To

pondent, however, appears to think, that evident that B is a mere passive instrument there was no inconsistency in them. He in the hands of A, and is in no way chargesays, that there is a great difference be- able for what he has done. But, if A, retween positively authorizing an act, and solving to punish C, finds B predisposed to only permitting it; between causing an murder him, but without commanding or evil, and subsequently converting it to even interfering further, than by refusing good. And then he asks me, whether Ne- to prevent what will answer his purposes buchodonosor was not employed by God to of justice, suffers B to put his design into chastise his chosen people, and whether he execution, it is clear, that though B may was, for that reason, guiltless of the exbe called the instrument of A's vengeance, cesses he committed against that ill-fated, he is still chargeable with the guilt of the but ungrateful nation. Now, in the first deed, suggested by his own malice.So place, it sounds a little oddly, to call a na- that, if a jailer were to murder a condemned tion ill-fated, who were God's chosen peo- felon, he might be called, might he, the ple, and who, as we are afterwards told by instrument of the government, and yet be this same correspondent, were under the hanged himself for the offence? And the immediate government of God, who was government might, might it, if informed of their lawgiver, and who gave them his the intended murder, very innocently perparticular commands, as the Scripture tells mit this execution of the design and end of us, even as to the mode in which they the law, and then cause the jailer to be ought to go to the privy. It sounds odd, I tucked decently up for the deed, though the say, to call such a nation an ill-fated na- government had the power of prevention, tion. As to what Nebuchodonosor did, and must be considered as accessories before I do not pretend to be a judge of that; but, the fact?- Was there ever any thing so if he was 66 employed" by God to chastise monstrous as this?But, into what abthe Jews, he must have been guiltless in surdities do not men fall when once they the case, because God was almighty, and begin to make the Deity a direct and immecompelled him as well as employed him.diate actor in the affairs of men! But, then, my correspondent has his salvo here; for, he talks about "excesses.” If, indeed, the grass-eating king went beyond his lether, that is another matter. 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

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 Buonaparte 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-jacobius never have acknowledged; namely, that the scourged nations richly merited their scourging.

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. 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.

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 de"livered 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. 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 corres- -He says, that "the form of the Jewpondent cannot make the case which he has "ish government, was that of a real cited a case in point, until he finds it re- "Theocracy, that is, a government under corded in the scriptures that the scourged "the inmediate superintendence of God nations of Europe were delivered up by the" himself, who was the ruler of the Jews, 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, 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,

" 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 di"rection of their political conduct, and

66

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, of 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 f 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 pro-
mulgate 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 commen-
tary; 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 doc-
trine of my correspondent be sound, that
church acted not only wisely, but chari-
tably; for, how are the common people;
how are the sailors and soldiers; how are
the little girls and boys to distinguish be-
tween 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 dif-
ferent light? If it be true, that these ex-
ceptions and distinctions of my correspond-
ent, ought to be made, selections from the
Bible ought to be published, and not the
whole of the book. Some Synod, some
Chapter, soine Council, ought to be held,
in order to determine what parts of the
Bible should be selected for general circu-
lation. 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 cer-
tainly 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

ENCE

Sir,

of which his mind is capable. He has taken things upon trust; he has adopted The extensive circulation which your notions, in early life, which he has never Register possesses, and the weight and imhad the leisure or the resolution critically portance which your opinions, as an author, to canvass. Prejudice has had too much are known to bear, make me anxious to see power in his mind to suffer him to give to corrected a most fallacious argument which truth a fair chance of success. If this were you have more than once adduced within not the case, it is impossible, that he the last six months, but which has been should not perceive, that if Napoleon has particularly obtrusive in your latter Numbeen an instrument in the hands of God, bers. I confess, Sir, that for many years and that, too, to punish a guilty people, I have read your publications with pleaNapoleon himself must be innocent of all sure; and however I may have been inthe sufferings of those people.The mis- clined to differ with you on certain points, fortune is, that men cannot find means suf- I have uniformly admired you, on political ficient to answer their wishes in reviling subjects at least, for originality of thought, each other, without resorting to superna- strength of expression, clearness, accuracy, tural support. They must bring God or depth, and solidity of argument, that I do the devil everlastingly into their quarrels. not often find in the productions of the day. The complainant has always God on his But pardon me if I presume to tell you, that side, and his adversary the devil on his on subjects unconnected with politics you side. This, it is, which involves them in do not always write with equal success; intricacies and inconsistencies without end. and that in the opinion of many of your If they would be content to judge of men's sensible readers, you rather mistook your actions upon principles immovable in na- own powers when you turned aside to disture, and upon those rules of morality cuss controversy with your late sceptical which are universally recognised, they correspondents. But it is neither my ousiwould expose themselves to no danger of ness nor inclination to quarrel with you being ridiculed, or of being defeated in ar- about your choice of subjects; I adverted gument, unless their premises or their to a fallacy in your mode of arguing, and to conclusions were false. If the petulant that let me confine myself. Commenting scribes, to whom my correspondent refers, upon certain news-paper writers, who had had been content with censuring Buona- probably, in the exuberance of a rhetorical parté merely as an invader and a conqueror, piety, first designated Buonaparté the scourge they would have had much stronger ground of Providence, and then imputed to him the against him, than they could possibly have guilt of every act cominitted in such official after they dragged the Almighty into the capacity. You cannot, it seems, reconcile quarrel. When once they did that, they the apparent contradiction: for. either you drew round the person they attacked, a wall argue he is commissioned by Providence, of brass, and, accordingly, they have retired or he is not. If he is not, why call him defeated from the fortress.- -One more the scourge of God?-(truly)-if he is, observation I will add, and that is, that it why oppose him, why even blame him for always appears very surprising to me, that executing his divine commission?-Really, those, who have been, and who must, if Mr. Cobbett, do you see no difference bethey be not sheer hypocrites, be such de- tween positively authorizing an action, and cided enemies to the Church of Rome, and only negatively permitting it: between caussuch friends to religious liberty, should be ing an evil, and subsequently converting that so bitterly bent against Napoleon, who has evil into an instrument of good? Was done more for religious freedom than was not Nebuchodonosor employed by God to ever done before in the world. He has, chastise his chosen people? but, was in a great part of Europe, in the fairest and he for that reason guiltless of the exmost populous part of it, given men liberty cesses committed against that ill-fated, but to be of what religion they please. He has ungrateful nation? Or were the Jews, down persecution; he has, in short, as think ye, less criminal in having crucified to religion, emancipated half Europe, if the Son of God, because he had been dewe estimate Europe by the worth of the livered up by the determinale counsel and climate and the products of the earth.foreknowledge of God?-(Acts xi. 23.) — And yet, the most zealous protestants, who so loudly complained of the Catholics, would murder him if they could.

-put

Let me illustrate this position by an example. Suppose A possesses, no matter by what means, an unlimited power over his two slaves B and C. If C, for some of