ASYLUM, a temple or other sacred place, guarded by rights of consecration, and allowed to extend a protection over human life ; so that those who sought its shelter could not be torn from it without the deepest impiety. The word is derived from a. and cracio, and implies an inviolable refuge. It does not occur in the English Bible, but its Hebrew equivalent is (from reccpit), rendered by the LXX. ektryaSEulptoo, karalnryh, The earliest asylum is said to have been founded by the Heraclidm at Athens, in a temple of Pity, or by Cadmus at 'Thebes. The temples of Apollo at Delphi and Delos (Liv. xxxv. 51) were regarded as asylums, and the sanctity with which they were invested made them valuable repositories of trea sures. Romulus founded a promiscuous asylum in a grove at Rome (Liv. i. 8, Virg. ../En. viii. 342), in order to increase the number of his citi zens. One of the most famous ancient asylums was the temple of Diana at Ephesus, and its in violability extended to the distance of an arrow shot all round the building. We read in the book of Maccabees that the high-priest, Onias III., took refuge in an asylum at Daphne (2 Macc. iv. 34), but he was enticed from its shelter, and put to death. Although the open violation of an asylum excited (as we see in the case of the the deepest horror, it seems to have been con sidered perfectly admissible to use either fraud or force to get the criminal beyond the reach of the privilege (Schol. Eurip. Androm. 256 ; 2 Macc. iv. 34) ; and if all other means failed, it was thought no unpardonable crime to starve the criminal to death, provided that the pollution (dryos) of a violated sanctuary were avoided, by dragging him from the sacred limits at the very mo ment when he was about to expire (Thuc. i. 134).
Although asylums were intended for the preser vation of the innocent, not for the convenience of the guilty (Ps. Demosth. _Bp. 3), it is obvious that they were liable to gross abuse. Ephesus, in con sequence of the rights attached to the temple of Artemis, became a nest of robbers (Strabo, xiv. 641) ; and in Asia Minor generally it was found that the ends of justice were so seriously thwarted by the multitude of sacred places of refuge, that the emperor Tiberius wisely curtailed immunities, which were only advantageous to fraudulent debtors and guilty slaves (Plut, de Superstit. p. 166 ; De Vd. user. p. 828 • Tac. Ann. iii. 60-63 ; Suet. rib• 37)• The privilege of sanctuary descended to the middle ages from pagan custom rather than from the Mosaic law. By a law of Justinian, the jus asyli, which had been conferred on temples, was extended to churches (Instt. i. tit. 8. s. 2, quoted in Smith's Dirt. Ant. s. v.), and the right was defended by stringent laws of Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius. It still exists in Italy, and its abuses exceed its advantages at the present day, although in troubled and lawless times the exist ence of such refuges was an invaluable protection against political persecutions.
We now proceed to state the nature of the asyla permitted by Moses, and we shall see that his laws respecting them were framed with a wisdom which rendered these places of refuge a shield of innocent misfortune, while it prevented them from becoming an incentive to reckless crime. The cities of refuge (npnti 411), six in number, were appointed to save the accidental homicide from the goel or avenger of blood (Num. xxxv. 6, 12, 25 ; Josh xx. ; xxi. 13, 21, 27, 32, 36 ; 1 Chron. vi. 67, seq.) They were so set apart as to be easy of access, and were ranged almost in a quincuncial shape on either side of Jordan. So admirably were they selected, that the persecuted manslayer could never be more than six miles from the nearest city of refuge (Kalisch on Ex. xxi. 14). In supposed
accordance with Dent. xix. 3, the magistrates, on the 15th of Adar, every year, inspected the roads leading to them, to see that they were free from all impediment, that the streams were bridged, and that signposts, with the words upn upo, were placed at each cross-road (Maimon. Rotseach. c. S. s. 5). To prevent all carelessness in matters of blood, even the innocent homicide was compelled to remain at the refuge city, apparently in a low position, until the death of the just as at Athens he was condemned by the Areopagus to This apparent severity had the double purpose of diminishing the fury of the goel, while it inculcated on the manslayer the awful sacredness of human life. In order to prevent the refugees from praying for the high-priest's death, the mothers of the high-priests are said to have supported them with clothes and food. Two youths were provided as an escort to the fugitive on his way, and the sanctuary extended 2000 cubits be yond the city walls (Num. xxxv. 4, 5). According to Maimonides, from whom several of the above particulars are taken, all the forty-eight Levitical cities possessed in a lesser degree the right of affording a refuge. Both in the Hebrew and in the Gentile asylums an inquiry was, of course, in stituted as to the right of the criminal to avail himself of the divine protection (Grot. de Bell, ii. 21), but it is not very clear from Scripture (Deut. xix. I I ; Josh. xx. 4-6) when and where the trial was held. For farther particulars, see Goodwin's Moses and Aaron, ii. 5 • Otho Lex. Rabb. s. v. Asylum ; Carpzov. App. Crit. p. 336, seq. [CITIES OF REFUGE.] The privilege of acruXict was also extended by Moses to the horns of the altar' (Ex. xxi. 14), where a man might remain unharmed until he could be conducted to a city of refuge, if he could prove his innocence. There seems to be no ground for confining this privilege to priests (Maimon. Hal. Rotseach, c. 5, in Otho Lex. Ra. s. v. Altars). Even in Christian times, the holy table was con sidered to possess a similar privilege (Greg. Naz. Or. xx), and from the earliest ages pagan altars have been regarded as affording a sanctuary (Herod. ii. I 13 • Eur. Hec. 149 ; Virg. /En. xii. 201, etc.) The `horns of the altar' were projections at each angle (Joseph. de Bell. jud. vi. 5), covered with the same brazen framework as the altar itself, and they had an obviously symbolic meaning (Exod. xxvii. 2 ; xxx. 2), as well as being necessary to the routine of sacrifice (Ps. cxviii. 27). For similar reasons horned altars were frequent among the ancients (Ov. Her. xx. 99 ; Callim. Hymn Apoii. 60). Twice in the history of Judah notorious criminals sought for impunity by catching hold of the horns of the altar.' In one of these in stances the offender, Adonijah, was freely par doned (I Kings i. 50) ; but Joab, who had followed his example, having been vainly summoned to leave his place of refuge, was killed as he clung there by Benaiah. Since the law (Exod. xxi. 14) expressly exempted such wilful and treacherous murderers as Joab from the right of asylum at the altar, the guilt of the sacrilege rests with him rather than with his executioner (I Kings ii. 28). Our Lord connects a yet darker murder with the vicinity of the altar, and doubtless means that the sacredness of the place made the guilty deed more heinous (Matt. xxiii. 35). See, on the whole sub ject of the horns of the altar, Spencer De Lez. Hebr. vol. ii. pp. 676-682.