The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-12-29
THE POINT AT ISSUE.
Rev. Mr.. Irvine Discusses the Case of
Bishop Talbot.

Philadelphia, Dec. 2s.-"Can a bishop
or ought a bishop write defamatory
letters in secret in order to injure any
member of the ministry" This is the
question that will be decided at the
meeting of the board of inquiry in the
/ case of Irvine versus Talbot, said the
Rev. Ingram n. w. Irvine, the plain
/ tiff in the celebrated case today, in
discussing the charges which have been
made against him.
My reinstatement" continued DR..
Irvine, lis of secondary consideration
when contrasted with the above query.
/ OF course, 1 wish to have this unjust
deposition removed, but 1 wish also,
entirely without malice, to be vindi-
Gated in the sight of God and my
friends"
In discussing the motive of the pre-
sentiment DR.. Irvine said that it was
because he had persistently refused to
serve communion to Mrs. Emma D.
Elliott of Huntingdon, Pa, who is d.
vorced, against the wishes of Bishop
Talbot.
Bishop Talbot and I along with
about 500 other members of the min
istry,'' said DR.. Irvine, signed the dec
laration which was sent to all the
bishops and clergy in the United states
and presented to the general convention
of 1898. and which prayed for more
stringent restrictions in the matter OF
divorce and remarriage.
explicitly that a man or woman, d.
Vorced on any charge except that OF
adultery, which must be proven pc
yOnd the bounds of reasonable DOUBT,
can not receive the holy sacrament. In
the face of this Bishop Talbot, while
he publicly supported the petition COW
ertly and by secret meetings with Mrs
Elliott. who is a woman divorced on
the grounds of desertiOn, sought to
have her remain in the church
Now, who was the most consistent,
Bishop Talbot or 1? Did we not both
of us, sign the petition mentioned?
Is it not curious that Bishop Talbot,
although he had written me saying
that Mrs. Elliott was, by canon, ex-
communicated, should by other meth
DDS seek to retain her as a communi-
cant?"
Referring to the letter which Bishop
Talbot is said to have written DR.. Up
john, in which the former termed DR..
Irvine a plausible romancer" had
charged that he was deposed for gross
immortality and that for 20 out of 80
years of his service in the ministry he
was under ecclesiastical discipline"
DR.. Irvine said that Bishop Talbot has
himself in a most awkward position
THAT letter to DR.. Upjohn was I'M
warranted and cruel" said DR.. Irvine,
"since it was first of all a gross sub
terfuge. 1t was urged secretly as a
all sympathy, respect and even main
tenance.
"In the first place, it is an utter
impossibility for these allegations to
be true. The church law requires
that a minister shall not be eligible
to admittance to another diocese when
leaving one unless he bears the letter
demissary.' This letter shows that
the departing minister has a clear rec
ord; that his life is beyond reproach,
free from error in religion or vicious
ness in life. and must be signed by the
bishop. How could I, therefore, be
guilty of the charges made against
me?
"Bishop Whitehead, of the diocese
of Pittsburg; Bishop Adams, of the
diocese of Easton. Md, the last two
dioceses in which I served, as we'll as
the bishops of all the dioceses in
which I lived prior to this, have given
me these letters which secured me the
desired admission to new fields.
Bishop Talbot has in his allega-
lions indirectly accused his brother
bishops of fraud upon the church in
their issuance of these letters to me.
The bishops whose names he quoted
in his attack upon my character have
been placed in a position which re-
fleets discredit upon their regulations,
or Bishop Talbot'S accusations are alb
solutely false-and I know that the
word of these gentlemen can not be
impugned."
DR.. Irvine said in conclusion that
he is not a member of the Catholic
club nor has he ever made any accu-
sations at the club or had words with
DR.. Upjohn-