drin were, of course, deeply learned in the law, and it is perhaps not unnecessary to devote a few words to the training which qualified them for their important office. The members of the Sanhedrin, who were both legislators and judges, were also (as a rule) the professors at the various law schools in Palestine and Babylonia. In these schools the course of study extended through seven years. The instruction was oral, and consisted of lectures and discussions which took a wide range. Some point of law was the subject; it was argued, debated and expounded; the memory of the students was developed to an astounding degree, as they relied upon it almost exclusively in all their work. All topics of human interest were discussed and the entire field of contempor ary learning swept in the search for informa tion which might elucidate the point of law under discussion. From among the students who had passed through such a course the ranks of the lesser Sandhedrin were recruited, and from these they were promoted to the great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. Years might elapse before these distinguished honors were conferred, during which the candidate was in constant attendance at the sessions of the Sanhedrin, and occasionally called upon to act as a substitute for one of the members who was absent. In this manner he grew in the knowledge of the law, of contempory science of all kinds; he perfected himself in foreign languages; he became familiar with the systems of law of the Greeks and Romans and other nations; and when the day came that he was called to sit in judgment and make the law, he was as well qualified for his position as it is possible for man to become. Lawyers, in the sense of advocates or pleaders, were unknown at Jewish law, as the parties pleaded their own cases. In criminal cases the Sanhedrin were practically also counsel for the defendant. It was their duty to take advantage of every point in favor of acquittal, and they were not permitted to aid the prosecution.
There is evidence also in the book of Job (xxix, 15, etc.) that patrons were not un known. These were members of the rich and leisure class who frequented the courts of law and took charge of the cases of the weak and ignorant against the powerful and malicious to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Origins of the Law. The law thus assiduously cultivated could not help becoming a highly developed sys tem, as complex as human life itself. The rabbis felt that law must be supreme in the world and that man dare never emancipate himself from it, for the weakening of the bond of law means anarchy and retrogression to a lower social state. " If it were not for the law," said one rabbi, " man would swal low his fellow-man alive." This complex system had its origin in the simple customs of the ancient nomadic Hebrews who roamed the plains of Palestine. There are many remains of these old cus toms to be found embedded in the Mosaic laws : some of them are reported in full, others are merely suggested; some are ac cepted as law, others are categorically re jected. The whole Torah (Mosaic code') bears unmistakable evidence of the epoch of custom which preceded it. There is no such thing as true law in primitive societies, because these have no law-making power; among them custom reigns supreme. This state of society is graphically described in the book of Genesis in the lives of the patri archs. The patriarch by virtue of his posi tion in the household had absolute authority over his family, which included his wife and children, his kinsmen and slaves. The law of his household fell from his lips, and his will and caprice were only restrained by the deep-rooted sentiment of conservatism which is common to all men. Every household was independent and acknowledged no law but its own. " In those days," as the chron icler says in the book of Judges (xvii, 6), "there was no king in Israel; every man did
