Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1904-12-30
BISHOP MUST FACE
SERIOUS CHARGES
Minister Whom He Had I'm.
frocked the Accuser.
HE WANTS TO BE INDICATED

Rev. Irvine Gives Out interesting In.
terview in Regard to the Matter,
and Says that Bishop Talbot Is Gull.
ty of immortality and Lying.
Philadelphia, Dec. 29.-"Can q bish-
op, or ought a bishop, write defama-
tory letters In secret In order to in.
5ure any members OF the ministry"
This is the question which Will be
decided at meeting OF the board Of
inquiry in the case Of Irvine versus
Talbot, said the Rev. Ingram N. w.
Irvine, the plaintiff, in the celebrated
case today in discussing the charges
which have been made against him.
my reinstatement" continued DR..
Irvine. SIS OF secondary consideration
when contrasted with the above query
OF course, I wish to have ~his un.
just deposition removed, but l also
desire, entirely without malice, to be
yindicated in the sight Of God and
my friends"
In discussing the motive of the pre-.
sentiment, DIR. Irvine said that it was
because he had persistently refused to
serve communion to Mrs. Emma D.
Elliott, of Huntington, Pa, who is di.
vorced. against the wishes of Bishop
Talbot.
Bishop Talbot and | along with
about 1000 other members of the min.
istry," said DR.. Irvine, signed the
declaration which was sent to all the
bishops and clergy in the United States
and presented to the general conven.
ton Of 1898, aAd which prayed for
more stringent restrictions In the
matter Of divorce and remarriage
"The cantons of the church provide
explicitly that a man or waman di
Vorced on any charge except that
adultery, which must be proven beyond
the bounds of reasonable doubt can.
not receive the holy sacra>ent. In
the face Of this, Bishop Talbot, while
he publicly supported the petition, co.
verify and by secret meetings with
Mrs. Elliott, who is a woman divorced
have her remain in the church"
Now who was the most consistent,
Bishop Talbot or /? Did we not,
both Of us, sign the petition men,
toned? Is it not curious that Bish,
op Talbot although he had written
canon, communicated, should by
other methods seek to retain her as
COMMUNICATE"
Referring to the letter which Bishop
Talbot is said to have written DIR.
Upjohn in which the former termed
Dr. Irvine plausible ramaneer,"
had charged that he was deposed for
gross immortality and that for 20 out
of 80 years of his service In the min.
istry he was under ecclesiastical dis
cipline."
DIR. Irvine said that Bishop Talbot
has placed himself in a most awk.
ward position.
THAT letter to DR.. Upjohn was un.
warranted and cruel" said DR.. Irvine,
"since it was first Of all gross sub.
terfuge. 1t was used secretly as a
weapon against me, to deprive me Of
all sympathy, respect and even main.
tenance.
In the first place, 1t is an utter
impossibility for these allegations to
be true. The church law requires
that minister shall not be eligible
TO admittance to another diocese when
leaving one, unless she bears the "Iet.
ter demissary." This letter shows
that the departing minister has clear
records that his life is Beyond re-
proach, free from error in religion OF
viciousness in life, and must be signed
by the bishop. How could I. therefore,
be guilty of the charges made against
me?"