01.15. Chapter 4. The Lowest Seats at Feasts, and the Pharisee and the Publican

Chapter 4.
The Lowest Seats at Feasts, and the Pharisee and the Publican Or, The Kingdom of God for the Humble. At a Sabbath-day feast in the house of an influential and wealthy Pharisee, Jesus spake the following parable to His fellow-guests, when He marked how they chose out the chief places: When thou art bidden of any one to a wedding, sit not down in the chief seat, lest a more honoured one than thou be bidden of him; and he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give place to this one; and then shalt thou begin with shame to take the last seat. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the last place, that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, come up hither:[1] then shalt thou have glory before all thy fellow-guests. For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.—Luk 14:7-11.

[1] προςανάβηθι; the προς implying approach towards the host at the head of the table. So Field, criticising the A. V. and R. V. "No account," he says, "is taken of the πρὸς. It must have one of two values, either of addition,—ascende adhuc superius,—or motion towards—ascende huc superius. The latter seems to be the case here. The host comes into the room, takes his place at the head of the table, and calls to the guest whom he intends to honour, Friend, come up higher. This view is remarkably confirmed by Pro 25:7, which our Lord had in view."—’Otium Norv.’ This parable has not, any more than those considered in our last chapter, the honour of being included among the parables of our Lord in many of the books belonging to the literature of our subject. This may be due to the fact that it offers few topics for remark, and that the one lesson which it teaches, the moral enunciated in the closing verse, is more impressively enforced in the more important parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. It deserves however at least a passing notice, if it were only to give occasion for pointing out the prominent place which the great truth that the kingdom of God is for the humble, occupied in the thoughts of Jesus, as evinced by the fact of His uttering two parables to enforce it We have discovered it to be His way to multiply parables to inculcate truths either ill understood, or of cardinal importance. We have two parables setting forth the kingdom of God as the summum bonum, two to teach the value of perseverance in prayer, three to declare the joy of men in finding things lost, three to vindicate the joy of those who have believed in God’s grace. In like manner we have two parables to teach that he who humbleth himself shall be exalted, and he who exalteth himself shall be abased; whence we may confidently infer that, in the view of Christ, this is one of the great laws of the kingdom of God. On the surface this portion of our Lord’s table-talk at the Sabbath feast wears the aspect of a moral advice, rather than of a parable. But it does not require lengthened consideration to be satisfied that Jesus is not here performing the part of a mere censor of manners, but is following His true vocation as the Teacher of the Doctrine of the Kingdom. Through the medium of a counsel of prudence relating to ordinary social life He communicates a lesson of true wisdom concerning the higher sphere of religion. The Evangelist perceived this, therefore he called this piece of advice a parable; most legitimately, inasmuch as a parable has for its aim to show by an example of human action in natural life, how men should act in the sphere of spiritual life. There is indeed a manifest difference between this parable and all others hitherto considered, viz. that it tells us not how men do act in the natural sphere, but how according to the dictates of prudence they should act. The guests whom Jesus saw before Him, and whose conduct called forth the parable, had been acting in a different way, not prudently sitting down in a humble place in the hope that their host would invite them to a place of greater distinction, but proudly appropriating to themselves the places which they thought due to their social importance. The morality of the advice given to them was not high, for it simply showed them a slyer way of gratifying ambition; but low as was its moral tone, the line of action apparently recommended was too high pitched for most of those present The prudence prescribed, though worldly in its spirit, was too like genuine wisdom to be generally practised. The truth seems to be that Christ had no serious intention to give a lesson in social deportment, and that the parabolic element in His words is confined to this, that instruction valid only for the religious sphere is couched in terms which seem to imply a reference to ordinary social life. At the table of this chief man among the Pharisees He has an excellent opportunity of witnessing the spirit of Pharisaism in full bloom; and as He notes its characteristic vanity and pride exhibiting themselves in a struggle for the chief rooms at the feast, He thinks how different the order of things here from that which obtains in the kingdom of God! Here pride grasps at distinction and gets its reward, there pride is abased and the humble are exalted. He puts His reflections in the form of a counsel how to behave at feasts, not that He, expects any one present to act on the advice, or to regard it otherwise than as the whimsical utterance of an eccentric person, to be received with a smile. He knows that no proud man can ever believe that humility is the way to exaltation, and therefore that no proud man ever will take that way. He knows also that humility does not gain honour among the worldly-minded, that on the contrary the world generally takes men at their own estimate, and gives to ambition the first place, and to modesty the last. He understands, consequently, that to attempt to change the customs of society by moral advice were to waste words and to lower Himself. What He really does is to remind His fellow-guests that there is a society in which humility is held in honour and pride gets a downsetting. That He is thinking of this sacred society is apparent from His manner of expressing Himself. The case supposed is that of an invitation to a wedding.[1] Why a wedding, instead of an ordinary feast? Because He has in mind that kingdom of heaven which He more than once expressly represented by the emblem of a marriage-feast,[2] and which He thought of under that figure when He spake of His disciples as the children of the bride-chamber. Then the word "glory" (δόξα) in the closing sentence of the parable is very suggestive: "Thou shalt have glory before all thy fellow-guests." Would Jesus use such a term in reference to the little triumph of a guest at a common feast over his fellow-guests, in being promoted to a place of distinction? The expression, it has been well remarked, would be puerile, if it did not open up a glimpse of a heavenly reality.[3] [1] είς γάμους. D. has γάμον.

[2] Mat 22:1; Mat 25:1.

[3] Godet. The Pharisee and the Publican The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican shows us the same spirit which at the Sabbath-day feast eagerly sought the first places, at work in the sphere of religion: the Pharisee confidently taking for himself the first place among the ranks of the righteous and the devout. On this account this history cannot strictly be considered a parable, for in it is no comparison between action in the natural sphere and action in the higher spiritual sphere; but rather an illustrative example of a certain kind of action in the latter sphere, with a declaration of the Divine judgment thereon. Nevertheless the Evangelist calls it a parable, and expositors with one consent have agreed to regard it as such. To certain men who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and were in the habit of despising others, Jesus spake "this parable:"

Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a publican. The Pharisee, having taken up his position,[1] prayed within himself thus: God, I thank Thee, that I am not as the rest of men,[2] extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican, I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I acquired.[3] But the publican, standing[4] afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes unto heaven, but kept smiting his breast, saying: God, be merciful to me the sinner.[5] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other;[6] for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.—Luk 18:9-14.

[1] σταθεὶς. The word implies confidence. Bengel: fidenter, loco solito. Reciprocum plus notat quam ίστὼς neutrum (Luk 9:13). Similarly Unger: σταθεὶς, elatus.

[2] οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, all but himself and his class.

[3] κτῶμαι, not κέκτημαι, which it would require to be in order to bear the rendering in A. V.

[4] έστως, vide note 2: the publican stood in a timid attitude, as it apologizing for his existence.

[5] τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, not the only sinner, but the man who is known by his sin, the notorious sinner.

[6] The reading here is very uncertain. T. R. has ἢ ἐκεἴνος. The most probable reading is that of ℵ, B, L. παρ᾿ ἐκεῖνον. Another reading adopted by Tischendorf is ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, which seems to be a combination of the other two, γαρ being a mistake for παρ. The sense in any case is clear.

It is idle to ask when or to whom this parable was spoken. The Evangelist states that it was spoken to or about certain persons who trusted in themselves that they were righteous. It is evident that it might have been represented with equal propriety as spoken to or about men of an opposite spirit, such, viz., as were ready to acknowledge their shortcomings. The really important thing to note is that this is a parable which sets forth one of the great laws of the kingdom of God, viewed as a kingdom of Grace, that enunciated in the closing verse: "Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." It was doubtless the perception of this fact which led Luke to gather up the precious fragment and preserve it in his basket. Luke was the Evangelist, as Paul was the Apostle, of the Gentiles, and in collecting materials for the composition of his Gospel he was ever on the outlook for such incidents in the ministry of Christ as tended to show that the Gospel was designed for the whole world, and that it was fit to be a Gospel for the world. A salvation to be preached to the human race, a salvation by grace, and therefore available for Gentiles on the same terms as for Jews, these were the fundamental articles in Luke’s as in Paul’s creed; and in writing the life of our Lord he was ever intent on showing that these doctrines had a root in His teaching. This parable he rightly considered fitted to serve that purpose. The poor publican, though a Jew, was in Pharisaic esteem as an heathen man; and in representing a penitent publican as an object of Divine favour, Jesus in effect and in principle proclaimed the truth: "There is hope in God even for Gentiles, for all, who are objects of contempt, as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, to the proud self-righteous Jew." Then in declaring that the penitent publican was justified rather than the Pharisee who had no sins to confess, Jesus in effect proclaimed that other grand truth, that men are saved not by works of righteousness which they have done, but by God’s mercy. Christ’s reflection on the two men is equivalent in drift to Paul’s doctrine of justification by grace through faith. It is not so clear and explicit an announcement of that doctrine as we find in the Pauline Epistles; but it tends that way, it looks in the direction of Paul’s doctrine, it is Paul’s doctrine in germ, and hence the interest it awakened in the mind of Luke, who was a thorough believer in the Pauline programme: salvation by grace, therefore salvation for all on equal terms, there being no difference between Jew and Gentile, for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

We shall best study this parable by making our starting-point the judgment of Jesus on the two men whose characters are so graphically depicted in it, and considering in order these points: First, the import of the judgment; Second, its grounds; Third, its uses.

I. It is declared that the publican went down to his house justified rather than the Pharisee. In endeavouring to ascertain the import of this declaration we must assume that it is not intended to call in question the statements of fact made by the two parties. Neither is supposed to have borne false witness for or against himself, whether in ignorance or with intent to deceive. Even the self-laudatory statements of the Pharisee are allowed to pass unquestioned. It is not said, insinuated, or tacitly implied that he gives himself credit for actions which he has not performed, or for virtues which he does not possess. It is conceded that he is not an extortioner, or an unjust man, or an impure man, and that he fasts twice a week, and gives tithes of all he acquires, so adding works of supererogation to his virtue, doing more than the statute required.[1] What is blamed is not his statement of facts, but the spirit in which he makes that statement, the spirit of self-complacency. There is the less reason to doubt this that the Pharisee is not represented as uttering his prayer aloud. He took up his posture and prayed thus with himself. Some indeed would connect the words differently, so as to make the sentence run—he stood by himself and prayed thus, the isolated position being supposed to be the point our Lord wished to emphasise as a mark of pride. There seem to be no good grounds, however, for departing from the arrangement as it stands in our English version, which is approved by the great majority of interpreters. But if πρὸς ἑαυτὸν is to be taken with προσηύχετο, the fact implied is that the Pharisee’s prayer was mental not audible. He prayed "within himself," even as "there were some that had indignation within themselves" at the waste of precious ointment by Mary of Bethany.[2] It has been asked what was there characteristic of a Pharisee in praying mentally?[3] But this trait is added not to distinguish the Pharisee from others, but to keep the account given of his prayer within the limits of verisimilitude. Even a Pharisee would hardly dare to utter such a prayer in the hearing of his fellow-men, speaking as if he were the only good man, and all the rest of the world given up to iniquity. Had his prayer been meant for the public ear there would probably have been in it less depreciation of others and also less praise of himself. But just on that account there would likewise have been less sincerity, less fidelity to the actual thoughts and feelings of the man. However the Pharisee might pray in public, the prayer put into his mouth shows us how he prayed in his heart. And just because it is a heart prayer it is a true prayer reflecting his real belief.[4] He thinks as badly of the world as he is represented; he thinks as well of himself, and he does so on the ground of the virtues and pious practices for which he gives himself credit, with perfect fidelity to fact It is his self-complacency alone, therefore, not its fact-basis, which is liable to question.

[1] The Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. The law prescribed only one regular fast, that on the great day of atonement. The law as to tithes prescribed that a tenth part of the produce of the fields and of the herds should be devoted to the Levites (Lev 27:30-32; Num 18:21; Num 18:24). The Pharisee pays tithes of all he acquires, from whatever source.

[2] Mark 14:4. ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς

[3] Goebel raises this objection to the view we advocate as to the connection.

[4] So Godet. The Pharisee, he remarks, prayed "très sincèrement (car la prière était faite intérieurement)." The publican’s account of himself is also assumed to be correct In declaring that this man went down to his house justified, our Lord does not mean to say: This publican was mistaken in imagining himself to be so great a sinner—standing in a timid, abject attitude, as if apologising for his existence—calling himself the sinner, as if sin were the one thing by which he was known, beating on his breast, and, under an overwhelming sense of guilt, not daring to lift up his eyes to heaven. It is taken for granted that the publican’s confession is true, and that his whole demeanour is but an appropriate expression of contrition. He is a sinner as he says in words, a great sinner as he declares by significant gesture. The validity of the judgment pronounced concerning him, does not at all rest on the comparative smallness of his guilt. Suppose the penitent had said more against himself sincerely (sincerely, observe, for he might have said more, and in stronger terms, and meant less), the verdict had not been different. Suppose he had said: "I am what that holy man yonder thinks he is not, an extortioner, unjust, an adulterer. He points at me, to make a long story short. He has good right. I am an epitome of all the sins": still the judgment of Jesus had been the same.

These things being so, it is clear how the judgment must be understood. It means, not the publican is a just man, and the Pharisee an unjust, but the publican is nearer the approval of God than the other who approves himself. The approval or good will of God is what both are seeking. Both address God. The one says, "God, I thank Thee;" the other, "God, be gracious to me." The one expects God to endorse the good opinion he entertains of himself; the other begs God to be merciful to him notwithstanding his sin. And what our Lord means to affirm is, that the publican came nearer the common end than the Pharisee did; that God regarded the self-blaming sinner with more favour than the self-praising saint; that the two men in a manner changed places, the self-styled just man being in God’s sight as an unrighteous man, and the self-styled sinner being in God’s sight as a righteous man. In short the term "justified" (δεδικαιωμένος) is used in a sense kindred to the Pauline, and the comparison between the two dramatis personæ has reference not to character, but to the relation to God in which they respectively stand.[1]

[1] Some commentators, whose minds are dominated by the theological interest, say there is no comparison, because there are no degrees in justification. This is too rigid. To the same bias is due the attempt of Trench and others to find in the publican’s ἱλάσθητί μοι a reference to a propitiatory atonement. This is to overlay nature by dogmatic theology. Goebel, recognising a comparison in the expression παρ᾿ ἐκεῖνον, thinks that the δεδικαιωμένος points back to δίκαιοι, Luk 18:9, and that the idea is, the publican got a better righteousness than the Pharisee’s.

We must add another observation by way of determining the import of the judgment. It does not mean that the publican went down to his house thinking that God regarded him with more favour than the Pharisee. Our Lord’s purpose is to point out what God did indeed think of the two men, not what they thought He thought of them. Stier affirms that our Lord meant His declaration to refer to the consciousness of the two parties, in which the one was sensible of his justification, the other not.[1] This is an utterly groundless assertion, and in its practical tendency most mischievous, as fitted to rob the parable of its great use as a source of comfort to contrite souls. It is moreover a very improbable assertion. It is by no means likely that the publican felt surer of God’s favour than the Pharisee did. The Pharisee, it may be shrewdly suspected, went down to his house quite confident that God was as well pleased with him as he was with himself. And it may be feared the publican went down to his house still in an anxious apprehensive frame of mind, thinking it hardly possible God could have mercy on such a wretch; walking homeward with slow and melancholy step, and eyes cast down to the ground. Strange state of mind, it may be thought, for a justified man! But we must remember that God’s thoughts of us do not take their complexion from our opinion of them; that they may be very gracious towards us, when we are unable to believe it, and that salvation does not depend on our changing moods, any more than the existence of the sun depends on the presence or absence of clouds. We will return to this point Meantime let us consider—

[1] ’Reden Jesu.’ Similarly Trench affirms that the publican was not merely justified in the secret counsels of God, but had a sweet sense of forgiveness, &c., &c All which is pure assumption.

2. The grounds of the judgment. Only one reason 19 expressly referred to by Christ, but there is another reason implied to which it may be well to advert. It is this: The publican’s self-dissatisfaction had more truth or religious sincerity in it than the Pharisee’s self-complacency, and God, as the Psalmist tells us, desires and is pleased with truth in the inward parts.[1] In making this statement we do not, any more than our Lord, mean to call in question the correctness of the description which the Pharisee gives of his own moral and religious character. We assume that all the statements he makes, viewed as matters of fact, are true. But it does not follow from this that he had any just reason for self-complacency. For to be pleased with oneself goes a great deal further than to make some particular statements of a satisfactory nature about one’s conduct. It implies a comprehensive judgment concerning one’s whole spiritual condition to the effect that it is as it ought to be. Now, so far is this from being necessarily involved in an enumeration of some favourable particulars concerning myself that such an enumeration may be but the preface or prelude to a heavy charge which I mean to bring against myself, to a long catalogue of confessions which I feel constrained to make. This worshipper, e.g., might have said all he did say concerning himself, and yet have made as many confessions as would have put all self-complacent thoughts out of his mind. Every act of thanksgiving might have been followed by an act of confession, as thus: I thank Thee I have been preserved from extortion, but I confess I have coveted ofttimes what I have not laid hands on. I thank Thee I have not been an unjust man, but I acknowledge that I am far from being a generous man. I thank Thee I am not an adulterer, but I confess that my heart has harboured many wicked thoughts. I thank Thee that my lot, my opportunities, and my. habits differ widely from those of the class to which this man my fellow-worshipper, who beats his breast, belongs; but I do not flatter myself that had I been in his circumstances I should have been better than he, and I deplore that I and the class of which I am a member feel so little compassion towards these much-tempted men, that we content ourselves with simply abhorring them and holding aloof from their society. I thank Thee that it is in my heart to attend punctually to my religious duties, but I acknowledge that my zeal and my liberality come immeasurably short of what is due to Thee, and contrast but poorly with those of him who centuries ago offered up this prayer and thanksgiving in this holy city: "Now therefore, our God, we thank Thee and praise Thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given Thee. O Lord our God, all this store that we have prepared to build Thee an house for Thine holy name cometh of Thine hand, and is all Thine own."[2] What are my poor tithes to the liberality of King David, or what my religious devotion compared to his whose whole heart was set upon building a temple for Jehovah such as that within whose sacred precincts I now stand?

[1] Psa 51:6.

[2] 1Ch 29:13-14; 1Ch 29:16. The self-complacent Pharisee made no such confessions, was utterly unconscious that he had any such confessions to make, and hence we may with certainty infer that if not a conscious hypocrite, he was at least an unconscious one, a self-deceived man, utterly devoid of the soul of true goodness. For all the truly good are conscious that they have confessions to make which exclude all boasting. While not indulging in indiscriminate self-condemnation, and distinguishing between occasions for thankfulness and occasions for self-humiliation, they are ever more sensible of their shortcomings than of their good performances. And speaking generally, it may be said that a man confessing sin, is nearer to true goodness than a man boasting of his goodness. Confession of sin is the homage of an awakened conscience to the moral law; boasting of goodness is the lying vanity of a foolish self-deceived heart. He who does nothing but confess, may or may not have some good qualities which he might have specified had he been in the humour; but even at the worst, supposing previous character to have been utterly bad, he who with his whole heart says, "I am a sinner," hath more of God’s spirit in him, than he who makes no confession at all, and does nothing but boast.

It is characteristic of this self-complacent Pharisee, and another index of the want of truth in the deeper sense, that while apparently unconscious of any sins of his own, he is very much alive to the sins of others. With a coarse sweeping indiscriminateness he pronounces all men but himself and his class guilty, and of the grossest sins. He makes himself very good, by the cheap method of making all others very bad. It is easy to be a saint by comparison, when all the world consists of extortioners, knaves, and adulterers. But what truth or delicacy of conscience can there be in one who can adopt the method of an unbridled censoriousness for advancing his own reputation?[1] It is sad to reflect that at this point in the parable the speaker can be charged with no exaggeration, but has faithfully described a feature of the Pharisaic spirit in every age, as exhibited both in individuals and in communities. The vulgar method of self-exaltation by depreciation of others has been and is too commonly practised.

[1] Unger: De toto hominum genere quam humillime sentit (i.q. Lutherus notat) tum semet perfectum jam superbit, quod a flagitiis humillimis liberum se sentit. Hofmann thinks the οἱ λοιποὶ in Luk 18:11 does not mean all other men besides himself, but men of another disposition. Perhaps, but it does not make matters much better. What is noticeable is the absence of all indications in the Pharisee’s language of an anxiety to do justice to the characters of others.

We come now to the reason expressly stated by our Lord in support of His judgment concerning the two men. "Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." This statement is valuable as teaching that self-praise and self-condemnation produce the same effects on the Divine mind as they produce on our own minds. When a man praises himself in our hearing the act provokes in us a spirit of criticism; when, on the other hand, we hear a man condemn himself, there arises in our bosom a feeling of sympathy towards him. Just the same effects, Christ gives us to understand, do the same acts produce on the mind of God. And with His teaching all Scripture agrees. All through the Bible runs the sentiment so forcibly expressed by the Psalmist: "Though the Lord be high, yet hath He respect unto the lowly; but the proud He knoweth afar off."[1] This Bible doctrine may be said to be a part of the philosophy of justification. It does not tell us the whole truth on that subject, but it certainly gives us some insight into the Divine procedure in connection with the forgiveness of sin. It teaches us that God forgiveth sins to such as acknowledge them, and imputeth sins to such as deny them, for this among other reasons, because it gives Him pleasure to exalt those who humble themselves, and to humble those who exalt themselves. A very good reason truly, which commends itself to the common conscience, and we may say to the common sense of mankind. Let us not despise it because it is elementary, and does not belong to the more specific doctrines of Christian theology on the subject of justification. Let those who do not feel at home in these doctrines, and to whom perchance they appear not only mysterious but unreal, lay this elementary ethical truth to heart, and it will be at least one lesson learnt on a very important subject. Believe with all the heart that God forgiveth sin penitently acknowledged, because His moral nature is like our own in this, that He scorneth scorners and giveth grace to the lowly, is pleased to save the afflicted and to bring down high looks, lightly esteems those who highly esteem themselves and regards with favour those who humble themselves. It were well that men did lay these truths more to heart, and considered that he who judgeth himself shall not be judged, that he who criticises himself disarms criticism, that he who frankly says "I have sinned" shall hear no further mention of his sin. So many imagine that their interest lies in stoutly denying or extenuating sin; so few understand that policy, not to say truth, dictates rather the use of such a prayer as that of the Psalmist, "For Thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great." To deny sin, wisdom! Nay, it is utter folly. Consider what a man does who denies sin. He simply identifies himself with his sin, and compels God to treat him and it as one. He makes his innermost self responsible for his sin, binds it like a millstone round his neck to sink him down to the depths of perdition, gathers it round his person like a burning garment to consume him with the fire of damnation. But confess your sin, say it is yours, and you separate yourself from it, show that though it is yours it is not you, show that there is something in the heart of your being that abhors it: you cut the cord which suspends the millstone about your neck, and escape drowning; you tear off the burning clothes from your person and escape a horrible death by fire. It is well to have the courage to acknowledge offences. It requires an effort, but it is an effort to which humility is equal; for it has been truly said by a German writer, that the essence of Demuth, humility, is Muth,[2]

[1] Psa 138:6.

[2] Arndt, "Das Wesen der Demuth ist Muth." It is a pretty play upon words, but it is more, a great moral truth. courage. A proud man cannot dare to say, "I have sinned," but a humble man can, and his daring is his salvation.

3. The uses of the judgment. It may be remarked here in the first place, that it were not to use but to abuse the words of Christ to find in them a doctrinally complete statement on the subject of justification. We learn from the verdict pronounced on the two worshippers, that it is necessary, in order to please God, to be sincere and to be humble, but we may not hence infer that we are saved by our sincerity or by our humility. We are not saved by these virtues, any more than by boasting of our goodness, but by the free grace of God. From Luke’s introduction it might be inferred that the chief purpose for which the parable was spoken was to rebuke and subdue the spirit of self-righteousness. To do this effectively is not easy, though that is no reason why it should not be attempted. Another service, however, was probably also kept in view by the speaker, which was much more likely to be accomplished, viz. to revive the spirit of the contrite, and embolden them to hope in God’s mercy. This is a service which contrite souls greatly need to have rendered them, for they are slow to believe that they can possibly be the objects of Divine complacency. Such in all probability was the publican’s state of mind, not only before but even after he had prayed. He went down to his house justified in God’s sight, but not, we think, in his own. He had not ’found peace,’ to use a current phrase. In technical language we might speak of him as objectively, but not subjectively, justified. In plain English the fact was so, but he was not aware that the fact was so. In saying this, we do rot forget that there is an instinct, call it rather the still small voice of the Holy Spirit, which tells a penitent, "there is hope in God," "there is forgiveness with Him that He may be feared;" "wait for God, as they that wait for the dawn." But a man who beats his breast, and dares not look up, and stands afar off in an attitude which seems an apology for existence, has some difficulty in trusting this instinct. To fear and despond suits his mood rather than to hope. There are physical reasons for this, not to speak of spiritual ones. The whole behaviour of the publican speaks to a great religious crisis going on in his soul. For that beating of the breast, and that downcast eye, and that timid posture, are not a theatrical performance got up for the occasion. They bear witness to a painful, possibly a protracted, soul-struggle. But one who passes through such a crisis suffers in body as well as in mind. His nerves are sorely shaken, and in this physical condition he is apt to become a prey to fear and depression. He starts at his own shadow, dreads the postman, trembles when he opens a letter lest it should contain evil tidings, can scarce muster courage to go into a dark room, or to put out the light when he goes to bed. How hard for a man in this state to take cheerful views of his spiritual condition, to rejoice in the sunlight of Divine grace! In the expressive phrase of Bunyan, used with reference to himself when he was in a similar state, such an one is prone rather to take the shady side of the street. Is it improbable that one object Christ had in view in uttering this parable and the judgment with which it winds up, was to take such contrite and fear-stricken ones by the hand and conduct them over to the sunny side? There are some who are stupid enough to take unfavourable views of the spiritual state of such as walk in darkness and have no light, punishing them for their despondency by declaring them to be under the frown of the Almighty. But Jesus was not one who could thus break the bruised reed or quench the smoking taper. The spectacle of a publican repenting of his sin, but hardly daring to hope for pardon, would excite the deepest sympathy in His breast Far from harshly condemning him for his despairing mood, He would witness with respect the tremendous earnestness of his repentance, and with pity the acuteness of his mental sufferings, and He would seek to convince him that God’s thoughts towards him were such as His own. Think not, He would say to him, that God casts the poor, nervous, trembling, desponding penitent out of His sympathies. Nay! the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart. If they be too sad to walk in the sun, He takes the shade along with them; for He is not as the heartless men of the world, who desert a poor unfortunate in his time of need. He loves the company of the sad better than the society of the gay, and He is ever with them, though in their melancholy they know it not: with them to comfort and exalt, if not soon, then all the more effectually in the end. To suggest such thoughts, we believe, Christ spake this parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. Who can tell how many repentant ones went down to their houses cheered by the words which had fallen from the lips of the sinner’s Friend! Let us use the parable for kindred purposes still; learning from it ourselves to cherish hopeful views concerning such as are more persuaded of their own sinfulness than of Divine mercy, and doing what we can to help such to believe that verily there is forgiveness with God.