THEOLOGIANS ON DIVORCE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1025, 14 January 1911, Page 10

THEOLOGIANS ON DIVORCE.

♦ : '•' VIEWS OF PROFES- ■ , ■ . SOUS. ; ■ ■'Dr.-Sanclay, .Lady Jlargaret, Professor .oi'.'Bivjiiit.v st Oxford,,ff.'iye, evidence before the Divorce Commission on tho Gospel texts touching divorce;' He explained 'the:.opinion .-of ;-.critics on the Synoptic Gospels and the'unaimous view as to the Eriority of Alark,. whoso Gospel was used y the other two , writers. In Mark the prohibition 'of'divorce nvas ,absolute. Luke possibly the passajo in Luke camel,not from Hark but from tho hypo'thotioalidooumeut ..Q .which, was. regarded as the source of the portions of Matthew and tnke.-which had no parallel in Mark. In regard to. the qualifying clause in Matthew, this might be an integral part 'of the text, of Q, or might como Ironl some oral source, or might havo been introduced.', by. the evangelist himself.'Comparing the words of the three evangelists, J)r. Sanday v;as inclined to reconcile them by taking the view that Jc-sus might, under ccrtairi circumstances and conditions, lay down, a 'principle, of general -application, and-under''other circumstances and/conditions staie the-principle with.a certain nmoupt of restriction. Tho. .difference seemed to be between a positive rule and a moral idea. This viewwas. absolutely forced upon us by -tho .immediate confext of . tho passage on divorce in Matthew v. In reply t<s tho 'Archbishop, of Canterbury as to whether the Christian Church should exercise dis.eipline i in enforcing Christ's high ideal. 'Dr. Sanday said. tli^t; ho 'himself should prefer to lay stress upon our Lord's teaching as representing an ideal .rather than fnpon discipline; .' \ Dr. W.'!R. Jnef. Lady ' Margaret Professor at Cambridge, gave his opinion that the. doctrine of tho' absolute indissolubility of.marriage, could not bo proved from the New Testament. St. Paul could not have held it, and tho Church by admitting the Matthaean exception into the canon accepted'an interpretation of Christ's words incompatible with the view that .marriage is indissoluble. The duty of a Christian State, is seemed to him; was to legislate with'duo regard for the imperfection of human nature, whilo at the same time recognising an imperative obligation to maintain ; the unique sanctity of tho, marriage contract; which Christ unquestionably intended to emphasise most strongly. Dr. Denncy, Professor of New Testament Theology in the United Free College, Glasgow, gavo evidence. Ho held that tho New Testament, unlike tho Old, contained, no statutes or legislation. Today the law had' to take account of facts by which in certain cases marriago was unquestionably destroyed, and in tile intercsls of morality, and thereforo of the Christian - idral of inarriasro, it was a mistake to put marriageable people in a Suuntion m. which marriago was prohibitt The" Rev. James Whitney. Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, explained trie v:pws of Continental Heformers on divorce. .A Scotch express ran iiito a light engine on the Lancashie and Yorkshire railway, near Ormskirk, and left tho rails. A motor-train afterwards rail into tho wreck. One' man was killed and two were injured. Had tho majority ot' tho passengers on the express not occupied the rear of tho train the deathroll would have been heavy.

For Chronic Chest Complaints, Woods' Groat Peppermint Cure, lj, 04 2e. lid.—Ailvt. Although the English Court of Criminal Appeal has been nearly three years at work, the first case of an appeal from a decision by it to the Houso of Lords has only now occurred. Most people probably thought that its decisions ivoro ■final, and so they are unless the AttorneyGeneral gives his certificate.that any particular decision involves a point of lnw of exceptional public importance, anct that it is desirable in the public interest to have a further appeal brought.