tribe, he set before us not only that which now is, but that which has been from the very beginning of time. It was somewhat startling indeed to find that laws and customs which we had supposed to belong only to an extreme antiquity, still lingered among these mountains and deserts. The blood-feud existed among the Hebrews as it did among the Arabs. Kindred in race, they had the same fierce and implacable spirit as the descendants of Ishmael. Their resentments were quick and uncontrollable. No sooner had a man fallen than his nearest relative became the avenger of his blood, whose duty it was to pursue and take the life of the murderer. To a certain extent, Moses was obliged to yield to this impulse of exasperation and of wounded honor. It were easy, indeed, to forbid the Hebrew to seek retaliation; but it was not easy to enforce such a law where it was a point of honor for a man to take justice into his own hands. Here comes the difficult task of the legislator — to deal with popular passions and prejudices, and to soften barbarous customs which he cannot wholly eradicate. It is very interesting to compare the unwritten law of the desert with the commandments of Moses; and to see how, in dealing with usages which he could not wholly suppress, he yet modified them in the interest of justice and humanity. He adopted a novel method to disarm the rage of the injured Israelite, which showed his thorough understanding of the popular passions. He did not forbid directly the attempt to take revenge, but gave full scope to the natural feeling of resentment and indignation. The avenger of blood might follow with swift foot upon the murderer's track, and if he overtook him and put him to death, the law held him free. But at the same time it gave the criminal a chance for his life. Six cities were designated — three on either side Jordan — as Cities of Ref-
