Deuteronomy 25

fall short of it, and therefore they required him to stop at the thirty-ninth stroke; Yet, if any man deserved this punishment twice together, they did sometimes exceed the number of forty, and went so far as to sentence such a malefactor to receive seventy-nine stripes; as Mr. Selden observes in the same place: where he likewise notes, on the other side, that if a man was so w r eak, that he was ready to faint away, before he had received thirty-nine, the judges ordered the executioner to stay his hand. Lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.’] Being beaten like a dog, as we speak; that is, so cruelly, that the marks of it remained afterward, to make him contemptible. Which the law was so far from intending, that the Jews say no man was to be reproached afterward with this whipping, or the crime for which he was whipped, because he was still a brother, as the word here is. And therefore he was to be restored to the same respect among them that he had before, nay, to any office which. before he enjoyed; except he was the president of the Sanhedrin, who was neverto be restored to his power, if he had been scourged, nor equally honoured with his inferior colleagues. So Schickard observes, out of Maimonides, in the forenamed book, p, 62. I ■ father, no obligation lay upon him: " For brethren (saith Maimonides) by the mother’s side, are not accounted brethren, either in the matter of inheritances, or of marrying a brother’s wife: but they are as if they were not brethren; for there is no fraternity which is not from the father." (See Heideggerus Exercit. i. de (Econom. Patriarch 10. 16. and Selden,’ Uxor. Hebr. p. 80.) But the king, they say, was excepted from this law, as Schickard observes in his Jus Regium, p. 56. And perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.] This was a law before the time of Moses, among the patriarchs, as we learn from Gen. xxxviii. 7, 8, &c. And it was so well understood to,be a boundcn duty, that the Hebrew doctors say, it was not necessary there should be any solemn marriage celebrated jvith such widow; because, unless her husband’s brother renounced her, she was esteemed his wife, min hashamajim, by the authority of God; and that, whether she had been only espoused by the deceased brother, or his complete wife. Yet by the constitution of their elders, he was to contract with her before* two witnesses, and give her a piece of money; before which it was not lawful for him to lie with her. There was to be also a sacred benediction of the marriage; and her dowry assigned her by an instrument. But if he did lie with her before these solemnities, there was no formal contract exacted of him afterward; he was only scourged for contemning the constitutions of their elders, and compelled to settle a dowry upon her. See Selden, lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 12. where, he observes, that, urease a man left several widows, if his brother either married, or renounced one of them, all the rest were free from this law..And if several brethren died, and left every one of them a wife, without issue, the surviving brother might either take or reject them all; or take one or two, and let the rest alone, as he pleased. And if the’ -eldest brother, that married his brother’s relict, died also. without issue, then the next surviving brother was to marry her; and so forward, according to the case supposed in the gospel. And yet that brother only was admitted to this marriage,. who was born before Jlis brother’s death; which they gather from the first words of this verse, if brethren dwell together; which cannot be meant of one born after his brother’s death. They might likewise Jiave concluded, from this phrase, that such of the brethren as Jiad wives already were not bound to take her to wife, buttonly he that was unmarried; who might be supposed to be meant by him that dwelt together with.his brother, and was not yet gone to a house of his own. But I fear I have said, too much of a matter now quiteantiquated, unless it be. among some of the Indians ancl Persians, and among the Tartars that inhabit Iberia and Albania, who stillretain this custom; as Huetius observes, in his Demonstrate Evangel, propos. iv. cap. 11. n. 1. her impudence; and for the hurt which, perhaps, the man might have received hereby in those parts whereby mankind is propagated. Thine eye shall not pity her.] The word her riot being in the Hebrew text, several of the Jews (and Grotius seems to approve their opinion) interpret this law quite otherwise; as if the woman might both take hold of his secrets for the delivery of her husband, and also cut off the other man’s hand; and they should not pity him who suffered thus, nor punish the woman, who might do any thing of this nature, to preserve one so dear to her as her husband: but this is a very forced interpretation. Maimonides is a little more reasonable in his exposition of these words, which he will have to signify, that they should lay a fine or a mulct upon her for her immodesty; which is suitable to their interpretation of that law, Exod. xxi. 24. " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth," &c. (Sec L’Empereur on Bava-kama, p. 198.) But it is an intolerable presumption in Maimonides to say, that if any one interpret this of a proper abscission of the woman’s hand, though he pretend to be a prophet, and say, The Lord hath said unto mc these words, Thou sJialt cut off her hand, are to be understood as the words sound (i. e. literally as we speak), and do a miracle to confirm it, he is to be looked upon as a lying prophet, and may be put to death, because it is contrary to the constant tradition of their elders. So he writes Seder Zeraim, translated by our famous Dr.Pocock, p. 15. 38. Upon which principle they killed our blessed Saviour. Vcr. 13. Thoushalt not have in thy bag divers weights."] In the Hebrew the words are, a stone and a stone; for their weights were then made of stone, as are ours now commonly of lead or brass, A great and a small.] To buy in commodities with the great, and sell them out again by the small; which was then and is now an usual way of cheating.

Deuteronomy 25:1

IF there be a controversy between men, and they come into judgment. It is evident, by the sequel, that he speaks of criminal causes. Tliat the judges may judge them.] Who were appointed* to be constituted and settled in all their gates. (Sec xvi. 18.) Then they shall justify the righteous.’] Acquit him who is falsely acciised of doing any wrong. And condemn the ivicked.] To suffer such punishment as his crime deserves.

Deuteronomy 25:2

And itshttll be, if the wicked man bt worthy to be beaten. For what crimes men were to be beaten, by the sentenco of the lower courts, as well as by that of the great Sanhedrin, see Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13. n. 7, 8. They were in all, as they reckon, two hundred and seven. The judge shall cause him to lie down.] By his officers wha attended the court.- Before his face.] In open court. But he was first to be admonished; and the witnesses were to.be produced against him, as in capital causes: after which the judge commanded him to lie down before a low pillar, to which his hands were tied; and he being stripped down to his waist, the executioner stood behind him upon a stone, where he scourged him both on the back and breast, with thongs made of an ox’s hide, before the face of the judges: for though one judge be only mentioned, the execution was done before the whole bench, after the sentence was pronounced by one of them. According to this fault.] For the violation of a negative precept he might be scourged before the court; consisting of three judges; but not for the violation of an affirmative, which was to be done before the court of twenty-three, as Selden observes in the place forenamed, sect. 6. By a certain number.] He was condemned to receive more or fewer stripes, proportionable to his crime: and all the’ time the executioner was scourging him, the principal judge proclaimed these words, (Deut. xxviii. 58.) with a loud voice, " If thou observest not all the words of this law, &c. then the Lord shall make thy plagues wonderful," &c. adding those, xxix. 9. " Keep therefore the w r ords of this covenant, and do them," &c. Concluding at last with those of the Psalmist, lxxviii. 38. " But he being full of compassion, forgave their iniquities." Which he was to repeat, if he had finished these sayings before the full number of stripes were given. (See Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13. n. 6. which I find in the title Maccoth, cap. 3. sect. 16. and see G. Schickard, Miscbpat Hammelech, cap. 2. p. 57, 58.)

Deuteronomy 25:3

Forty stripes he may give him. Which was more merciful than the Athenian law mentioned by /Eschincs, which was inflicted upon criminals, ry S^otn’p fiaartyi 7rtvrfjKQvra 7rX7ryac> fifty stripes by the public scourge. But none among the Jews were to receive above forty for any crime; fewer they might inflict, though not more. And not exceed.] Of this they were so careful, that as one of the three judges commanded the executioner to strike, another told the stripes, while the third pronounced the sentences out of the Scripture beforementioned, to admonish him, and every one else, of the justice of the punishment. So Schickard observes, out of Maimonides, in the place abovenamed. For the prevention also of excess in this* punishment, they were wont to give but thirty-nine stripes, nnd no more,; though tho offender was ever so strong or pertinacious. Thus the Jews generally affirm,’ and it appears to bo true, by what St. Paul saith of himself, 2 Cor. xi. 24:." Of the Jews five times I received forty stripes save one;" which is exactly the phrase of Mischna in Maccoth, cap. 3. sect. 10. where they interpret forty stripes by the nfcxt number to forty, i. e. thirty-nine. For which they give a foolish reason in the Gemara (as Joh. Coch there observes); but Maimonides gives a sober account, that this was ordered, lest the executioner, by carelessness, might exceed the number of forty, beyond which the law required them not to go; but it was lawful to

Deuteronomy 25:4

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the com. It was the custom, not only in this country, but among the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, to use oxen in treading out their corn, either with their feet barely, or by drawing a cart, or other instrument,. over it. And while they were at work some muzzled them, and others daubed their mouths with dung; others hung a wooden instrument about their necks, which hindered them from stooping down; or put sharp pricks in their mouths; or kept them without drink; or covered their corn with skins, that they might not be able to come at it. (See Bochartus, in his Hierozoicon,par. i. lib.ii. cap. 40. p. 401.) Which inhumanity God here forbids, and instructs his people, by shewing mercy to their beasts, to be kind one to another, particularly to their servants and labourers, but, above all, to those who laboured in the work of the ministry, for the salvation of souls, as St. Paul argues, 1 Cor. ix. 9. (See Bonfrerius.)

Deuteronomy 25:5

If brethren dwell together. They are said to dwell together, not only who were in the same family, but in the same country, Gen, xiii.- 5, 6. And one of them die, and have no child.] If he left a child, though he were a mamzer, or an apostate, his next brother was not bound to marry his wife; but if he left a child by a slave, or a gentile, he.was. If he left his wife with child, and she miscarried, he was bound; but if she brought a live child, after she had gone with it nine months, he was free. And by a child is to be understood either a son or daughter. (See Selden, lib. de Successionibus ad bona Defuncti, cap. 14.) The wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger!] This shews the end of this law was to preserve inheritances in the family to which they belonged. Her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.] The Hebrew doctors understand this obligation to lie upon the eldest brother that was surviving; and only of a brother that was by the same father. For though they had the same motfiqr,, if they had not the same vol* x.

Deuteronomy 25:6

And it shall be, that the first-born whicfi she beareth shall succeed in the name of his.brother.which is dead. Shall be reputed the son and heir of the deceased; but there was.no necessity to give him his name. That his name be not put out in Israel.] That a family in Israel might not be lost; for this was a provision for the preservation of families. (See Nuinb. xxvii. 4.) And therefore, if there was no brother, properly so called, to perform this duty, the next of kin (who is also called a 5JE [chap. XXV. brother in a large sense) was bound to marry her. See of. this word name, Numb, xxvii. 4.

Deuteronomy 25:7

And if a man like not to take his brother’s tvife. Here now was a great mitigation of that ancient law, which had been before the time of Moses, that a man might refuse to marry his brother’s wife, if he did not like her. Which was not permitted before, as appears by the story of Onan, (Gen. xxxviii.) who married Tamar against his mind (as his behaviour towards her demonstrates), which he needed not to have done, if this permission, which here follows, had been then in use. Then let his brother’s wife go tip to the gate.] Where the court of judgment sat, as I have often observed. (See xvi. 18.) Unto the elders.] A court consisting of three elders was sufficient to judge in this matter. And it was of no consequence, whether these three were created elders, according to the solemn form among them, by laying on of hands; but it was sufficient, if they were such as they called elders of the street, or common men. (See lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 15. and lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 7. n. 3.) And say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise np unto his brother a name in Israel: he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.] She was to put a bill of complaint against him in these words.

Deuteronomy 25:8

Then the elders of the city shall call him, and speak to him, &c. He being summoned to. appear before them, together with the woman (who they say was to be fasting)? 4 and two witnesses at the least, she opened the whole matter. And then the question being asked, whether it were three months since her husband’s death (which were to be allowed, to see whether she proved with child or not), and whether this man was next of kin; and a satisfactory answer being returned, the judges laid tho law before them, admonished them seriously to consider, on each side, their age, or any disparity or incommodity that might bo in their marriage, and accordingly to resolve; and then they asked the man, in express words, whether he would marry her, and raise up seed to his brother. If he stood to his first resolution, as it hero follows, and said, I like not to take Iter; then the woman read the words foregoing, ver. 7. My husbancCs brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, &c. and then proceeded to do as follows, ver. 9. (See Selden, in the book forenamed, cap. 14.)

Deuteronomy 25:9

Then shall his brother’s tvife come unto him, in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot. From his right foot, as the Hebrew doctors say; which was done, I suppose, as a mark of infamy, for his want of natural affection; which made him unworthy to be reckoned among freemen, but rather deserve to be thrust down into the condition of slaves, who were wont to go barefoot. And spit in his face.] In contempt of him who had despised her. The Hebrew doctors, indeed, expounded this only of her spitting upon the earth, directly before his face, so that the spitting might be seen by the judges. And they give this as a reason, why the king was not subject to this law of marrying his brother’s wife, (and they might add the high-priest, Lev. xxi. 13, 14.) because it would have been below his dignity to have had his shoe pulled off (if he had not liked the woman), or to have had her spit before him, as Bartenora’s w r ords are: which would have been a better reason, if they had said, it had been very unbecoming for her to have spit in the king’s face. See Selden, lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 10. and Hackspan, lib. i. Miscellan. cap. 7. n. 8. where he observes, the king was hound to all the six hundred and thirteen precepts, but only this of marrying his brother’s wife. And shall answer.] To his peremptory refusal of her. And say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.] She was immediately to read these words of the law. And then the judges gave her a writing, signifying his renunciation of her, in the manner now related, that so it might be free for any other man to marry her. See the form of it in Selden, lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 14. where he hath observed certain niceties about the kind of shoe that was to be pulled off, but gives no account why this ceremony was used.

Deuteronomy 25:10

And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. As soon as she had loosed his shoe, both the judges, and all* the by-standers round about, cried aloud three times, The shoe is pulled off, the shoe is pulled off, the shoe is pulled off! And thereupon his family had this name, as a disgrace, for not doing the duty of a brother. Some will have this pulling off the shoe to have been only a mark, that he parted with his right to her; but these words shew that it was in the nature of a brand upon him and his posterity. And so Josephus saith, lib. iv. Archaclog. cap. 8. that he went out of the court with a.mark of ignominy. Which doth not relate merely to her spitting in his face; for Maimonides saith expressly, (in his More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 49.) that this action (viz. of pulling off the shoe, as wxll as the other) was a foul and ignominious tiling in those days, intended to move men to perform the duty of a husband’s brother, that they might avoid such reproach. J. Wagenseil hath given us the exact form of the shoe, which was used on such occasions, in his Annotations upon Sota, p. 664. and see 1212. where he commends Leo Modena’s account of this whole business; which differs not at all from that which I have given; only I observe that he saith, when the woman taketh off the shoe from the man’s foot, she lifts it up on high, and throweth it against the ground; which I take to be a note of indignation and contempt. And he saith also, it was anciently accounted a more laudable thing to fake her, than to release her; and imputes it to the corruption of men’s manners, and the hardness of their hearts, that now they look only after worldly ends, cither of riches or beauty: which makes very few in these days (especially among the Dutch and Italian Jews) to marry their brother’s widow. (See his History of the Rites and Customs of tho Jews, par. iv. chap. 7.)

Deuteronomy 25:11

When men strive together one with another. Fall out (as we speak) and fight, cither with their fists or sticks, or other weapons. And the tvife of one dratveth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him.] Who had wounded him, and was likely, I suppose, to be too hard for him. And putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets.] As a sure, means to make him let go his hold of her husband, that he might preserve himself.

Deuteronomy 25:12

Then thou shalt cut off her hand. This was to be done by the sentence of the cburt, as a punishment for

Deuteronomy 25:14

Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, &c. In the Hebrew, an ephah and an ephah: for this was the most known measure among them, by which all the rest of tbeir measures were made. (See Exod. xvi. 36.) From hence it was that Lucius Ampelius thought Mochos, that is Moses (who by ancient writers is called Moschos), was the inventor of weights and measures, because he took such pious care there should be no deceit in them, as the most learned Huetius observes in his Dcmonst Evangel, prop. iv. cap. 8. n. 16.

Deuteronomy 25:15

But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, and a perfect and just measure. Neither too scanty nor too large. See Lev. xix. 35, 36. where all these three verses arc sufficiently explained. Tltat thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.] Justice, as well as charity, was necessary to prolong their happiness in the land of promise, (xvi. 20.) Vef. 16. For all that do such tilings, and all that do unrighteously.] All that any way wrong their neighbours. Are an abomination to the Lord thy God.] This is an expression commonly used, to declare God’s hatred of all idolatrous practices. (See xviii. 9. 12.)

Deuteronomy 25:17

Remember what Amalek did unto thee bytheway, when ye were come forth out of Egypt. The Jews have framed three precepts out of this and the two following verses. One is, that they should remember what Amalek did unto them. Which Maimonides, according to their oral tradition, refers to the mouth, that they should always be talking of what Amalek did to them. The second, not to forget it; which he refers to their heart: that they should never let slip out of their mind the hatred Amalek had to them. And the third, that they should blot out their remembrance from wider heaven, i. e. utterly destroy them, and leave none of them remaining. But none of the Jews have explained this better than Abarbincl; who, inquiring why such severity was expressed against the Amalekites, when the Edomites, who were of the same race, were dealt withal very favourably, (as we rctfd before, xxiii. 8.) observes four reasons given here by Moses himself, why they should remember, when they were settled in the land of Canaan, and able to effect it, to exterminate this nation: for that is the single precept he gives them in charge; only he bids them not forget what Amalek had done to deserve that heavy sentence long ago passed upon them, and re^ maining on record, (Exod. xvii. 14 — 16.) confirmed with a solemn oath, though they were not able to execute it tilL they were settled in the land of promise. The first of these reasons is, because, whereas men undertake war against others, either to defend their own country, or to subdue their enemies’ country, the Amalekites came forth against the Israelites without any such cause; for the Israelites did not pass by their country, and consequently gave them no apprehension of an invasion; nor had the Israelites, then possession of any land of their own, which might tempt the Amalekites to covet it, and drive them out of it. But they undertook this war, with a petulant malice, only to bring them into slavery again. Which is the thing here intimated In this verse, Remember what Amalek did to thee, &c. Unto which he should have added, that their barbarity was much aggravated, by their assaulting them when they were newly delivered from grievous oppressions, and were unaccustomed to war, and without any provocation.

Deuteronomy 25:18

How he met thee by the way. This the same Abarbincl takes to be the second cause of God’s high displeasure against Amalek: that, whereas it is the custom of all countries, before they begin a war, to denounce it by heralds, shewing the grounds of it, they rose up against the Israelites unexpectedly; which was a piece of the basest treachery. Which he thinks is intimated in these words, he met thee by the way; that is, on a sudden, by surprise, without any notice by a declaration of war. He might have added, that they did this when the Israelites were in a journey, and had travelled a great way, and in a wilderness, where they stood in need of refreshment; but were very unfit for fighting. Then, saith one of their rabbins, in Pirke Eliezer, cap. 44. " they came in like a bear in their way, to devour the mother with the children." And smote the hindermost of thee, even all that were feeble behiud thee, when thou wast faint and weary.] Tins he makes the third cause; that they did not offer them a pitched battle, but only fell upon their rear (as we speak), and thereout off such as lagged behind through feebleness and weariness, being unable to march so fast as the rest of their brethren. This is, in a very sober sense, suitable to the use.of the word in Josh. x. 19. But what some of the Jews say, that the Amalekites cut off the privy members Of certain of the tribe of Dan, in derision of circumcision, 5E2 Microsoft ® [chap. XXVI. is disowned by others of them, as having no foundation. See Schickard, in his Jus Itcgium, p. 112, 113. where Carpzovius observes, this was only a fancy of their midraschim, or preachers, wherewith they entertained the people in their sermons, on occasion of the ambiguity of the word we translate cut off the hindermost. Which R. Zacharias much better interprets, in Pirke Eliczcr, cap. 44. where lie makes it to signify all that were behind the cloud (which protected those who were under it), as those who went out of the camp, by reason of some uucleanness, to wash themselves. But this is no more than an ingenious conceit; for the laws about cleansing were not then delivered. And feared not God.] This he makes the fourth cause; that though they feared Israel, whom they durst not look in the. face, but. cut them off behind, yet they feared not God, who had done such wonderful things for them in Egypt, and brought them thence with a mighty hand, and overthrown Pharaoh in the Red Sea. Which might have made them understand, that he sets up kings and pulls down kings, as Daniel speaks, ii.21. But instead of considering this, they would have profaned the glory of the Lord (as he speaks), by enslaving those whom he had but “newly delivered, and continued under the protection of a glorious cloud. Unto all which may be added, that they were originally derived from the same stock with the Israelites; viz. from Isaac*

Deuteronomy 25:19

Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee restfromall thy enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. God did not require them to put this command in execution immediately after they were possessed of the land of Canaan, but after they were well settled ther.e: so that there were some ages passed, before they went about it; and then God himself put them in mind of it; or rather strictly enjoined it to be performed by Saul their first king: and we do not find them blamed for not doing it in the time of the judges, (1 Sam. xv. 1—3.) TIwu shalt blot oat the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.] So God commandeth Saul in the place now mentioned, xitterly destroy all they have, and spare them wot; but slay both men and women, &c. For by the same justice that one person is cut off, a whole family, or a whole nation, may be utterly destroyed: that other families or nations, seeing or hearing God’s judgments upon them, may be moved to flee from that wickedness for which they are punished. They are the words of Maimonidcs, par. iii. More Nevochim, cap. 41. If we could believe all that the Talmudists say, we might think there were some among the Jews who endeavoured to mollify the severity of this pTecept: for they tell a story in Bava-bathra of Joab’s master, who taught him to read it thus; Blot out zechar, ihemale of Amalek, not zecher, the remembrance* But at the same time they tell us, Joab thought to have killed him for leadings him into an error. Thou shalt not forget it.] This is not a distinct precept, Jwt only a repetition of the foregoing; to imprint it more on their minds and hearts. And accordingly the Jews pretend to have had their hearts so set upon it, that when the officers were about to proclaim freedom from war to those persons mentioned xx. 5, 6, &c. they always excepted the war against the seven nations and Amalek, in which, every body was bound to assist. I shall end this matter with an observation of Abarbinel, that in this paragraph about Amalek, the injunction which God gave to Moses, Exod. xvii. 14. was fulfilled by him: Write this for a memorial in a book. No other book, saith he, is hereby meant, but the book of the law, which when Moses wrote, he was bound to mention this precept about Amalek; which he doth in this place. And if we suppose that he immediately wrote a distinct history of this matter, yet he inserted it afterward into the Pentateuch, both here and in the book of Exodus. *

When thou beatest thine olive-tree. As they were wont to do, in those countries, with sticks/to bring down the olives. Thou shall not go over the bouglts’ again.] Not search the boughs, after they are beaten, whether any be left. It shall be for the stranger, &c] Who might go into the olive-yards, after the owner had carried out his fruit, and gather what they found still remaining on the trees.

When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou slidlt not glean it afterward. By making a new gathering after the first. But if tho poor themselves left any behind, after the usual time allowed for the gathering such fruits or corn as were left for them, it was lawful for the owner to take it himself; and he was not bound, either to pay the poor the price ef it, or to leave it for the beasts and birds. For the command is (say the Jewish doctors, who nicely scan these things), that it shall be for the poor, and that it be left for them; but not any thing given them in lieu of it/(Sce Selden, in the forenamed place, p. 699.) It shall be for the stranger, for thefaiherless, and for the widow.’] The Jewish doctors,’ by the stranger here mentioned, in this and the foregoing verses, would have only proselytes of justice understood, who had entirely embraced the Jewish religion; so that other proselytes, and mere gentiles, had no right to these things. For by the law, say they, concerning the tithe for the poor, (xiv. 29.) the Levite and the stranger are put together: and the Levite being a child of the covenant, so must the sti-angcr be, who isjoined with him. But this restriction confined this charity within such narrow bounds, that they themselves are not satisfied wifh it-‘and therefore they add, that though such only as were within the covenant had a right to these things by the law, yet, if proselytes of the gate, or mere gentiles, mixed themselves with the Jews, by the decree -of their wise men, they were not to be hindered from gathering their share in these fruits of the earth which were left for the poor. And they give this reason for it, because of the way of peace, that is, offices of humanity and charity ought to be extended to all. (Sec Selden, p. 700.) i

And thou slialt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing. If they had been only strangers there, and neglected by the natives of the country, the remembrance,of God’s mercy in providing for them had been a powerful motive to obey this command: and therefore the remembrance of the slavery and grievous oppressions under which they there groaned was a far greater. (See ver, 18.) CHAP. XXV..