the impression? 'These utterances are not of a demonised' - and, then, it came back to

them: 'Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?'

And so, once again, the Light of His Words and His Person fell upon His Works, and, as

ever, revealed their character, and made them clear.

Note. - It seems right here, in a kind of 'Postscript-Note,' to call attention to what could

not have been inserted in the text without breaking up its unity, and yet seems too

important to be relegated to an ordinary foot-note. In Yoma 66 b , lines 18 to 24 from top,

we have a series of questions addressed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, designed - as

it seems to me - to test his views about Jesus and his relation to the new doctrine.

Rabbi Eliezer, one of the greatest Rabbis, was the brother-i n-law of Gamaliel II., the son

of that Gamaliel at whose feet Paul sat. He may, therefore, have been acquainted with

the Apostle. And we have indubitable evidence that he had intercourse with Jewish

Christians, and took pleasure in their teaching; and, further, that he was accused of

favouring Christianity. Under these circumstances, the series of covered, enigmatic

questions, reported as addressed to him, gains a new interest. I can only repeat, that I

regard them as referring to the Person and the Words of Christ. One of these questions

is to this effect: 'Is it [right, proper, duty] for the Shepherd to save a lamb from the lion?'

To this the Rabbi gives (as always in this series of questions) an evasive answer, as

follows: 'You have only asked me about the lamb.' On this the following question is next

put, I presume by way of forcing an express reply: 'Is it [right, proper, duty] to save the

Shepherd from the lion?' and to this the Rabbi once more evasively replies: 'You have

only asked me about the Shepherd.' Thus, a s the words of Christ to which covert

reference is made have only meaning when the two ideas of the Sheep and the

Shepherd are combined, the Rabbi, by dividing them, cleverly evaded giving an answer

to his questioners. But these inferences come to us, all of deepest importance: 1. I

regard the questions above quoted as containing a distinct reference to the words of

Christ in St. John x. 11. Indeed, the whole string of questions, of which the above form

part, refers to Christ and His Words. 2. It casts a peculiar light, not only upon the

personal history of this great Rabbi, the brother-in-law of the Patriarch Gamaliel II., but a

side-light also, on the history of Nicodemus. Of course, such evasive answers are

utterly unworthy of a disciple of Christ, and quite incompatible with the boldness of

confession which must characterise them. But the question arises - now often seriously

discussed by Jewish writers: how far many Rabbis and laymen may have gone in their

belief of Christ, and yet - at least in too many instances - fallen short of discipleship;

and, lastly, as to the relation between the early Church and the Jews, on which not a

few things of deep interest have to be said, though it may not be on the present

occasion. 3. Critically also, the quotation is of the deepest importance. For, does it not

furnish a reference - and that on the lips of Jews - to the Fourth Gospel, and that from

the close of the first century? There is here something which the opponents of its

genuineness and authenticity will have to meet and answer.

Another series of similar allegorical questions in connection with R. Joshua b.

Chananyah is recorded in Bekhor. 8 a and b , but answered by the Rabbi in an anti-