Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1858-06-03
Divorce In the Presbyterian Assembly
A PIoUS Sophist.
OBSERVE Err.

Divorce in the Presbyterian Assembly,
A Plous Sophist.
Since the General Assembly of the
Northern New School Presbyterian
church has been in session in Chicago,
we have cndcavored to keep our read
ers informed, through our news col
umn Of the most important Of their
proceedings. Among the matters
which VIC have mentioned as being be-
fore them for consideration, is the case
of the Reverend j. II. Shields of Iowa,
charged with adultery in marrying a
woman who had procured divorce
from her husband without sufficient
scriptural cause.
The lady separated from her then
husband, Mr.. Cowles, who resided in
the State of New York and coming to
the State of Iowa procured divorce,
under the laws then existing in this
State, by default the cause alleged
being cruel and unkind treatment.
After the decree had been granted
Mr.. Shields knowing ne circu,nstan-
ccs of the case, married the lady, For
tins act he was summoned lC!0rc the
lresbytcry OF DcsMoines and ueposed
from the Ministry. He appealcl from
this decision to the Prcsbytcry Of Iowa
and by them the decision was reversed
and he was rc.rstatcd in the ministry
The Prcsbytcry Of DcsMoines then APP
pcaled from this Judgment to the Gen
eral Assembly of the United States,
the court of last resort. During the
debate which occurred on the consilc-
ration Of the case by this body the
Reverend DR.. Rowland of Newark, n,
J. took the following positions.
There is one cause for divorce and one
only. II is admitted by all that on the
ground OF aduitera parties married may be
divorced. But what is diu'ttrg in the scrip
tural sense of the term ? All those causes
which defeat the marriage relation in a
generic serse. like ilo'atry IN the second
commandment of the Gecalo,ue So sinful
cohahltation, unchaste word, apparel or
conduct, etc, are included for adultery -
lie stated case where a woman refused 10
comply with the marital relation, was adul-
terry. So willtu desertion is cons ,ructlve
adultery
The argument of the Reverend ger
tleman however creditabc it might
have been in hair splitting. technical
advocate who was arguing desperate
case, was we think by no means bcft-
ting plain spoken, honest clergyman
who processes to be guided in his ac-
tions by the word OF God, alone He
starts with the proposition that the
on y cause for divorce allowed by the
Bible is adultery, and then attempts
to prove by a series OF sophistical ar
gumcnts that the slightest unchasto
word or action is Constructive adul-
terry and lawful cause of diyorce-or
in other words that g violation of any
rule of propricty however absurd, fixed
by socicty-is a good cause for break
ing the marriage tie and is constructive
adultery" in ascriptural sense. The
absurdity of the position is apparent
The very same train of argument which
he urged in the case of Mr.. Shields,
would make any petty disagreement
between husband and wife "construc-
tive adultery" and would justify d.
vorce on grounds yet more trivial than
those provided by the reckless legisla-
ton some OF our sister States of the
West. The clergy have always been
considered the special guardians of
the sacrcdness of the marital tie and
they have done much for the proven
ton of bad results from the late wild
legislation on the subject. We aie
surprised, not to say Disguised, at the
laborious manner in which a man, pre-
tending to teach the doctrines of the
Scriptures without fear or favor, and
who above all others, should be honest
and fair in his arguments upon them, has
attempted to distort them for the pur-
pose of weakening the most sacred re-
lation which can exist between human
beings. If he had ignored the Bible
entirely and argued simply that re-
ligious body had no authority to 90
behind or annul the judgment of civil
court, he would have found supporters;
but first, IN refusing to acknowledge the
authority of Court of Justice IN the
premises, and then, in attempting to
alstort the plain commands, Of the only
law oy which he processes to be guided,
ne deserves to lose the confidence of
all parties.
The evils of allowing divorces for
trivial causes are too well understood
to need REPETITION at our hands. The
Assembly notwithstanding their fanat-
icism upon the subject of slavery, upon
the vote ON the case to which we have
referred, acted nobly in accordance
with their principles. The appeal of