vengeance on him. H is said that among the Arabs this right exists to the present day. In what form it existed among the ancient Egyptians we are able to inft'r from Mr. Lane's statement that it exists in almost savage wildness among the moderns. And wo might gather, from the way in which Moses uses the term "avenger of blood," that the Hebrews may have been familiar with it, as having seen it practised in Egypt, or r.s having received the custom from the nations among whom their fathers dwelt prior to going down into Egypt. This right of the nearest of kin to avenge a murder in a family is called goelism, from the word "goel," which has the two apparently incom- patible meanings of" next of kin" and "avenger of blood." So that there are actually two institutions known of, in the light of which we have to look at these cities of refuge. One, goelism; the other, the right of sanctuary. Each of them was open to abuse. If the former had unrestricted sway, private revenge might bear very hardly on one who had accidentally killed another. Supposing the second to be left without guard, it might become the means of screening from justice criminals of the worst type 'l'he first abuse was common among Oriental nations; the second, amongst Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and the medireval sanctuaries of Europe. And it is only as we set the Mosaic insti.tution in the double light of the earlier ones out of which it came, and of the later ones which came out of it, that its real value can be seen. Hence we see~ II. THE PURPOSE IT SERVED IN THE MOSAIC J,EGISLATION. There is one fundamental principle on which the Mosaic civil code is based, i.e. the value of patient culture. Moses found certain abuses existing. He did not sweep them away at once, but aimed at educating the people out of them. With regard to this right of revenge, he estab- lished such a remarkable system of checks and counter-checks as surely only a superhuman wisdom could, in that age, have devised. Our space will only allow us to indicate these very briefly. 1. Moses recognizes the sacredness of human life, both to God and to man. 2. He provides that, when a wrong is done to society, it should be in some way recognized, and that society should have its own sareguard against the repetition thereof. 3. A great step would be gained if such reparation for the wrong as is needed for the sake of security could be gained without any peril of the wild r,lay of private revenge (eh. xix. 6; Numb. x.xxv. 24). 4. A broad distinction is to be made between wrongs (Numb. xxxv. 25). 5. The examination of the case and the decision upon it were put into the hands of the people through their elders and judges. 13. The ciLies of refuge were selected where justice was most likely to be done; even from the cities of the Levites. 7. All this was doubly fenced from abuse. For (l) No murderer was to be screened (Numb. xxxv. 31). (2) No one was to be reckoned as a murderer on the unsupported testimony of one man. So that the goel had no power except there were co1Toborative evidence of guilt. 8. 'l'he reason is given in Numb. xxxv. 33, 34. Now, when we know that all legislation has to be tested, not by the question, "What is absolutely the test?" but by "What is the best the people can bear? "-surely these laws give indications of a guidance and wisdom not less th:i.n Divine. Ill. THE TYPIOAL FORESHADOWINGS IN THIS INSTITUTION ARE NOTEWORTHY. They are many. The preacher may well luxuriate in working them out. 1. Outraged right requires vindication. 2. Jn viudicating the right and avenging the wrong, equity and kindness are to be studiously guarded. Grace is to reigu through righteousness. 3. God, in his kindness, provides a refuge from the haste or excesses of private revenge. 4-. God gives special directions concerning them. There was to be one in each district, so that the fleeing one might not have too far to go. 'l'he place \\·as to be accessible; good roads thither were to ho made. The Jews caught the spirit of the directiom,, and had ~irection-posts put at the corners of roads, with the words "Refuge! refuge I" }!lainly put thereon. 'l'he same rule for a Hebrew applied t,) the stranger and foreigner. The refuge did not avail if a man did not flee thither. And there were sins for which it did not avail at all (see vers. 11, 12, and Numb. xxxv. 29-3,J.); an,\ where the refuge, did avail it was only the death of the high priest which set a homicide entirely 1reo from the consequences of his blood-shedding. IV. 'fHERE ARE SOME RELA'l'ED 'l'RUTHS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF Goo-WHICH .cl.RE XOT FORESHADOWED IN THESE CITIES OF REFUGE. Two of these there arei.,_a'ilcl those so remarkable, that it is not surprising if some do not regard the cities of fefuge as being DEUTERONOMY. y THE BOOK 01" DEU'l'ERONOM:Y. [en. XIX. 1-21.
!_q,ical nt all. 1. Though the mnnslayer was to flee to the city, yet he was to fleo/rom the i::,1 ,•l. The opposite is the case under t,be gospel. \Ve said that the word" gocl" had two 1ncanings, Yiz. that of" nearest of kin" and "avenger of blood," because the nearest of kin u·as the n"l'enger of blood. But as tbe student traces the Bible use of this word, lo, it has a third meaning, even that of redeemer (Isa. xli. 14; xliii. 14-; xliv, 24; xl viii: 17; liY. 5, S; Ix. lG). Jehovah is the Goel. 'l'he Lord Jesus Christ is our next of kin, the 1ncngPr of wrong, the Hedeerner. He bas vindicated the majesty of Law by bearin" tlie stroke, that it may not be inflicted on the penitent. He is at once our City of Hefugc and our Goel. \Ve flee to him, not from him. 2. 'l'he refuge was provided for the delay of judgment till the case was examined. Here, refuge is for the penitent, that he may never come into judgment at all He may say aud sing- " Should storms of sevenfold thunder roll, And shake the globe from pole to pole, No flaming bolt shall daunt my face, For JesUB is my Hiding-place."
HOMILIES BY VARIOUS .AUTHORS.