under the influence of an entirely different civilization, he is pictured as an oriental monarch surrounded by his court and the great officers of the Crown, listening to the charges of a public prosecutor. In the record of the case of Zclophehad's daughters (GREEN BAG, January, 1900,), he is described as a supreme justice to whom the record of the case is submitted for an opinion, who renders a decree in the case, and then com mands that this decree be enacted into a general law. In the Talmud, he is some times represented as sitting to do jus tice in the supreme court of heaven, modelled upon the plan of the great San hédrin of seventy-one judges, hearing the evidence, examining the witnesses, and pro ceeding in every way in accordance with the procedure that was followed by the Sanhé drin. Thus in each age, the Jewish mind conceived the Deity in a manner suited to the highest conception of the time; and as these views of divine justice differ from age to age among the same people, so they differ from the views of other nations. Mention need only be made of the different concep tions of the Deity held by Milton, by Sopho cles, and by Goethe. Indeed, it may well be said that every living man has an idea of the Deity differing from that of every other man, and dependent entirely upon that bundle of qualities which go to make up what we call individuality. The oriental patriarch administered justice in the manner described in the case of Adam and Eve. He reached conclusions in a swift and ready manner, and meted out the punishment that he considered proper under the circumstances, often revers ing his own decrees. This was the method that was familiar to the people at the time when the story of Adam and Eve circulated among them, and at the time when it was first written down; and hence this was the method that is reflected in the story. In the first place, the command concerning the eating of the fruit of the tree was given to the man alone and not at all to the woman: she had not vet been created, and
therefore it seems to be unjust to have held her responsible for the breach of a command which was not directed to her. It is true, that both the serpent and the woman in dis cussing his command assume that it was directed to her as well as the man, but they were both mistaken. The probability is that Adam told Eve of the command that he had received concerning this tree, and she there fore assumed that she also was bound by it. This is further indicated by the fact that in citing the law, she says "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it." There is nothing in the law about touch ing the tree. This merely expresses the exaggerated fear of the woman lest any breach of the law occur, and shows that the practice of Adam and Eve was not to touch the tree lest they might by mistake be led to eat of its fruit; and this practice the woman concludes to have been part of the original command. When the Lord God commenced his in vestigation of the case, he addressed Adam as the only law-breaker, saying to him, "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?" and when the man then pleaded that the woman had given him of the fruit, he turned to the woman and merely asked, "What is this that thou hast done?" and did not charge her with having broken the law iii having eaten of the tree, although she had in fact eaten of it. Her only offence was in causing Adam to break the law. In sentencing the serpent, the woman and the man, the Lord God pronounced judg ment against the serpent because it had be guiled the woman, and against the woman because she had beguiled the man. He does not allude to any breach of the law on her part. However, in sentencing the man he said, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thcc, saying thou shalt not eat of it." The punishment for Adam's trespass was death. The command was as follows: "For
