judges, or their successors, as chosen by Mo.ses; 2dly, any surjilus left of patriarchal seniors when these were taken out (as has been shown from Deut. i, 15, IG) from that class; and, 3dly, the Levites. On what principle the non-Levitical judges were chosen after divine super- intendence was interrupted at Joshua's death is not clear. A simple way would have been for the existing judges in every town, etc., to choose their own col- leagues, as vacancies fell, from among the limited num- ber of persons who, being heads of families, were com- petent. Generally speaking, the reputation for superior wealtli, as some guarantee against facilities for corrup- tion, would determine the choice of a judge, and, taken in connection with personal qualities, would tend to limit the choice to probably a very few persons in prac- tice. The supposition that judicature will always be provided for is carried through all the books of tlie Law (see Exod. xxi, 6 ; xxii ; Lev. xix, 15 ; Numb, xxxv, 24 ; Deut. i, IG ; xvi, 18 ; xxv, 1). All that we know of the facts of later history confirms the supposition. The He- brews were sensitive as regards the administration of justice; nor is the free spirit of their early con)mon- wealth in anything more manifest than in the resent- ment which followed the venal or partial judge. The fact that justice reposed on a popular basis of adminis- tration largely contributed to keep up this spirit of in- dependence, which is the ultimate check on all perver- sions of the tribunal. The popular aristocracy (if we may so term it) of heads of tribes, sections of tribes, or families, is found to fall into two main orders of varjdng nomenclature, and rose from the ccqnte ccnsi, or mere citizens, upward. The more common name for the higher order is "princes," and for the lower, "elders" (Judg. viii, 14; Exod. ii, 14; Job xxix, 7, 8, 9; Ezra x, 8). Tliese orders were the popular element of judica- ture. On the other hand, the Levitical body was im- bued with a keen sense of allegiance to God as the Au- thor of Law, and to the Covenant as his embodiment of it, and soon gained whatever forensic experience and erudition those simple times could yield; hence they brought to the judicial task the legal acumen and sense of general principles which complemented the ruder lay element. Thus the Hebrews really enjoyed much of the virtue of a system which allots separate provinces to judge and jury, althougli we cannot trace any such line of separation in their functions, save in so far as has been indicated above. To return to the first or popular branch, there is reason to think, from the second con- currence of ]ihraseology amid much diversity, that in every citj' these two ranks of " princes" and " elders" had their analogies, and that a variable number of heads of families and groups of families, in two ranks, were popularly recognised, whether with or without any form of election, as charged with the duty of adminis- tering justice. Succoth (Judg. viii, 14) may be taken as an example. Evidently the ea;-o^cio judges of Mo- ses's choice would have left their successors when the tribe of Gad, to which Succoth pertained (Josh, xiii, 27), settled in its territory and towns: and what would be more simple than that the whole number of judges in that tribe should be allotted to its towns in propor- tion to their size? As such judges were mostly the liead men by genealogy, they would fall into their nat- ural places, and symmetry would be preserved. Tlie Levites also were apportioned, on the whole, equally among the tribes; and if they preserved their limits, there were probably few parts of Palestine beyond a day's journey from a Levitical city.
One great hold which the priesthood had, in their ju- risdiction, upon men's ordinary life was the custody in the sanctuary of the standard weights and measures, to which, in cases of dispute, reference was doubtless made. It is, however, reasonable to suppose that in most towns sufficiently exact models of them for all ordinary ques- tions would be kept, since to refer to the sanctuary at Shiloh, Jerusalem, etc., in every case of dispute between dealers would be nugatory (Exod. sxx, 13; Numb.iii,47;
JUDGE
lOTO
JUDGE
Ezeli. xlv, 12). Above all these, the high-priest in the ante-regal period was the resort in difficult cases (Deut. xvii, 12), as the chief jurist of the nation, and one who would, in case of need, be perhaps oracularly directed ; vet we hear of none acting as judge save Eli, nor is any judicial act recorded of him— though perhaps his not re- straining his sons is meant to be noticed as a failure in his jiulitiol duties. Now the judicial authority of any sudi supreme tribunal must have wholly lapsed at the time of the events recorded in Judg. xix. It should not be forgotten that in some cases of "blood" the "con- gregation" themselves were to "judge" (Numb, xxxy, 24), and that the appeal of Judg. xx, 4-7 was thus in the regular course of constitutional law. It is also a fact of some weight, negatively, that none of the special deliverers called judges was o'f priestly lineage, or even became as much noted as Deborah, a woman. This seems to show that any central action of the high-priest on national unity was null, and of this supremacy, had it existed in force, the judicial prerogative was the main element. Difficult cases would include cases of appeal, and we may presume that, save so far as the authority of those special deliverers made itself felt, there was no judge in the last resort from Joshua to Samuel. In- deed, the current phrase of those deliverers that they "judged" Israel during tlieir term, shows which branch of their authority was most in request, and the demand of the people for a king was, in the first instance, that he might "judge them," rather than that he might " light their battles" (1 Sam. viii, 5, 20).