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