New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-30
DIR. IRVINE TALKS.
Questions Right of Bishop to Send
DefamQtOry Letters.

Philadelphia, Dec 29-"Can bishop or ought
a bishop write defamatory letters in secret in
order to injure any member of the ministry
This is the question which will be decided at
the meeting of the board of inquiry In the case
of Irvine Talbot, said the Rev DR.. Ingram
n. W. Irvine. the plaintiff in the case to-day
in discussing the charges which have been
made against him.
MY reinstatement" continued Dr. Irvine as
of secondary consideration when contrasted with
the above query. OF course wish to have this
unjust deposition removed, but 1 wish, also, en-
tirely without malice, to be INDICATED in the
sight Of God and my friends"
In discussing the motive of the presentment
DIR. Irvine said that it was because he had per-
sistentIy refused to serve communion to Mrs.
Emma D. Elliott, of Huntingdon. Penn, who is
a divorced woman, against the wishes of Bishop
Talbot.
Bishop Talbot and I. along With about six
teen hundred other members of the ministry"
said DR.. Irvine. signed the declaration, which
was sent to all the bishops and clergy in the
United States and presented to the Geenral Con-
vention of 1898. and which prayed for more
stringent restrictions in the matter OF divorce
and remarriage.
THE canons of the Church provide explicitly
that man or woman. divorced on any charge,
except that OF adultery, which must be proved
beyond the bounds Of reasonable doubt, cannot
receive the Holy Sacrament. In the face Of this
Bishop Talbot while he publicly supported the
position, covertly 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 1? Did not. both of us. sign the
petition mentioned? Is it not curious that Bish-
op Talbot although he had written me saying
that Mrs. Elliott was, by canon, communicated.
should by other methods seek to retain her as a
communicative
is said to have written to DR.. Upjohn, in which
the former termed DR.. Irvine a plausible
mancer," had charged that he depOsed for
gross immortality and that for twenty out of
thirty years of his service in the ministry he
was under ecclesiastical discipline" DIR. Irvine
said that Bishop Talbot has placed himself in
most awkward position.
THAT letter to DR.. Upjohn unwarranted
and cruel" said Dr. Irvine, since it was, first
of all, gross subterfuge 1t was used secretly
as weapon against me. to deprive me of all
sympathy, respect and even maintenance.
In the first place, it is an utter impossbility
for these allegations to be true The Church
law requires that minister shall not be eIigi-
bic to admittance to another diocese when leav-
ing one unless he bears the letter demissary.'
This letter shows that the departing minister
has clear record. that his life is beyond re-
proach free from error in religion or viciousness
in life. and must be signed by the bishop. How
could /, therefore. be guilty Of the charges made
against me?
Bishop Whitehead. of the diocese of Pitts
burg and Bishop Adams, OF the diocese of
Easton, Md, the last two dioceses in which [
served. as well as the bishops Of all the dioceses
in which l lived prior to this. have given me
these letters, which secured me the desired ad-
mission to fields
Bishop Talbot has in his allegations fndi
recty accused his brother bishops of fraud
upon the Church in their issuance of these let
tiers TO me. The bishops whose names he quotes
In his attack upon my character have been
placed in a position which reflects discredit upon
their regulations, Bishop Talbot's accuse
tons are absolutely falsc-aEd / know that the
word Of these gentlemen cannot be impugned"
DR.. Irvine said in conclusion that he is not
a member of the Catholic Club. nor has he ever
MADE any accusations at the club or had words
with DR.. Upjohn.