“The Scourge of God.”

—A Correspondent, whose letter will be found in another part of this Number, has “taken me to task,” as it is called, upon the subject of my notions, relative to the charge against Buonaparté, that he is the “scourge of God”. A charge, indeed, it is not, in my view of the matter; but, rather, an exculpation.—This gentleman, who calls himself a constant reader, sets out with observing, though, I must confess, in a very moderate strain, that I do not understand matters of polemic divinity. He is very right; but, then, he should bear in mind, that I never pretended to understand them; and, he must permit me to observe, in my turn, that to say that I am ignorant of what I am writing about, or have been writing about, is but an indifferent opening to an answer to my positions or my arguments.—This subject, I am told by my correspondent, is not my fort; but, be it remembered, that I have never attempted to enter into it, except in cases, where our adversaries have mixed up religion with politics, and in such a way as made it impossible to separate them, in any commentary upon their writings. If divine right; or divine power; or divine authority, be introduced into a political discussion, it must make part of the subject on one side as well as on the other side. If the adversaries of our liberties will, in future, forbear to enrol Divine Providence on their side; if they will forbear thus to degrade, or endeavour to degrade the Deity, for the purpose of giving a sanction to the acts of tyrants, they will never find me introducing religion, or religious subjects, into the Register. But, as long as Napoleon, or any other despot, though more hypocritical than he,¹¹⁹ shall put forth his claims to obedience, upon the ground of his being upheld by God, so long shall I, as often as the case requires, endeavour to show the folly of all such claims. So long as there are men to call upon us to make war, to spend hundreds of millions of money, and to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives, / in the name of Divine Providence, it will be right and necessary to inquire into the probable share which Divine Providence has in the matter.—So much for the general objection to the mixing of religion with politics. It is not I who cause this unnatural mixture; but those vile men, who are continually dragging Divine Providence into the discussion.—My reasoning is, too, always, upon these points, hypothetical. I pretend to know nothing at all about the will of God in these political matters. I merely take the positions of the adversary, and show, or endeavour to show, that they are false; or, that, if true, they make against, instead of for, the hateful and bloody cause of the tyrants of the earth, the enemies of human liberty and happiness. If, in doing this, I wound the prejudices of men, who have never thought for themselves; if I offend men, who will have it, that the Bible was dictated by God to be a rule to men, and yet, that men ought to be execrated for imitating the examples there given;¹²⁰ men, who will have it, that Napoleon may have been an instrument in the hands of God to do certain things, and yet, that those who adore God, ought to execrate Napoleon for doing those things; men, who think, or pretend to think, that God sent Napoleon to Moscow, and that now, to punish him for going to Moscow, he is sending the Cossacks to burn Paris. If I offend men of this sort, I am not sorry for it; for, I am very sure, that such men are utterly incapable of thinking right upon any of the matters, with regard to which it is my wish to produce an impression on their minds. Such men, though they may talk about liberty, do not, and cannot understand what it means. They are the creatures of habit, of error, of passion; fit to make part of a rabble, but quite unfit for any thing beyond it.—I now come to the particular points of my correspondent’s letter.—Certain writers having denominated Napoleon the “Scourge of God,” and then imputed to himself the guilt, the infamy, of the acts committed in that capacity, I showed the inconsistency, the folly, the absurdity, of such notions. My correspondent, / however, appears to think, that there was no inconsistency in them. He says, that there is a great difference between positively authorizing an act, and only permitting it; between causing an evil and subsequently converting it to good. And then he asks me, whether Nebuchodonosor was not employed by God to chastise his chosen people, and whether he was, for that reason, guiltless of the excesses he committed against that ill-fated, but ungrateful nation.—Now, in the first place, it sounds a little oddly, to call a nation ill-fated, who were God’s chosen people, and who, as we are afterwards told by this same correspondent, were under the immediate government of God, who was their lawgiver, and who gave them his particular commands, as the Scripture tells us, even as to the mode in which they ought to go to the privy.¹²¹ It sounds odd, I say, to call such a nation an ill-fated nation.—As to what Nebuchodonosor did, I do not pretend to be a judge of that; but, if he was “employed” by God to chastise the Jews, he must have been guiltless in the case, because God was almighty, and compelled him as well as employed him. But, then, my correspondent has his salvo here; for, he talks about “excesses.” If, indeed, the grass-eating king went beyond his tether, that is another matter.¹²² It is not, indeed, easy to conceive how his almighty, and all-seeing, and ever-present employer should suffer him to do more against his chosen people than he wished him to do. I tether my cows, for instance, and it now and then happens, that, tempted by the ungrazed pasture, they pull the pin out of the ground and rove, for a time, at large. But, I am not all-powerful, all-seeing, and ever-present. If I were, the length of the tether would describe the radius of their ramblings.—Be this as it may, however, my correspondent, in lugging in the excesses of the grass-eating king, deviates from the point. For, be it borne in mind, that the notion of our adversaries was, that Napoleon was an instrument in the hands of God. They talked of no excesses; and, indeed, they did well to avoid this shocking absurdity, of a man partly an instrument and partly a free agent.— But, more of this when we have seen a case stated by my correspondent in illustration of his doctrine.—Suppose, says he, A possesses an unlimited power over his two slaves B and C. If C, for some offence, has justly forfeited his life, and A commands B to punish him with death, it is / evident that B is a mere passive instrument in the hands of A, and is in no way chargeable for what he has done. But, if A, resolving to punish C, finds B predisposed to murder him, but without commanding or even interfering further, than by refusing to prevent what will answer his purposes of justice, suffers B to put his design into execution, it is clear, that though B may be called the instrument of A’s vengeance, he is still chargeable with the guilt of the deed, suggested by his own malice.—So that, if a jailer were to murder a condemned felon, he might be called, might he, the instrument of the government, and yet be hanged himself for the offence? And the government might, might it, if informed of the intended murder, very innocently permit this execution of the design and end of the law, and then cause the jailer to be tucked decently up for the deed, though the government had the power of prevention, and must be considered as accessories before the fact?—Was there ever any thing so monstrous as this?—But, into what absurdities do not men fall when once they begin to make the Deity a direct and immediate actor in the affairs of men!—To apply this illustration to the case of Napoleon, my correspondent first supposes, that Napoleon, as well as the scourged nations, were both under the absolute and immediate power of God. He next supposes, that the scourged nations richly deserved all the scourging that they got. This is supposing a great deal, and is quite sufficient to stop the mouths of all those hypocrites, who affect to pity them, while, in fact, they are only indulging their malice against Buonaparté, and endeavouring to perpetuate, for their own emolument, war against him. But, the salvo is, that, though these nations so richly deserved the scourge, like the slave C, the slave B, who represents very aptly Buonaparté, was predisposed to scourge them, whether they deserved scourging or not.—Now, before we go any further, how does my correspondent happen to know, that Napoleon was predisposed to the acts complained of? from what source does he draw his knowledge upon this subject? has he received his information from Napoleon, or from God himself? If he will have it that God immediately interferes in the affairs of men, how does he know, and what reason has he to think, that Napoleon was not urged on and supported by God in doing all that he has done?—Besides, what does he mean by permitting? He ought to bear in mind, / that he is speaking of a Being, who is all-powerful, all-seeing and ever-present. What such a Being permits, he must will. And, therefore, to say that he permitted Buonaparté to scourge the guilty nations of Europe, is, in fact, the very same thing as to say that he compelled him to scourge them, and that he was neither more nor less than an instrument in the hands of God. So that, this illustration of my correspondent, and all these qualifications of his, leave the matter just where it was before, except, indeed, that he acknowledges that which the anti-jacobins never have acknowledged; namely, that the scourged nations richly merited their scourging.—I return, therefore, to my former argument; to wit, either Napoleon has been an instrument in the hands of Divine Providence, or he has not. If not, why do you call him the scourge of God? If he has been an instrument in the hands of God, why do you blame him for executing his divine commission?—My correspondent asks me, “were the Jews, think ye, less criminal in having sacrificed the Son of God, because he had been delivered up by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God?” That is a question which I do not choose to answer. I am not going to say that a set of scoundrels who put Jesus Christ to death for promulgating opinions hostile to the interests of knavish priests, were not guilty of a most foul and abominable crime. I am not going to say any thing in justification of these persecutors of opinions; these legal murderers.¹²³ But I will not meddle with the question at all, because I will not, in spite of the temptation, enter into a religious controversy, and because my correspondent cannot make the case which he has cited in point, until he finds it recorded in the scriptures that the scourged nations of Europe were delivered up by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God.—Another topic on which my correspondent has chosen to observe, is that of plunder in war.—In writing upon the case of Moreau,¹²⁴ I had occasion to notice the immense sums which he had amassed together during his campaigns; and I had occasion to observe, that plunder was the soldier’s legitimate harvest, in proof of which I cited from the holy scriptures an instance, wherein God himself, through his instrument, Moses, had warranted such plunder, particularly in the case of the unfortunate Midianites, who were first stripped, by God’s chosen people, of all their goods and chattels, and were then, / by the command of Moses, the servant of the Lord, all slaughtered, men, women, and children.—Here, my correspondent chooses to stop in his quotation, and he falsifies, too, for I never said that they were all slaughtered, the fact being, and as I fully stated it, that all the girls, who had not known man, were kept, by the command of Moses, and divided amongst the soldiers, or men of war. And this was a very material point; because these girls formed a very considerable part of the plunder; and I introduced them with great care, in order to show to what extent plunder in war was authorized by the holy scriptures; aye, by that book, that very book, in the reading of which, or the hearing of which we are told to look for eternal life, and in promoting the circulation of which, such immense sums are now employed, and so many persons of great authority and of great wealth are engaged.¹²⁵—My correspondent does not deny, however, that plunder is the soldier’s legitimate harvest, and, therefore, he can see no just cause, probably, for that outcry against Napoleon which has been set up on account of his having enriched himself, or, rather, enriched France, with the spoils of Italy; nor would he, perhaps, be very much inclined to censure the Cossacks, who seem to be the favourites in England, for any plunder that they might make in France, after the Israelitish fashion. But, says he, though I do not deny that plunder is the soldier’s legitimate harvest, I deny that you can justify French plunder from any example of plunder raised by the Jewish soldiers; and this is the curious ground upon which he founds his denial.— He says, that “the form of the Jewish government, was that of a real Theocracy, that is, a government under the immediate superintendence of God himself, who was the ruler of the Jews, not under the simple title of governor of the universe, but was, strictly speaking, the temporal sovereign, who gave them a code of laws, which was the sole direction of their political conduct, and every authority, whether ordinary, or extraordinary, received its delegation immediately from him.” Therefore, says he, there can be no similarity in the cases on which to ground a parity of reasoning.—If this be the case, away goes at once all the Old Testament, at any rate; and all these copies of the Bible that are circulated about, and all the searchings into them, which poor boys and girls are desired to be incessantly making, must tend / to the producing of great and general mischief. The people constantly hear sermons, founded on texts of this book. They are constantly exhorted to look on it as their guide; to resort to it, in short, as the means of procuring to themselves everlasting salvation; they are told that it is the word of God; they are told, that if they diligently read it, they can scarcely fail to do well in every act of life. What incredible pains have been taken to inculcate these notions; to fasten them in the minds of the people; to make them the notions prevalent over all others. How many hundreds of meetings of the nobility, of the gentlemen, of the clergy, or all ranks and descriptions of people, who have a shilling in their pockets, have there been and are there yet daily held for the sole purpose of ingrafting these notions upon the very first buddings of the mind, not excepting the children in the navy and the army, with respect to the latter of whom, the Duke of York, as Commander in Chief, has piously lent the aid of his great authority in the furtherance of the holy work. Nay, it is come to that at last, that in London, which takes the lead in every thing, good as well as bad, and whose example in this respect, we may expect to see followed, subscriptions are opened, for the purpose of causing Bibles to be printed and circulated, where people may subscribe any sum, even so low as one penny.—And, yet, in the midst of all this, directly in the teeth of all this, after all the soldiers have had Bibles put into their hands, and have, doubtless, in obedience to the wishes of their commanders, carried them in their knapsacks on foraging as well as other expeditions, up starts my correspondent, and with front of ten-fold brass, tells me, and tells the public through me, that we are not, as to cases of plunder, to take the Bible for our guide, because, forsooth, the government of the Jews was a government by God himself! If this be the case, if we are not to look upon the Bible as a sure guide in this respect, why are we to look upon it as a sure guide in any respect; why are we to consider it as any guide at all?—My correspondent very slily observes that he believes me to assent to the inspiration of the scriptures: and that he hopes that I am acquainted with the history of the Jewish people. To be sure I assent to the inspiration of the scriptures; and to the inspiration of the whole of them too, and not to that of bits and pieces of them. I take them all together, and I take them, too, in / the fair meaning of the words that are made use of. And, now, that I have made this avowal, let me ask my correspondent, why I am to look upon the ten commandments as any rule of conduct for me, unless the soldier is to be guided by the example of plunder in the case of the Midianites? I may, indeed, find that the Commandments are more consonant to the present practice of the world; but, as far as they have any authority from the book I find them in, they are exactly upon a level with the rest of that book, and, of course, when the book tells me, that God commanded his chosen people to do this or that, I look upon it that I ought to pay strict attention to the example.— If this be not the case, how dangerous must it be so widely to promulgate the Bible, and, indeed, how wicked must it be, to put it into the hands of ignorant people and of children, and that, too, observe, without any commentary; without any explanation; without any thing to guide them in selection. It is well known, that one of the heaviest charges, brought against the Romish church, was that of keeping the Bible out of the hands of the people, and of performing divine service in a language which the people could not understand. That church was accused of a desire to keep the mass of the people in ignorance; but, if the doctrine of my correspondent be sound, that church acted not only wisely, but charitably,¹²⁶ for, how are the common people; how are the sailors and soldiers; how are the little girls and boys to distinguish between those parts of the Bible which they are to look upon as rules of conduct, and which parts they are to look upon in a different light? If it be true, that these exceptions and distinctions of my correspondent, ought to be made, selections from the Bible ought to be published, and not the whole of the book. Some Synod, some Chapter, some Council, ought to be held, in order to determine what parts of the Bible should be selected for general circulation. To put the whole into the hands of the people, and then to tell them that only a part is to be attended to by them, is certainly the most ridiculous, or at least, one of the most ridiculous, proceedings that ever was heard of.—I have now, I think, answered the letter of my correspondent, whose talents I am by no means inclined to underrate, but which talents I should like to see exerted in a very different way. I will engage for him, that he has never given subjects of this sort that consideration / of which his mind is capable. He has taken things upon trust; he has adopted notions, in early life, which he has never had the leisure or the resolution critically to canvass. Prejudice has had too much power in his mind to suffer him to give to truth a fair chance of success. If this were not the case, it is impossible, that he should not perceive, that if Napoleon has been an instrument in the hands of God, and that, too, to punish a guilty people, Napoleon himself must be innocent of all the sufferings of those people.—The misfortune is, that men cannot find means sufficient to answer their wishes in reviling each other, without resorting to supernatural support. They must bring God or the devil everlastingly into their quarrels. The complainant has always God on his side, and his adversary the devil on his side. This, it is, which involves them in intricacies and inconsistencies without end. If they would be content to judge of men’s actions upon principles immovable in nature, and upon those rules of morality which are universally recognised, they would expose themselves to no danger of being ridiculed, or of being defeated in argument, unless their premises or their conclusions were false. If the petulant scribes, to whom my correspondent refers, had been content with censuring Buonaparté merely as an invader and a conqueror, they would have had much stronger ground against him, than they could possibly have after they dragged the Almighty into the quarrel. When once they did that, they drew round the person they attacked, a wall of brass, and, accordingly, they have retired defeated from the fortress.— One more observation I will add, and that is, that it always appears very surprising to me, that those, who have been, and who must, if they be not sheer hypocrites, be such decided enemies to the Church of Rome, and such friends to religious liberty, should be so bitterly bent against Napoleon, who has done more for religious freedom than was ever done before in the world. He has, in a great part of Europe, in the fairest and most populous part of it, given men liberty to be of what religion they please. He has put down persecution; he has, in short, as to religion, emancipated half Europe, if we estimate Europe by the worth of the climate and the products of the earth.—And yet, the most zealous protestants, who so loudly complained of the Catholics, would murder him if they could.