Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-30
IRVING STATES MOTIVES.
Charges Against Bishop Talbot us
Observation-Disclosures in Case.

Philadelphia, Dec. 29.-"Can
bishop or ought bishop write defafhd-
tory letters in secret in order to lnJufe
any member of the rninistery?' Ihis
is the question which will be decided
at the meeting of the board of inquiry
in the case of Irving VS.. Talbot. sstld
the Pew. Ingram y. w. Irvine. the
nIaintiff in the celebrated case. Thurs
day. in discussing 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
disposition removed. but l wish ais"
entirely without malice to be vindicat-
ed in the sight of God and my friends.
DR.. Irvine said the motive of the pre-
sentiment was because he had persist
antIy refused to serve communion to
Mrs. Ema d. Elliott of Huntington.
Pa. who is divorced, against the wishes
of Bishop Talbot.
Bishop Talbot and / along with
about 1900 other members of the min
istry" said DR.. Irvine. signed the dec
iaratiOn which was sent to all the
bishops and clergy i'm the United States
and presented to the general conven-
ton in 1898 and which prayed for more
stringent restrictions in the matter OF
divorce and remarriaSe.
The canons of the church provide
explicitly that man or woman. d.
vorced on any charge except that OF
adultery. which must be proved be-
yOnd the bounds of reasonable doubt
cannot receive the Holy Sacrament
In the face of this Bishop Talbot while
he publicly supports the petition, COW
ertly and by secret meetings with Mrs
Elliott, who is "a woman divorced or
he grounds of desertiOn, sought t.
nave her remain i'm the church.
Now who was the more consistent
Bishop Talbot or 1? Did we not, both
# US, sign the petition mentioned? II
it not curious that Bishop Talbot, al
nOugh he had written me saying that
Mrs. Elliott was by canon excommuni-
,'ated should by other methods seek t.
retain her as d communicate?
Referring to the letters which Bishon
Talbot is said to nave written to DR..
rpjoiln, in which the former termed
Or Irvine a plausible romancer." ha,!
charged that he was Gerused for gross,
immortality and that for 30 out Of 90
ears OF his service in :hc ministry he
vas under ecclesiastical discipline" DR.
irvine said that Bishop Talbot has
Jlac.d hin self in a most awkward pn-
;ition.
That letter to DR.. UIiGhn was I'M
warranted and cruel said DR.. Irvine.
since it WIS first OF all a gross subter-
'uge. 1t was used secretly as a weapon
against me- to deprive Inc of all sym
,athy. resHect and even maintenance.
IN the nrst place. It is an utter i'm
possibility for these allegations to h.
true. The church law requires that n
minister shall not be eligible to admit
ance to another diocese when leaving
me. Unless he bears the Il tier dennis
ary.' This letter shows that the de
'arting minister has a clear record !:
hat his life is beyond reprOach. fire.
rom error in religion or viciousness
life and must be signed by the bishop
How could I, therefore. be guilty
he charges made against lne?
bishop Whitehead Of the diocese o.
pittsDurg. Bishop Adams Of the din-
use OF Easton, Md. the last TWO do
rrseS in which | served, as We'll as I'll,
bishops OF all the dioceses in which !
lived prior to this have given me thes.
letters which secured me the desire:
admission to new fields.
bishop Talbot has in his allegation.
indirectly accused mis- brother bishops
IF fraud upon the church in their is
Suance of these letters to me- The bis
hops whose names he quotes i'm his at
'ack upon my character have been
placed in position which reflects dis
,redit upon their regulations, or Bishop
TalbotS accusations are absolutely
talse-and l know that the word OF
these gentlemen cannot be impugned g
Dr. Irvine said in conclusion that he
IS not member Of the Catholic club
or has he ever made any accusations at
the club CT had words witt Dr. Upjohn.