STRANGER
1057
STRATFORD
10), to eat leavened bread at the time of the Passover (xii, 19), to commit anj' breach of the niarriajje laws (Lev. xviii, 20), to worsliip Molcch (xx, 2), or to eat blood or the tlesh of any animal that had died other- wise than by the hand of man (xvii, 10, 16). He was required to release a Hebrew servant in the year of jubilee (xxv, 47-54), to observe the Day of Atonement (xvi, 29), to perform the rites of puritication when neces- sary (xvii, 15; Numb, xix, 10), and to offer sin-offerings after sins of ignorance (xv, 29). If the stranger was a bondman, he was obliged to submit to circumcision (Exod. xii, 44) ; if he was independent, it was optional with him; but if he remained uncircumcised, he was prohibited from partaking of the Passover (ver.48), and could not be regarded as a full citizen. Liberty was also given in regard to the use of prohibited food to an un- circumcised stranger; for on this ground alone can we harmonize the statements in Deut. xiv, 21 and Lev. xvii, 10, 15. Assuming, however, that the stranger was cir- cumcised, no distinction existed in regard to legal rights between the stranger and the Israelite. " One law" for both classes is a principle affirmed in respect to religious observances (Exod. xii, 49; Numb, xv, 16) and to legal proceedings (Lev. xxiv, 22), and the judges are strictly warned against anj' partiality in their decisions (Deut. i, 16; xxiv, 17, 18). The Israelite is also enjoined to treat him as a brother (Lev. xix, 34; Deut. x, 19), and the precept is enforced in each case bj' a reference to his own state in the land of Egypt. Such precepts were needed in order to counteract the natural tendency to treat persons in the position of strangers with rigor. For, though there was the possibility of a stranger ac- quiring wealth and becoming the owner of Hebrew slaves (Lev. xxv, 47), yet his normal state was one of poverty, as implied in the numerous passages where he is coupled with the fatherless and the widow (e.g. Exod. xxii, 21- 23 ; Deut. x, 18 ; xxiv, 17), and in the special directions respecting his having a share in the feasts that accom- panied certain religious festivals (xvi, 11, 14; xxvi, 11), in the leasing of the corn-field, the vineyard, and the olive-j'ard (Lev. xix, 10; xxiii, 22; Deut. xxiv, 20), in the produce of the triennial tithe (xiv, 28, 29), in the forgotten sheaf (xxiv, 19), and in the spontaneous pro- duction of the soil in the sabbatical year (Lev. xxv, 6). It also appears that the " stranger" formed the class whence the hirelings were drawn — the terms being coupled together in Exod. xii, 45; Lev. xxii, 10; xxv, 6, 40. Such laborers were engaged either by the day (xix, 13 ; Deut. xxiv, 15) or by the year (Lev. xxv, 53), and appear to have been considerately treated, for the condition of the Hebrew slave is favorably compared with that of the hired servant and the sojourner in con- tradistinction to the bondman (ver. 39, 40). A less fortunate class of strangers, probably captives in war or for debt, were reduced to slavery, and were subject to be bought and sold (ver. 45), as well as to be put to task- work, as was the case with the Giljeonites (Josh, ix, 21) and with those whom Solomon employed in the building of the Temple (2 Chron. ii, 18). The liberal spirit of the Mosaic regulations respecting strangers presents a strong contrast to the rigid exclusiveness of the Jews at the commencement of the Christian sera. The growth of this spirit dates from the time of the Babylonian cap- tivity, and originated partly in the outrages which the Jews suffered at the hands of foreigners, and partly through a fear lest their nationality should be swamped by constant admixture with foreigners : the latter motive appears to have dictated the stringent measures adopted by Nehemiah (Nch. ix, 2 ; xiii, 3). Our Lord condemns this exclusive spirit in the parable of the good Samari- tan, where he detines the term " neighbor" in a sense new to his hearers (Luke x, 36). It should be observed, however, that the proselyte (Trpom)\vTo^ in the Sept.= nj in Exod. xii, 19; xx, 10; xxii, 21; xxiii, 9) of the New Test, is the true representative of the stranger of the Old Test., and towards this class a cordial feeling IX.— X X X
was manifested. See Pkoselyte. The term " stran- ger" (gji/of) is generally used in the New Test, in the general sense of forei<pier, and occasionally in its more technical sense as opposed to a citizen (Eph. ii, 19). — Smith. Sec Hosi'itai^ity. For the n"it, zitruh, or "strange woman," see Haklot.
Strangers, Communion of (Lat. commvnio pereyriiHi), a puiiislimeiit to which contumacious cler- gy were subjected in the early Church. It is men- tioned in the Annals of the Council of IJiez (A.D. 439), of Agde (A.D. 506), an<l of Lerida (A.D. 539 ). There has been much discussion as to the nature of the pun- ishment. 1. Some confound it altogether with Itii/ com- munion, as Binius, in his Kates upon the Council of Le- rida, and Hospinian and the old Glossary u])(>n (iratian (Caus. 13, (piiest. 2, c. 11). This can hardly be true, for it is not probable that the ancient Church would use two such different names for the same thing when lay communion was a term so common. Again, they were evidently different from each other, for clergymen re- duced to lay communion were totally and perjietually degraded from their orders, and could not ordinarily be restored to their office again, while those clergymen who had been reduced to the communion of strangers were capable of restoration (Council of Agde, can. 2). 2. Ik'llarmine (/)e Euchur. lib. iv, c. 24) and others take this punishment for lay communion, but assert that lay communion was communion only in one kind. But all public communion in the ancient Church was in both kinds. 3. The author of the (Ihissanj upon Gratian fancies that it signities communion at the hour of death, taking death to be a ])ilgrimage into the next life. 4. Cardinal Bona mentions the fanciful opinion of one Ga- briel Henao that the communion of strangers was that which was given to such clergymen as were enjoined to go on pilgrimage, either temporary or perpetual, by way of penance. Cassandcr and Vossius think the com- munion of strangers means the oblation of the euchari.^t made after some peculiar rite and on some particular days for the use of strangers, and that it was ])ut upon delinquent clergymen as a piniishment to communicate with these. This interpretation is not consistent, how- ever, with the custom of the Church ; for strangers, un- less they had comminiicatory letters to testify in their behalf, were regarded as under suspicion, and were re- fused communion, and onlv allowed common charity. According to these measures, clergymen who were de- linquents were for some time treated much after the same manner, and thereupon said to be reduced to the community of strangers; that is, they might neither officiate as clergymen in celebrating the eucharist nor any other part of their ollice, nor in some cases partici- pate of the eucharist for some time, till they had made satisfaction, but only be allowed a charitable subsist- ence out of the revenues of the Church, without any legal claim to a full proportion, till by a just penance they could regain their former ollice and station. Res- toration was secured by private ])enance, for the order of the Church |iroliibiteil admittance to any clerical de- gree, or return to it after correctiim, al'tiT public pen- ance. See Bingham, ( '/nisi. A iitiq, bk. xvii, ch. iii, § 1 sq.