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 reputation to suffer this
passage to go forth unaccompanied with the following remark: "But their
(the Jews') ordinary punishment being entirely _pecuniary_, could affect
him _only when he was found in a condition to answer it_; and therefore
the same reasons which could justify that, can, by no means, be extended
to a _corporal_, much less to a _capital_ punishment." Certainly: and this
is the fair interpretation of these two verses of the Proverbs.
PUFFENDORF, 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, without his own idleness or default: for the
context implies, 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 preventing
the man who took food to relieve his hunger _from being confounded with
the thief_. Upon any other interpretation, it makes the passage contain
nonsense and immorality; and, indeed, GROTIUS says that the latter text
does not apply to the person mentioned in the former. The latter text
could not mean a man taking food from necessity. It is _impossible_ that
it can mean t