eud was too old, too natural
a practice to be suppressed at once; but it was so controlled and
regulated as to become little more than a part of the machinery of
justice.

A premeditated murder was inexpiable, not to be ransomed; the murderer
must surely die. Even if he fled to the altar of God, intending to
escape thence to a city of refuge when the avenger ceased to watch, he
should be torn from that holy place: to shelter him would not be an
honour, but a desecration to the shrine (xxi. 12, 14). According to this
provision Joab and Adonijah suffered. For the slayer by accident or in
hasty quarrel, "a place whither he shall flee" would be provided, and
the vague phrase indicates the antiquity of the edict (ver. 13). This
arrangement at once respected his life, which did not merit forfeiture,
and provided a penalty for his rashness or his passion.

It is because the question in hand is the sanctity of man, that the
capital punishment of a son who strikes or curses a parent, the
vicegerent of God, and of a kidnapper, is interposed between these
provisions and minor offences against the person (15-17).

Of these latter, the first is when lingering illness results from a blow
received in a quarrel. This was not a case for the stern rule, eye for
eye and tooth for tooth,--for how could that rule be applied to it?--but
the violent man should pay for his victim's loss of time, and for
medical treatment until he was thoroughly recovered (18, 19).

But what is to be said to the general law of retribution in kind? Our
Lord has forbidden a Christian, in his own case, to exact it. But it
does not follow that it was unjust, since Christ plainly means to
instruct private persons not to exact their rights, whereas the
magistrate continues to be "a revenger to execute justice." And, as St.
Augustine argued shrewdly, "this command was not given for exciting the
fires of hatred, but to restrain them. For who would easily be satisfied
with repaying as much injury as he received? Do we not see men slightly
hurt athirst for slaughter and blood?... Upon this immoderate and unjust
vengeance, the law imposed a just limit, not that what was quenched
might be kindled, but that what was burning might not spread." (Cont.
Faust, xix. 25.)

It is also to be observed that by no other precept were the Jews more
clearly led to a morality still higher than it prescribed. Their
attention was first drawn to the fact that a compensation in money was