ease, or in some other way to manifest their displeasure and resentment. The transition from this condition to the later stage in which the people take up the cause of their god is found in an interesting story in the sixth chapter of Judges, where Gideon threw down the altar of Baal that his father had, and cut down the grove that stood by it. "And when the people of the city beheld what he had done and discovered who was the offender, they went to his father and said : Bring out thy son that he may die, because he hath cast clown the altar of Baal and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it." And Joash, who was Gideon's father, said to them, "Will ye plead for Baal? If he be a god let him plead for himself because some one has cast down his altar." Here Baal was a deity worshiped by all the men of the city, but the particular altar that was destroyed belonged to Joash, and inasmuch as Joash did not choose to take vengeance for the destruction of the altar, the men of the city allowed themselves easily to be persuaded not to do so, by the plea that if the offended deity did not avenge the wrong done to him, they need not be zealous for him. A fully developed law of blasphemy can not arise until a nation as such recognizes the same god, and the beginning of such national self-consciousness among the He brews is shown in the case of the blasphemer, which is recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviticus. While the Israelites were in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt, there went forth one of that "mixed multitude," the son of an Israelitish woman whose father was an Egyptian, and he and a man of Israel strove together in the carnp, and the son of the Israelitish woman blas phemed the Name and cursed, and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in ward to ascertain the law according to the mouth of Jehovah; and Jehovah said unto
Moses: "Bring forth him that cursed with out the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And Moses spake to the children of Israel that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp and stone him with stones; and the children of Israel did as Jehovah com manded Moses." That this was a case of first impression is shown by the fact that Moses, before whom the case was brought, did not venture on an opinion off-hand, but had the prisoner put in ward until he had consulted the Lord. In the article on "The Case of Zelophehad's Daughter" published in THE GREEN BAG, January, 1900, a similar phrase was explained to mean that the court retired to consult, and inasmuch as the court pro nouncing judgment spoke in the name of God, and its judgment was considered the judgment of God, the phrase here used, "to ascertain the law according to the mouth of Jehovah" is simply another way of saying that the court consulted for the purpose of leaching a decision, which, ipso facto, was inspired of God. The difficulties that the case presented to the court were these: Was there a crime committed? Was the offender punishable? What punishment should be meted out to him? The fact that this man was arrested indi cated that public opinion had at this time been sufficiently crystalized to warrant public officials in taking cognizance of the act as a crime. This man had blasphemed the name of God and cursed. We are not told what he said, and from the use of the Hebrew word which is translated "blasphemed." and which also may be translated "pronounced." it has been supposed that his crime consisted in pronouncing the ineffable name of God accompanied by a curse. The second question was a more difficult one. Assuming that the offense was a crime if committed by one of the house of Israel against Israel's God, what was to be done to
