In the later books (Lev. 25: 35–38 and Deut. 23: 19, 20) we have perhaps a later and revised form of the statute. “If thy brother be waxen poor, thou shalt relieve him. Take thou no usury of him or increase; fear thy God, that thy neighbor may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.” In Deut. (as above) the law discriminates between “thy brother” and a stranger. “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury.” The ground for this discrimination against the stranger may be a purpose to discourage his residence in the land; or it may be related to the general fact that foreigners were the men of traffic. (The original words for Canaanite and for merchant were the same.) Tradesmen, doing business on borrowed capital, might afford to pay interest; and on every principle of right and justice, ought to do so. But God did not encourage the Israelites in traffic with other nations. It would have been quite too perilous to their morals, and to their religion. The reader will scarcely need the suggestion that the Hebrew law against interest applies in our Christian age only to the case of loans made to the poor to meet their necessities. The spirit of the law unquestionably _does_ apply in such cases, and does _not_ apply to any other. (4.) _Many special statutes contemplated relief for the poor._――――The corners and the gleanings of the harvest field; a forgotten sheaf; a few clusters of grapes also and some olives on the olive tree, must be left for the poor and the stranger (Lev. 19: 9, 10, and 23: 32, and Deut. 24: 19–22)――each of these successive statutes adding somewhat in detail to the preceding.――――The day wages of the poor laborer must be promptly paid, even on the very same day (Lev. 19: 13 and Deut. 24: 14, 15). But especially the sabbatic year (each seventh) was designed to be a special benefaction to the poor. This law (Deut. 15: 1–11) uses chiefly the word “release” in regard to the debts of the poor. Critics are sharply divided over the question whether this release was an entire _remission of debts_, or only a _stay of collection_, putting it over for this one year. In favor of the latter view, Michaelis and others urge that the reason for stay of collection was that no cultivation of land was permitted during this year, and hence there were no crops of this sort, and therefore only diminished means of paying debts. Also that the law might be so abused as mostly to annihilate all rights of property, inasmuch as the statute (v. 9) would virtually put the property of the more wealthy within the control of the less wealthy. Thou shalt not withhold because the year of release is at hand, etc. On the other hand, the arguments for construing the law to mean an actual release of debt in the case of “thy poor brother” or neighbor, are strong, and in my view, conclusive; _e. g._