for such an one I count a sectarian. That he turned aside from
the matter, which is the rule of worship, to wit, the written word, it is
evident; for Christ saith, that they rejected the commandments of God,
and made them of no effect, that they might keep their own traditions.
That they turned aside also as to their manner of worship, and became
sectarians, there is with no less authority asserted—“For all their works
they do for to be seen of men;” Acts xxvi. 5; Mark vii. 9–13; Matt.
xxiii. 5.
Now this being none of the order or ordinance of Christ, and yet being
chosen by, and stuck to of these sort of men, and also made a singular
and necessary part of worship, became a sect, or bottom for those
hypocritical factious men to adhere unto, and to make of others disciples
to themselves. And that they might be admired, and rendered venerable by
the simple people to their fellows, they loved to go in long robes; they
loved to pray in markets, and in the corners of the streets; they shewed
great zeal for the small things of the law, but had only great words for
things that were substantial—“They made broad their phylacteries, and
enlarged the borders of their garments;” Matt. xxiii.
When I say the Pharisee was a sectarian, I do not mean that every
sectarian is a Pharisee. There were the sects of the Herodians, of the
Alexandrians, and of the Sadducees, with many others; but to be a
Pharisee, was to be of the straitest sect: “After the most straitest sect
of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” That, therefore, of all the sects,
was the most strait and strict. Therefore, saith he, in another place,
“I was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers.”
And again, “Touching the law, a Pharisee;” Acts xxii. 3; xxvi. 4–6; Phil.
iii. 5. The Pharisee, therefore, did carry the bell, and wear the
garland for religion; for he outdid, he went beyond all other sectarians
in his day. He was strictest, he was the most zealous; therefore Christ,
in his making of this parable, waived all other sects then in being, and
pitched upon the Pharisee as the man most meet, by whose rejection he
might shew forth and demonstrate the riches of his mercy in its extension
to sinners: “Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a
Pharisee:” such a brave man as you have heard.
2. The Publican also went up thither to pray. The Publican, I told you
before, was an officer: an officer that served the Romans and himself
too; for the Romans at that time were possessors of the land of Jewry
(the lot of Israel’s inheritance), and the emperor Tiberius Cæsar placed
over that land four governors, to wit, Pilate, Herod, Philip, and
Lysanias; all these were Gentiles, heathens, infidels; and the publicans
were a sort of inferior men, to whom was let out to farm, and so men that
were employed by these to gather up the taxes and customs that the
heathens had laid upon the Jews to be paid to the emperor; Luke ii. 1;
iii. 1, 2, 12, 13.
But they were a generation of men that were very injurious in the
execution of their office. They would exact and demand more than was due
of the people; yea, and if their demands were denied, they would falsely
accuse those that so denied them to the governor, and by false accusation
obtain the money of the people, and so wickedly enrich themselves, Luke
iii. 13, 14; xix. 2, 8. This was therefore grievous to the Jews, who
always counted themselves a free people, and could never abide to be in
bondage to any. And this was something of the reason, that they were so
generally by all the Jews counted so vile and base, and reckoned among
the worst of men, even as our informers and bum-bailiffs are with us at
this day.
But that which heightened the spirit of the people against them, and that
made them so odious and filthy in their eyes, was for that (at least so I
think) these publicans were not, as the other officers, aliens, heathens,
and Gentiles, but men of their own nation, Jews, and so the brethren of
those that they so abused. Had they been Gentiles, it had not been
wondered at.
The Publican then was a Jew, a kind of a renegade 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. 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 poll, to rob, and impoverish his brethren.
But for proof that the Publican was a Jew.
1. Publicans are, even then, when compared with, yet distinguished from,
the heathen; “Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican,” Matt.
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 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 manifested 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 afterwards 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 (Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. l6); yet when this Matthew
comes to speak of himself, he calls himself Matthew the publican (Matth.
x. 3); for I count this the self-same Matthew that Mark and Luke make
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.
(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 (Matt. 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 saith,
Christ found him when he called him, as he 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;” Mark ii. 14; Luke 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
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;” Matt. 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 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,” Luke xix. 2. This man, Christ saith, was a son of Abraham, that
is, as other Jews were; for he spake 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 had respect
to the Jewish law of restoring four-fold; Exod. xxii. 1; 2 Sam. xii. 6.
It is further manifest that he was a Jew, because Christ puts him among
the lost; to wit, among the lost sheep of the house of Israel, ver. 10;
and Matt. 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 heathenish, 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 practice, 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 all the publicans
and sinners for to hear him, and the Pharisees and Scribes murmured,
saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”
But by what answer doth Christ repel their objections? Why, he saith,
“What man of you 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
poor publican? plenty of whom, while he preached this sermon, 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? Ezek. xxxiv. 11. So then, who could be the lost sheep of the
house of Israel, but such as were 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 by their brethren; and (as I have
also hinted before) it is no marvel that they were; for a treacherous
brother is worse than an open enemy, Psalm lv. 12, 13; for, if to be
debauched in an open and common transgression is odious, how odious is it
for a brother to be so; for a brother in nature and religion to be so. I
say again, all this they did, as both John insinuates, and Zaccheus
confesses.
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. It is 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,
shewed 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 good 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 reputed 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
met 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.
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 to 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.
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.
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.
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 (Gen. xlviii.), to the
amazement and wonderment even of the best of men.
“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.”
In these words many things are worth the noting. As,
_First_, The Pharisee’s definition of righteousness; the which standeth
in two things: 1. In negatives; 2. In positives.
1. 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.”
2. 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 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,” “Flee youthful
lusts,” “Flee from idolatry;” and, “Little children keep yourselves from
idols;” 1 Cor. vi. 18; x. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 22; 1 John 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 great executor of justice in his place, be
exact in his buying, selling, keeping his promise 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 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.
2. 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, nor adulterer,
&c., this will not make 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 man. When therefore he had said, “But thou, O
man of God, flee these things” (sin and wickedness), he adds, “and follow
after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness,” &c.; 1
Tim. 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 righteousness can neither
stand in negative nor positive holiness, as severed one from another.
That man then, and that man only, is, as to actions, a righteous man,
that hath left off to do evil, and hath learned to do well, Isa. i. 16,
17; that hath cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armour of
light. “Flee youthful lusts (said Paul), but follow righteousness,
faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure
heart;” 2 Tim. 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 this 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; ii.
3. As it is said of Zacharias and Elisabeth his wife, “They were both
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless;” Luke i. 5, 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 ceremonial than moral.
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,
(1.) What though he was no extortioner, he might yet be a covetous man;
Luke xvi. 14.
(2.) What though, as to dealing, he was not unjust to others, yet he
wanted honesty to do justice to his own soul; Luke 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 (Matt. v. 28), of which the Pharisee did not take cognizance.
(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 boast, was deficient in his righteousness, though he would fain have
shrouded it under the right definition thereof.
(5.) Nor doth his positive holiness help him at all, forasmuch as it is
grounded mostly, if not altogether, in ceremonial holiness: nay, I will
recollect myself, it was grounded partly in ceremonial and partly in
superstitious holiness, if there be such a thing as superstitious
holiness in the world; this paying of tithes was ceremonial, such as came
in 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 worshipper of him; for this is contained in the first table
(Exod. xx.), and is so in sum expounded by the Lord Christ himself (Mark
xii. 30). He should also, in the next place, have proved himself truly
kind, compassionate, liberal, and full of love and charity to his
neighbour; for that is the sum of the second table, as our Lord doth
expound it, saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;” Mark 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 prayers: I am righteous, because I have
not hurt my neighbour, and because I have acted in 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 command is
to require them to do.
The second part of his positive holiness was superstitious; for God had
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, 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 righteousness, was positive superstition, and abuse of God’s
law, and a gratification of thy own erroneous conscience. Hitherto,
therefore, thou art defective in thy so seemingly brave and glorious
righteousness.
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
neither all their ministers, Bibles, and 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.
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: “God, I thank
thee,” said he, “that I am not as other men are.” He seemed to be at
this time in more than an ordinary frame, while now he stood in the
presence of the divine Majesty: for a prayer made up of praise, is a
prayer made up of the highest order, and 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 be performed in great hypocrisy; although I think,
that to perform prayer in hypocrisy, is one of the most daring sins that
are committed by the sons of men. For by prayer, above all duties, is
our most direct and immediate personal approach into the presence of God;
as there is an uttering of things before him, especially a giving to him
of thanks for things received, or a begging that such and such things
might be bestowed upon me. But now, to do these things in hypocrisy (and
it is easy to do them so, when we go up into the temple to pray), must
needs be intolerable wickedness, and it argueth infinite patience in God,
that he should let such as do so arise alive from their knees, or that he
should suffer them to go away from the place where they stand, without
some token or mark of his wrath upon them.
I also observe, that this _extempore_ prayer of the Pharisee was
performed by himself, or in the strength of his own natural parts; for so
the text implieth. “The Pharisee,” saith the text, “stood and prayed
thus with himself,” or “by himself,” and may signify, either that he
spoke softly, or that he made this prayer by reason of his natural parts.
“I will pray with the Spirit,” said Paul; 1 Cor. xiv. 15. “The Pharisee
prayed with himself,” said Christ. It is at this day wonderfully common
for men to pray _extempore_ also; to pray by a book, by a premeditated
set form, is now out of fashion. He is counted nobody now, that cannot
at any time, at a minute’s warning, make a prayer of half an hour long.
I am not against _extempore_ prayer, for I believe it to be the best kind
of praying; but yet I am jealous, that there are a great many such
prayers made, especially in pulpits and public meetings, without the
breathing of the Holy Ghost in them; for if a Pharisee of old could do
so, why not a Pharisee do the same now? Wit and reason, and notion, are
not screwed up to a very great height; nor do men want words, or fancies,
or pride, to make them do this thing. Great is the formality of religion
this day, and little the power thereof. Now, where there is a great
form, and little power (and such there was among the Jews, in the time of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), there men are most strangely under
the temptation to be hypocrites; for nothing doth so properly and
directly oppose hypocrisy, as the power and glory of the things we
profess. And so, on the contrary, nothing is a greater temptation to
hypocrisy, than a form of knowledge of things without the savour thereof.
Nor can much of the power and savour of the things of the gospel be seen
at this day upon professors (I speak not now of all), if their notions
and conversations be compared together. How proud, how covetous, how
like the world in garb and guise, in words and actions, are most of the
great professors of this our day! But when they come to divine worship,
especially to pray, by their words and carriage there, one would almost
judge them to be angels in heaven. But such things must be done in
hypocrisy, as also the Pharisee’s was.
“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself.”
And in that it is said he prayed with himself, it may signify, that he
went in his prayer no further than his sense and reason, feeling and
carnal apprehensions went. True Christian prayer ofttimes leaves sense
and reason, feeling and carnal apprehensions, behind it; and it goeth
forth with faith, hope, and desires to know what at present we are
ignorant of, and that unto which our sense, feeling, reason, &c., are
strangers. The apostle indeed doth say, “I will pray with the
understanding;” 1 Cor. xiv. 15; but then it must be taken for an
understanding spiritually enlightened. I say, it must be so understood,
because the natural understanding, as such, receiveth not the things of
God, therefore cannot pray for them; for they to such are foolish things;
1 Cor. ii. 14.
Now, a spiritually enlightened understanding may be officious in prayer
these ways—
1. As it has received conviction of the truth of the being of the Spirit
of God; for to receive conviction of the truth and being of such things,
comes from the Spirit of God, not from the law, sense, or reason; 1 Cor.
ii. 10–12. Now the understanding having, by the Holy Ghost, received
conviction of the truth of things, draweth out the heart to cry in prayer
to God for them. Therefore he saith, he would pray with the
understanding.
2. The spiritually enlightened understanding hath also received, by the
Holy Ghost, conviction of the excellency and glory of the things that are
of the Spirit of God, and so inflameth the heart with more fervent
desires in this duty of prayer; for there is a supernatural excellency in
the things that are of the Spirit: “For if the ministration of death (to
which the Pharisee adhered), written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the
face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be
done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather
glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more
doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory: for even that
which was made glorious hath no glory in this respect, by reason of the
glory that excelleth;” 2 Cor. iii. 7–10. And the Spirit of God sheweth,
at least, some things of that excellent glory of them to the
understanding that it enlighteneth; Eph. i. 17–19.
3. The spiritually enlightened understanding hath also thereby received
knowledge, that these excellent supernatural things of the Spirit are
given by covenant in Christ to those that love God, and are beloved of
him. “Now we have received,” says Paul, “not the spirit of the world
(that the Pharisee had), but the Spirit which is of God, that we make
know the things that are freely given to us of God;” 1 Cor. ii. 12. And
this knowledge, that the things of the Spirit of God are freely given to
us of God, puts yet a greater edge, more vigour, and yet further
confidence, into the heart to ask for what is mine by gift, by a free
gift of God in his Son. But all these things the poor Pharisee was an
utter stranger to; he knew not the Spirit, nor the things of the Spirit,
and therefore must neglect faith, judgment, and the love of God, Matt.
xxiii. 23; Luke xi. 42, and follow himself only, as to his sense,
feeling, reason, and carnal imagination in prayer.
He stood and prayed thus “with himself.” He prayed thus, talking to
himself; for so also it may (I think) be understood. It is said of the
unjust judge, “he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard
man,” &c., Luke xviii. 4; that is, he said it to himself. So the
Pharisee is said to pray with himself: God and the Pharisee were not
together, there was only the Pharisee and himself. Paul knew not what to
pray for without the Holy Ghost joined himself with him, and helping him
with groans unutterable; but the Pharisee had no need of that; it was
enough that he and himself were together at this work; for he thought
without doubting that he and himself together could do. How many times
have I heard ancient men, and ancient women at it with themselves, when
all alone in some private room, or in some solitary path; and in their
chat they have been sometimes reasoning, sometimes chiding, sometimes
pleading, sometimes praying, and sometimes singing; but yet all has been
done by themselves when all alone; but yet so done, as one that has not
seen them must needs have concluded that they were talking, singing, and
praying with company, when all that they had said, they did it with
themselves, and had neither auditor nor regarder.
So the Pharisee was at it with himself; he and himself performed, at this
time, the duty of prayer. Now I observe, that usually when men do speak
to or with themselves, they greatly strive to please themselves:
therefore it is said, there is a man “that flattereth himself in his own
eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful;” Psalm xxxvi. 2. He
flattereth himself in his own way, according as his sense and carnal
reason dictate to him; and he might do it as well in prayer as in any
other way. Some men will so hear sermons and apply them that they may
please themselves; and some men will pray, but will refuse such words and
thoughts in prayer as will not please themselves.
O how many men speak all that they speak in prayer, rather to themselves,
or to their auditory, than to God that dwelleth in heaven. And this I
take to be the manner, I mean something of the manner, of the Pharisee’s
praying. Indeed, he made mention of God, as also others do; but he
prayed with himself to himself, in his own spirit, and to his own
pleasing, as the matter of his prayer doth manifest. For was it not
pleasant to this hypocrite, think you, to speak thus well of himself at
this time? Doubtless it was. Also children and fools are of the same
temper with hypocrites, as to this: they also love, without ground, as
the Pharisee, to flatter themselves in their own eyes; “But not he that
commendeth himself is approved.”
“God, I thank thee, I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this Publican,” &c.
Thus he begins his prayer; and it is, as was hinted before, a prayer of
the highest strain. For to make a prayer all of thanksgiving, and to
urge in that prayer the cause of that thanksgiving, is the highest manner
of praying, and seems to be done in the strongest faith, &c., in the
greatest sense of things. And such was the Pharisee’s prayer, only he
wanted substantial ground for his thanksgiving; to wit, he wanted proof
of that he said, He was not as other men were, except he had meant, he
did not, that he was even of the worst sort of men: For even the best of
men by nature, and the worst, are all alike. “What, then, are we better
than they? (saith Paul), No, in nowise;” Rom. iii. 9. So then he failed
in the ground of his thankfulness, and therefore his thankfulness was
grounded on untruth, and so became feigned and self-flattering, and could
not be acceptable with the God of heaven.
Besides, in this high prayer of the Pharisee, he fathered that upon God
which he could by no means own; to wit, that he being so good as he
thought himself to be, was through distinguishing love and favour of
God—“God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are.” I thank thee,
that thou hast made me better than others; I thank thee that my condition
is so good, and that I am so far advanced above my neighbour.
There are several things flow from this prayer of the Pharisee that are
worth our observation: as—
1. That the Pharisees and hypocrites do not love to count themselves
sinners, when they stand before God.