Works of John Bunyan — Complete

by John Bunyan

The PUBLICAN also went up thither to pray. The Publican, I told you before, was an officer. An officer that served the Romans and themselves too; for the Romans at that time were possessors of the land of Jewry, the lot of Israel's inheritance, and the Emperor Tiberius Caesar placed over that land four governors, to wit, Pilate, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luke 3:1); 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 2:1, 3:12,13)

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 3:13, 19:2,8) 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 to be wondered at; that they abused, accused and by false accusations peeled and wasted the people; for that cannot but be expected at the hands of aliens and strangers.

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. 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.4 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,5 to rob and impoverish his brethren.

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 (Matt 18), 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 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 3:18, Luke 6:15) Yet when this Matthew comes to speak of himself, he calls himself Matthew the Publican (Matt 10:3), 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 apostasy, 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 10:3), 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 2:14, Luke 5:27)

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. (Matt 10:4)