involved.26 It was, indeed, declared lawful to apply, for example, wine to the outside of

the eyelid, on the ground that this might be treated as washing; but it was sinful to apply

it to the inside of the eye. And as regards saliva, its application to the eye is expressly

forbidden, on the ground that it was evidently i ntended as a remedy.  27

There was, therefore, abundant legal ground for a criminal charge. And, although on the

Sabbath the Sanhedrin would not hold any forma l meeting, and, even had there been

such, the testimony of one man would not have sufficed, yet 'the Pharisees' set the

inquiry regularly on foot. First, as if not satisfied with the report of those who had

brought the man, they made him repeat it.28 The simplicity of the man's language left no

room for evasion or subterfuge. Rabbinism was on its great trial. The wondrous fact

could neither be denied nor explained, and the only ground for resisting the legitimate

inference as to the character of Him Who had done it, was its inconsistence with their

traditional law. The alternative was: whether their traditional law of Sabbath -observance,

or else He Who had done such miracles, was Divine? Was Christ not of God, because

He did not keep the Sabbath in their way? But, then; could an open transgressor of

God's Law do such miracles? In this dilemma they turned to the simple man before

them. 'Seeing that He opened' his eyes, what did he say of Him? what was the

impression left on his mind, who had the best opportuni ty for judging?29

There is something very peculiar, and, in one sense, most instructive, as to the general

opinion entertained even by the best-disposed, who had not yet been taught the higher

truth, i n his reply, so simple and solemn, so comprehensive in its sequences, and yet so

utterly inadequate by itself: 'He is a Prophet.' One possibility still remained. After all, the

man might not have been really blind; and they might, by cross-examining the pa rents,

elicit that about his original condition which would explain the pretended cure. But on

this most important point, the parents, with all their fear of the anger of the Pharisees,

remained unshaken. He had been born blind; but as to the manner of his cure, they

declined to offer any opinion. Thus, as so often, the machinations of the enemies of

Christ led to results the opposite of those wished for. For, the evidential value of their

attestation of their son's blindness was manifestly proportional to their fear of committing

themselves to any testimony for Christ, well knowing what it would entail.

For to persons so wretchedly poor as to allow their son to live by begging,30 the

consequence of being 'un-Synagogued,' or put outside the congregation31 - which was

to be the punishment of any who confessed Jesus as the Messiah - would have been

dreadful. Talmudic writings speak of two, or rather, we should say, of three, kinds of

'excommunication,' of which the two first were chiefly disciplinary, while t he third was

the real 'casting out,' 'un-Synagoguing,' 'cutting off from the congregation.'32 The general

designation33 for 'excommunication' was Shammatta , although, according to its literal

meaning, the term would only apply to the severest form of it.34 The first and lightest

degree was the so-called Neziphah or Neziphutha; properly, 'a rebuke,' an inveighing.