Both the Rabbis of the Jews and the masters [teachers] of the Christians bring forward various causes. For, first, R. Omer says [that] the high priest is the minister, celebrator, and propagator of the divine glory; but [that] the manslayer obstructs and obscures that same divine glory; and therefore [that] not until the high priest [is] taken away can he [the manslayer] return into [his] fatherland. Secondly: R. Mair says [that] the high priest, by his prayers and sacrifices, procures life and safety for the whole people; but [that] this same [life and safety] is attacked and diminished by homicides; therefore, while he [the high priest] survives, the return to their own hearths is cut off for them [the manslayers]. Thirdly: Rashi and the Talmudists (tractate “On Striking” [Makkoth] ch. 2) [hold] that the high priest’s office was placed in this — that he should always propitiate the heavenly Deity, and avert all sad mishaps from the Israelites. [They say] therefore [that] not even a fortuitous homicide ought to have happened, if he [the high priest] had been diligent in his office. Rightly, therefore, [is] the fault expiated by his death,
(col. 1213)
[…continued from col. 1212.] which [fault] had been committed by his negligence. Fourthly: R. Isaac Aeramaeus thinks (in the book On the Binding of Isaac) [that], since the cities of refuge were Levitical, all [of them] were subject to the high priest; and therefore [that] those who dwelt in them, [being] subject to that same high priest, served [him] in a manner. And [it was] punishment enough paid by the innocent exiles, if [they] had served one high priest; but [they] ought not [to have] served a second [one] also. Fifthly: Rambam (bk. 3 of the Moreh Nebuchim [Guide for the Perplexed], ch. 40) says [it] was fitting that, since the high priest’s death affected all Israel with the deepest mourning, [people] would cease to mourn any slain [person] whatsoever — and therefore [that] any others whatever [would cease] to pursue his slaughter with vengeance. For just as a lesser light is obscured by a greater, so too lesser [sorrows] are darkened by greater shadows of sadness, and nearly done away. But because the words of this Rabbi beautifully demonstrate the authority of the high priest among those ancient Israelites, I will transcribe them. “The cause,” he says, “why he who committed homicide unknowingly and by error [must] go into exile, is, that the mind of him who prepares to avenge the blood may be pacified, in the meantime, while [he] does not see the one who committed the slaughter, [being] removed from [his] sight. But the return of that exile into [his] fatherland depends on the death of that man who excels all the rest in dignity, and is loved most highly by all the Israelites; and therefore [it] is fitting that, by his sorrowful death, all the grief be assuaged which the kinsman-avenger of the blood had drawn [imbibed] from the slaughter of his own kinsman. For such is the condition of men, that he who is affected by some bitterer evil, if he sees [that] either an equal, or even a greater, [evil] has befallen another, [then] begins now to grieve less over his own.” Sixthly: [it] pleases some [to say] that this is given to the favor [grace] of the new high priest, who succeeds the dead [one] — that, just as [he] approaches anew to propitiate God for men, so also [he] should in fact confer a new benefit and salvation on the men who need them, and who seem the more worthy of them. Seventhly: Oleaster, on ch. 25 of Num. (p. 84): “The high priest, as God’s vicar, played the part of divine justice, by which God demands vengeance from men. And when he died, the adverse party seemed extinguished, which sought retribution on God’s behalf; and therefore then [the exile] was wholly absolved.” Eighthly: the same [Oleaster] afterward (p. 85): “The Lord wished to show how greatly a priest ought to abhor homicides — even involuntary [ones].” Ninthly: similarly, “how [greatly] a perpetrated homicide pollutes a man — so that [he] can by no means be where the Lord’s Priest is.” Thus Oleaster. Tenthly: Masius thinks [that], in this whole matter, this was aimed at — that the Jews might be deterred from homicide as much as possible; and that therefore the manslayer — although imprudent and involuntary — had, as [one] polluted with human blood, to be contained within the lurking-places of the asylums, and to be kept off (like an expiation [piaculum]) from the assembly of men, at least for so long as he survived — [the high priest] whom (as the chief Interpreter of God on earth, and in a manner shadowing-forth the person of his divine Majesty, and altogether the “ἀρχηγὸν [archēgon]” [author] and chief of all religion, piety, [and] holiness, and ever maintaining the stability of the Commonwealth by the sublime throne of his office) that [manslayer], by the savagery of that deed of his, most gravely of all offended.
These [things] are said, and not altogether incongruously — although some [explanations] are more fitting to some [persons]. Yet the true and proper [cause], and the chief of all, seems to me [to be] this: that the lurking-place and exile of those manslayers was prolonged up to the death of the high priest, and [that] by that very [death] all straightway returned into [their] fatherland — in order that that true liberty might be signified which was won for us through the death of JESUS CHRIST. For he [Christ] is the true high priest (Hebrews 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10); and by those manslayers are signified sinners of every kind. For these, before his death, no access into the heavenly fatherland — from which, cast out in Adam, we all were exiles — lay open; and after his death, immediately — [Christ] himself going before — [it is permitted] to all to migrate back thither, whoever betake themselves to the cities of refuge; [to all,] I say, who receive themselves [take refuge] into the Catholic Church of CHRIST, which contains many particular churches in every region of the globe; [those] who commit themselves to the power and patronage of CHRIST, of the Levites, and of the Priests; [who] do not depart from them; [who] do not despise their right and protection; [who] nowhere wander outside their enclosures and walls. To all these — whether [they] were in limbo, or in purgatory, or on earth, when CHRIST, the Lord our high priest, was dying; or [whether they] were to be [born] afterward, in all the ages — true liberty, a return into the heavenly dwelling, and eternal salvation [was] given. And because the same high priest henceforth always remains, and never dies any more, and receives no successor (although he has a vicar on earth), [then] from no other [source] can or ought a liberation from the penalties of our sins, a restitution into the most blessed houses of heaven, [and] eternal security, be expected. Masius calls this interpretation “anagogic”; Tostatus (q. 23), partly “literal,” partly “allegorical.” “Nor, however,” he says, “would one deviate much, if [one] should utterly affirm it [to be] literal.” Nay, [one] would not deviate at all, but would rather have kept to the most correct way of expounding, who affirmed [it] utterly literal. For in those [things] which are signs of some [other] things, either the whole account [reason] is wont to be sought from the mere will of him who instituted those signs, or from the similitude and analogy of the things signified. But in signs divinely instituted — because God does nothing rashly and inconsiderately — some analogical reason of this kind always presents itself; and [that reason], while [it] can be found and discerned, is deservedly called “literal and primary.” For, for example, why the bones of the paschal lamb ought not to be broken — what other proper and literal reason [is there], than that signification [fulfilled] in CHRIST the Lord, brought forth by St. John (ch. 19:36): “A bone of him you shall not break”? Now, secondly: in none of the other causes can the mind rest; but this [one] so explains the question, that nothing which could rightly be objected is present, [and] nothing, which might besides be asked, remains over. Thirdly: unless this typical significance had been chiefly regarded, that law concerning the exile and the return [postliminium] of manslayers would seem little just; because, for an equal innocence or [an equal] guilt, [there] would not be an equal punishment or preservation. For if two [men] had committed an equal slaughter unawares — one 20 years before, the other today — and tomorrow or the day after the high priest should die, [then] for both the return into [their] fatherland will be free equally quickly; and that [first] one would have been punished with an exile of 20 years, but this [second] one — in the same case — [with] only a one-day or two-day [exile]. And what [kind of] equity [is] that? Fourthly: the law would also have been dangerous — and indeed deadly to the high priest himself; but to others, enticing to evil. For [some] would have wished [for] the high priest’s death, and perhaps some would have contrived [plotted] [it], that they might as quickly as possible be done with their [own] ostracism [banishment], and return to their own [people]. For, for this very cause, we see [it] forbidden by canon law, lest “expectatives” [expectancies] of a certain Ecclesiastical benefice
(col. 1215)
[…continued from col. 1214.] there be an expectancy [of such a benefice]; and greed sometimes invites [men] to parricides, and to feigned tears over inheritances. But these [things] could either be done or tolerated on account of the sacred Type of greater moment, and its signification — but not on account of any other cause of lesser moment. Fifthly: since St. Ambrose (in the book On the Flight of the World [De fuga saeculi], ch. 2), in imitation of Philo (in the book On fugitives [De profugis]), had set down four questions concerning these cities of refuge — and indeed this [one], which is [now] treated, in the last place — he answers it thus: “A fourth [question] remains, as [Scripture] says: ‘because up to that time that manslayer will be in the city of refuge, until the high priest die.’ In which [matter], according to the letter, the interpretation sticks [is at a loss]. First, the flight itself [is] perhaps defined more by chance than by the equity of any examination; then, in equal cases, [there is] an unequal outcome. For it could happen that, after that manslayer’s flight, the high priest might die the next day. But what [certain] opinion [can there be] under [such] uncertainty? Therefore, because the letter sticks, let us seek the spiritual [senses]. Who is that high priest, except the Son of God, the Word of God — whose advocacy for us we have with the Father, [and] who is without share [free] of all voluntary and accidental offenses?” But Philo, in the cited place, says thus: “This is our opinion: [that] this high priest is not a man, but the Word of God — which is free [exempt] from all sins, not only voluntary [ones], but also involuntary [ones]. For Moses denies that this [Word] — whether [considered] through the Father [as] intellect, or through the mother [as] the faculty of perceiving — is contaminated: for this reason, as I think, because [it] obtained immortal and most-pure parents: [its] Father, God, who is the Father of all things; but [its] Mother, Wisdom, through whom whatever is — [though] it was not before — came forth into light; and therefore its head is anointed with oil: [its] princedom [headship], I say, shines round about with a splendid light, so that [it] is deservedly thought [to be] clad with garments. For [that is] the most ancient [garment] of it. Which [Word] is clothed with the world as [with] a garment; for [it] is clothed with earth, water, air, fire, and the rest which have [their] origin from these.” And not much after: “It is not foreign to natural law [right], [that] the death of the high priest [is] prescribed [as] the term of exile for the fugitives. For as long as this most holy living Word survives in the soul, [it] is not possible for it [the soul] to be turned, of its own accord, to the worse. For [it] is free from all sin, and by its own nature shrinks from it. But if [it] should die — not that it [itself] perishes, but [that it] is disjoined from our soul — immediately a return is given to the involuntary sins. For if, while it [was] present, [the sins] were in exile in us, [then] after its departure [they] will altogether return. For this surpassing honor is shown by nature to the unpolluted high priest — that, while he is present, the error of the mind has no place. Therefore [it] is to be sought with all [our] prayers, that the high priest may live in the soul — [who is] at once judge and reprover, who, before the tribunal of the mind, is impartial toward the persons of the accused.” Sixthly: to this [typical interpretation] especially calls us [the fact] that, [in] Num. 35:25, to the death of this high priest is added: “whom God — or at least someone — anointed with holy oil.” For although this could be said in order to signify the death of a high priest — [one] who was high priest not merely by right and inheritance, but who, besides, having been inaugurated and anointed with sacred ceremonies, had received the perfection of the Pontifical power — nevertheless this very [phrase] seems clearly to introduce a mention of the mercy and gentleness by which the exiles will be freed, and to signify him whom “God anointed above his fellows” (Ps. 44:8), and who, from [his] most-holy anointing, obtained the sacred name of “Christ” [the Anointed]; whom I pray [that] he may, from the unhappy exile of either this world or of purgatory, bring me back to the fatherland, the soil of eternal felicity, as swiftly as possible. AMEN.