PAGE PROPOSED ATTITUDE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, AS DEFINED BY HIS LORDSHIP DIVORCE IN ITS ECCLESIASTICAL ASPECT PART I PRELIMINARY GENERAL REMARKS ON THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FROM what has been said in the Preface the terms "stricter" and "laxer" can be used in a double sense, and depend on the views of the writer. It seems preferable to avoid them as partisan expressions; and having come to a conclusion on the evidence, to remember that the burden of proof rests on the prohibiting party as regards unquestionable proof of the Scriptural authority for such prohibition. If there is any latitude, we may be sure that it is intentionally conceded, and that public moral considerations, of which the State has the broadest experience, will apply. In the Bible the gospel according to all four evangelists is given as "according to" in each case, i.e. as canonically representing the evidence of each of the named evangelists. If the first version of the gospel fails to represent the gospel, according to St. Matthew's acceptation, the term "according to " is misleading and inaccurate. It is not disputed that the St. Matthew referred to is Levi the publican, whose call is recorded in Matt. ix. 9, Mark ii. 14, and Luke v. 27, antecedently to the occasion referred to in Matt. xix., Mark x. (and incidentally by context in Luke xviii. 15-17) concerning divorce. St. John is also identified with the apostle of that name. SS. Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses of any of the incidents that they described, and it is doubtful whether they ever saw Christ on earth. They were followers and co-workers of St. Paul, the former to a large extent also of St. Peter, and although their writings are none the less canonical, greater particularity in detail would naturally be found in the evidence of an intimate companion and probable eye-witness like St. Matthew. St. Mark is generally admitted to be the Mark referred to in 1 Pet. v. 13, Acts xiii., and 2 Tim. iv. 1; St. Luke to be Luke "the beloved physician," referred to in 2 Tim. iv. 11, Col. iv. 14, Philemon 24. There are good grounds for stating that the Gospel "according to" St. Matthew was written principally for the Jews, and those "according to" St. Mark and St. Luke primarily for the use of the Gentiles, and that they were inspired in that sense. The Gospel "according to" St. Matthew has, with one small exception, always been placed first, and in some cases that "according to" St. John second, evidently for chronological reasons, though there is a natural tendency to group the synoptic gospels together. It does not appear to have been disputed until recently that St. Matthew's was the oldest gospel, and was actually written by that apostle. Dr. Tomline, Bishop of Winchester, in the last century refers to it as if such a position had never been contested, and incidentally quotes very high authorities, ancient and modern, in support of that position. We are, however, asked by his Lordship to believe that St. Matthew's gospel is not only not his work, but does not, in some respects, express his sentiments, i.e. is not "according to," though canonically accepted as such, and, in fact, not altogether genuine, and to discredit it in favour of a hypothetical document, "Q," as the genuine work of St. Matthew, which, whatever may be the constructive probability of its having existed, can claim no value either as evidence or canonically. If it did exist and was the work of St. Matthew (p. 29, Q.D.), the "additions" and "interpolations" suggested by his Lordship (pp. 21-24, Q.D.) in a document compiled therefrom and produced as "according to St. Matthew," can only be described as a deliberate forgery, which throws suspicion on the entire document and deprives it of canonical acceptation. The statement (p. 29, Q.D.), "For the independent portions of the first gospel, therefore, we |