22 COBBETT'S [No. 



vation; but even this qualifying observation left the 

 sophistry still so shameful, that his editor, Mr. EMLYN, 

 who published the work under authority of the House 

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

 putation to suffer this passage to go forth unaccom- 

 panied with the following remark: "But their (the 

 Jews') ordinary punishment being entirely pecuniary, 

 could affect him only when he was found in a condi- 

 tion to answer it; and therefore the same reasons 

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

 tended to a corporal, much less to a capital punish- 

 ment." Certainly : and this is the fair interpretation 

 of these two verses of the Proverbs. PDFFENDORF, 

 one of the greatest authorities that the world knows 

 anything of, observes, upon the argument built upon 

 this text of Scripture, " It may be objected, that, in 

 Proverbs, chap. vi. verses 30, 31, he is called a thief, 

 and pronounced obnoxious to the penalty of theft, 

 who steals to satisfy his hunger ; but whoever closely 

 views and considers that text will find that the thief 

 there censured is neither in such extreme necessity 

 as we are now supposing, nor seems to have fallen 

 into his needy condition merely by ill fortune, with- 

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

 plies, that he had a house and goods sufficient to 

 make seven-fold restitution; which he might have 

 either sold or pawned ; a chapman or creditor being 

 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 

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

 do not despise 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 



