« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
there are two other material differences from those in St Matthew. In the 19th of St Matthew the Pharisees quote Moses, in reply to that passage from Genesis referred to by Christ. In the 10th of St Mark, our Lord, in answer to their tempting question whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife? asks the Pharisees, " what did Moses command you?” They answer, “ Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and send her away.” Christ rejoins « for the hardness of your hearts he wrote you that precept, but from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female, &c” quoting the passage from Genesis nearly in the same terms and with the same prohibition from putting asunder as in St. Matthew. The other difference is, that in St. Matt. the words « whosoever shall put away his wife,” &c. appear to be part of the discourse addressed to the Pharisees : but in St. Mark, the words “ whosoever shall put away his wife,” &c. are addressed to his Disciples in the house, after the Pharisees had left him, and in answer to their further inquiry upon the subject. In St. Luke the preliminary and subsequent parts of the discourse in St. Matth. and Mark are omitted, and the declaration against the putting away and marrying another stands insulated, as well as unqualified. It appears to have been addressed to the Pharisees, as well as to the disciples. It is difficult to account for the omission of the exception in the two latter Evangelists. It is too important to attribute the omission to inadvertence of transcribers; and it is not less improbable that the introduction of the exception in the passages in St. Matth. should have been interpolations. There appears to be little ground for assent to Dr. Whitby's opinion, that our Lord restored marriage to its original institution as to the Jews; which would have been neither more or less than a repeal of the law of Moses, which, in the same discourse, he declares he came not to destroy, but to fulfil, and not a jot or tittle of which should be altered, till all should be fulfilled. The evident intent was to restrict the construction of the law to its true meaning and limit, while he pointed out to their consciences, the perilous consequences to which the practice of putting away their wives exposed them. Dr. Whitby says, “Christ prescribes a new law which had not before obtained among the Jews, divorce being permitted to them for other causes than adultery or fornication,” which he thinks to be excluded ; but his reasons do not appear to be satisfactory. The new law (if such it were) must in its operation be a partial repeal or alteration of the old, if the latter did not exclude fornication, and a total one, if it did; how could that be, in the teeth of the preceding declaration against any alteration of the law ?
In entering upon the remaining part of my vindication, the defence of Poetical Criticism, I am conscious that, as far as this point is concerned, I need not, nor should I, have made any reply, The criticism, except where the critic “ unblushingly" asserted, I thought Pope “no great poet,” only called in question my taste
My principles of judging the relative characteristics of different species of poetry, are laid down, in the Estimate of Pope's Poetical Character, and in the Letter to Mr. Campbell ; nor should I have thought it incumbent on me to have said one word in reply, to the nonsense of “in-door nature," or the absurdity of a critic pretending ignorance of the commonest terms of criticism, had not that “ malus animus” appeared in the article, which, whilst it professedly acquitted me of dishonorable motives, "in reality,” treated me as if I had been actuated by the basest.
It was on this account, and on this only, that I felt it my duty to appeal to all fair and liberal minds; at the same time, having entered on the subject, I thought I might be justified, in exposing the futility of the remarks, which the same article furnishes, against what the anthor is pleased to call my “ THEORY,'' by advancing some further arguments in support of it, if a THEORY it be, and showing the fallacy of his own arguments.
I shall here make one general observation; that, JF ANY CIRCUMSTANCE MORE THAN ANOTHER, COULD WEIGH WITH ME IN CONFIRMING THE CONVICTION, that what I said of the moral part of Pope's character, was (generally speaking,) true; and that the principles of poetical criticism, which I had laid down, were “invariable” and invulnerable, it would be THE FACT, that the opponent of my statements and principles, is obliged scandalously to exaggerate, in the first instance, and wilfully to confuse the plainest reasonings in the other. Before I proceed I shall take this opportunity of saying a few words concerning the circumstance of my having, in the last number of the PAMPALETEER, attributed the criticism in the Quarterly Review to Mr. Gilchrist, and in noticing the attack he has published, in consequence of an anonymous pamphlet, which appeared soon after the criticism in the Quarterly.
As the greatest personal abuse is heaped upon me, in the peculiar slang of this gentleman, it will be necessary to go back to some circumstances materially connected with this discussion.
I shall not enter into a particular examination of the pamphlet, which, by a mis-nomer, is called “ GILCHRIST's ANSWER TO Bowles," when it should have been called “GiLCHRIST'S ABUSE of Bowles;"—but as he derides my peculiar “sensitiveness to criticism;" before I show how destitute of truth is this representation, I will here explicitly declare the only grounds upon which I have thought it at all necessary to reply to any criticism, and the only grounds upon which I think any writer has a right to reply to public criticisms, on public works. The grounds, then, are these, and by these I am willing to abide the decision of the literary world, whether I am not justified in replying to the criticism in the Quarterly Review.
An author is justified in appealing to every UPRIGHT AND HONORABLE MIND in the kingdom when his sentiments are artfully misrepresented, when base motives are assigned, and when exaggerations are deliberately advanced, the tendency of which must be to excite injurious impressions of his honorable conduct or moral character.
These are the grounds on which I thought it necessary to reply to the article in question, and I shall now plainly set before the literary public, all the circumstances that have led to my name and Mr. Gilchrist's being brought together on this occasion; and what I have to say on this point, I would particularly address to the consideration of those most respectable characters, who have the direction and management of the Periodical Critical Press.
I concluded my observations in the last Pamphleteer, with feelings not unkind towards Mr. Gilchrist, or to the author of the Review of Spence, be he whom he might. I was in hopes, as I have been always ready to admit any errors. I might have been led into, or prejudices I might have entertained, that even Mr.