That [it] was not, Tostatus affirms here (q. 6 & 7), and [on] Num. 35 (q. 11). But Covarruvias thinks otherwise (ch. 20, conclusion 2, bk. 2 of the Variae Resolutiones), [and] Gregorius Tholosanus (bk. 3 On the Commonwealth, ch. 22). But in few [words], the matter seems [to be] thus to be determined. First: nowhere [is it] expressly written, that for anyone [there] is refuge at the city of the sanctuary, or [at] the sanctuary and altar. Secondly: [that] the city of the sanctuary was a refuge for anyone, cannot be gathered even from the Scriptures. Thirdly: [that] at the altar itself [there] was a refuge, can be gathered from the Scriptures. First: because [in] Exod. 21:14 [it] is written: “If any man kill his neighbor on set purpose, and by lying in wait, thou shalt take him away from my altar, that he may die.” But if [there] had been no refuge for anyone at the altar, why would the guilty manslayer be commanded to be taken away from it? Why would [the law] provide [guard] rather concerning the guilty [one] than the innocent, since this [guilty one] too could be killed outside the place of refuge? Or, if an innocent manslayer had betaken himself to the altar, and held onto it, could he be led away and dragged from it? That exception concerning liers-in-wait and others guilty of voluntary homicide seems, indeed,
(col. 1219)
[…continued from col. 1218.] [to show] that for others [there] was some refuge there [at the altar]. Secondly: Joab fled into the tabernacle of the Lord, and took hold of the horn of the altar (1 Kings 2:28). And this he seems to have done because it was customary. And when Banaias had been commanded by King Solomon to kill him, this [Banaias] did not dare to do [his] will in that place — for the same cause, as [it] seems (v. 30). But because that [Joab] was a voluntary [deliberate] homicide, and a wicked lier-in-wait, the asylum could not profit him, by the Lord’s already-cited law (Exod. 21). For Solomon said (v. 31): “Kill him, and bury him, and thou shalt remove the innocent blood which has been shed by Joab, from me and from the house of my father. And the Lord shall return his blood upon his [own] head: because he slew two just men, better than himself, and killed them with the sword, my father David not knowing [it].” Banaias therefore went up (v. 34), and, falling upon him, killed him. Thirdly: that some were formerly accustomed to flee to the same [altar] is shown, in Abulensis (ch. 3 of Joshua, q. 16), [by] R. Salomon [Rashi], when he says [that] “even priests liable to death could be torn away from the horns of the Lord’s altar, and killed.” Fourthly: Demetrius the King, in order to join to himself the goodwill of the Jews, says (1 Macc. ch. 10): “Whosoever shall flee into the temple which is at Jerusalem, and into all its borders — [being] liable to the King in any matter — let them be released.” Why does a foreign-born King grant and enlarge this privilege for the Israelites, unless because he knew [that] this was of ancient custom among them, and that this same [thing] was most desired by them? Fifthly: since the Gentiles held this honor for the altars of [their] vain Gods (as will be said below), who would think [that] the Lord wished [there] to be less of honor and privilege for his [own] altar? Nay, from these [things it] seems [that], not only in [cases of] slaughter, but also in the crimes of other misdeeds, some asylum-right at the Lord’s altar was received by custom and use. Which, however, let the Reader accept or reject at his own discretion.