22 COBBLTT'S [No. 



vation; but even this qualifying observation left the 

 sophistry still ^n -hamei'ul. that his editor, Mr. K.MI 

 who published the work under authority of the House 

 of Commons, did not think it consistent with his re- 

 putation to suffer thi^ passage to go forth unaccom- 

 panied with the following remark: k ' Hut their (the 

 Jews') ordinary punishment brimr entirely j^r///?////-//. 

 could affect him nnly irlii'n hr WQB fouiia in a CO 

 titm to answer it; and therefore the same reasons 

 -which could justify that, can, by no means, be ex- 

 tended to a corporal, much le>s to a cnpidil punish- 

 ment." Certainly : and this is the fair interpretation 

 of these two verses of the Proverbs. PCFFENDORP, 

 one of the greatest authorities that the world knows 

 an\ thin- <!. ofcteipes, upon the argument built upun 

 ihi* text of Scripture, "It may be objected, that. 

 Proverbs, chap. vi. verses 3n. \\\. he is called a thief, 

 and pronounced obnoxious to the penalty of theft, 

 who steals to satisfy his hunger ; but whoever closely 

 views and con<ider^ that text will iind that the thief 

 there censured is neither in such I'.rtn-ntc ///r/w/ty 

 as we are now supposing, nor seems to have fallen 

 into his needv condition merely by ill fortune, with- 

 out his own idleness or default : fur the context im- 

 plies, that he had d //O//.NV awl LSno-i t to 



make seven-fold restitution; which he might have 

 either sold or pawned ; a chapman or creditor heini: 

 easily to be met with in times of plenty and peace; 

 for we have no grounds to think that the fact there 

 mentioned is supposed to be committed, either in time 

 of war, or upon account of the extraordinary price of 

 provisions." 



28. Besides this, I think it is clear that these two 

 verses of the Proverbs do not apply to one and the 

 >c person; for in the first verse it is said, that men 

 do not dt-s/n'fft' a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul 

 when he is hungry. How, then, are we to reconcile 

 this with morality? Are we not to despise a thief? 

 It is clear that the word thief does not apply to the 

 first case ; but to the second case only ; and that the 

 distinction was here made for the express purpose of 



