CITIES OF REFUGE. Among the Jews the `cities of refuge' bore some resemblance to the asylum of the classic nations [AsyLusi], but were happily exempt from the evil consequences to which they were apt to lead, and afford, even to the present day, no mean proof of the superior wis dom and benignant spirit of the Jewish laws.
The institution was framed with a view to abate the evils which ensued from the old-established rights of the blood-avenger [BLOOD-REVENGE], and thereby to further the prevalence in the nation of a mild, gentle, and forgiving spirit.
Frain the laws on this point (Exod. xxi. 13; Num. xxxv. 9-34 ; Deut. xix. 1-53) it appears that Moses set apart out of the sacerdotal cities six as ' cities of refuge.' There were, on the eastern side of the Jordan, three, namely, Beier in the wilder ness, in the plain country of the Reubenites, and R.amoth in Gilead of the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan of the Manassites' (Dent. iv. 43) ; on the western side three, namely, Kedesh in Galilee in Mount Naphtali, and Shechem in Mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, which is Hebron, in the moun tain of Judah' (Josh. xx. 7). If found desirable, then other cities might be added. An inspection of the map will shew how wisely these places were chosen so as to make a city of refuge easy of access from all parts of the land. To any of these cities a person who had uanwares and unintentionally slain any one might flee, and if he reached it before he was overtaken by the avenger of blood, he was safe within its shelter, provided he did not remove more than a thousand yards (Num. xxxv. 5) from its circuit, nor quit the refuge till the decease of the high-priest under whom the homicide had taken place. If, however, he transgressed these provi sions, the avenger might lawfully put him to death. The roads leading to the cities of refuge were to be kept in good repair. Before, however, the fugitive could avail himself of the shelter conceded by the laws, he was to undergo a solemn trial, and make it appear to the satisfaction of the magistrates of the place where the homicide was committed that it was purely accidental. Should he, however, he found to have been guilty of murder, he was delivered `into the hand of the avenger Of blood, that he might die.'
And the Israelites were strictly forbidden to spare him either from considerations of pity or in consequence of any pecuniary ransom. This dis aflowal of a compensation by money in the case of murder skews a just regard for human life, and ap pears much to the advantage of the Hebrew legis lation when compared with the practice of other countries (Athens, for instance, and Islam), in which pecuniary atonements were allowed, if not encouraged, and where, in consequence, the life of the poor must have been in as great jeopardy as the character of the wealthy.
The asylum afforded by Moses displays the same benign regard to human life in respect of the homicide himself. Had no obstacle been put in the way of the God, instant death would have awaited any one who had the misfortune to occa sion the death of another. 13y his wise arrange ments, however, Moses interposed a seasonable delay, and enabled the manslayer to appeal to the laws and justice of his country. Momentary wrath could hardly execute its fell purposes, and a suit able refuge was provided for the guiltless and un fortunate.
Vet as there is a wide space between the inno cence of mere homicide and the guilt of actual murder, in which various degrees of blame might easily exist, so the legislator took means to make the condition of the manslayer less happy than it was before the act or the mischance, lest entire impunity might lead to the neglect of necessary precaution and care. With great propriety, there fore, was the homicide made to feel some legal inconvenience. Accordingly he was removed front his patrimony, restricted in his sphere of locomo tion, affected indirectly in his pecuniary interests, and probably reduced from an affluent or an easy station to one of service and labour (Michaelis, Mos. Redd, vi. 4). Should any reader still think that this treatment of a manslayer was unnecessarily severe, let him advert to the spirit of the age, and especially study the recognised rights of the next of kin to a slain person, and he will most probably he ready to allow that everything was done in this matter which circumstances admitted. The benefit of the protection afforded was common to strangers and sojourners with native Israelites.