The San Francisco call., 1904-12-30
DIR. IRVINE TALKS
OF HIS QUARREL
WITH THE BISHOP

ia the question that will be decided
at the meeting of the board or inquiry
in the case of Irvine vs. talbot. said
the Rev. ". w. Irvine, the plaintiff in
the celebrated case, to-day. in discuss
ing the charges which have been made
against him.
.sMy reinstatement" continued DR..
Irvine lis of secondary consideration
when cOntrasted with the foregoing
, query. OF course, wish 70 nave this
unjust deposition removed. but wish
Also entirely without malice. to be vim
dicated In the sight. OF God and my
friends"
In discussing the motive for the pre-
sentiment, Dr. Irvine said that 1t was
because he had persistently refused to
serve communion to Mrs. Emma ID. e.
lott OF Huntingdon, Pa. who is d.
vorced, against the wishes OF Bishop
Bishop Talbot and I. along with
about 1900. other members OF the min
iStry," said DIR. Irvine. signed the
declaration which was sent to all the
Bishops and clergy In the United
States and presented to the general
convention Of 1898, and which Drayed
for more stringent restrictions IN the
matter Of divorce and remarriage.
''The canOns Of the church provide
explicitly that man or a woman di-
vorced on any charge except one,
WHICH LuuSL Dc PiONtQ DtYQUQ the
bounds Of reasonable doubt. cannot re-
ceive the holy sacrament. In the face
Of this Bishop Talbot. while he pub
licly supported the petition. covertly
and by secret meetings with Mrs. FL
lott, who is a woman divorced on the
ground Of desertiOn. sought to have her
remain in the church.
"NOw, who was the more consistent.
Bishop Talbot or I? Did we not both
Of us. sign the petition mentioned? Ia
1t not curious that Bishop Talbot. al
though he had written me saving that
Mrs. Elliott was, by canon. excOmmu-
nicated, should by other methods.
seek to retain her as a communicate"
THAT LETTER TO DIR. UPJOHN.
Referring to the letter which Bishop
Talbot is said TO have written to DE-.
Upjohn, in which the former termed
DR.. Irvine a plausible rOmancer.'
charged that he was depOsed for gross
immortality, and stated that for twen-
ty out Of the thirty years of his serv-
ice in the ministry he was under eccle-
siastical discipline" DR.. Irvine said
that Bishop Talbot has placed himself
in a most awkward position.
THAT letter to DE UpjOhn was un-
warranted and cruel" said DIR. Irvine.
"since il was, first OF all. a gross sub
terfuge. It was used secretly as a
weapon against me to deprive me OF All
sympathy. respect and even mainte-
nance.
I'm the first place. It is an utter I'M
possibility for the allegations to be-
, true. The church law requires that a
minister shall not be eligible to ad-
mittance to another diocese when leav-
/ ing one unless he bears the letter de-
mfssary This letter shows that the
departing minister has a clear record;
/ that his life Is beyond reDroach, free
/ from error in religion and 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
/ Pittsburg. Bishop Adams OF the dio-
/ cese Of EastOn, Nd, the last two do
! ceses in which I served. as well 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 allegations
/ indirectly accused his brother Bishops
/ of fraud upon the church in their issu-
/ ance OF these letters to me. The Bish-
Z ops whose names he quotes IN his at
| tack upon my character have been
/ placed in a position which reflects dis
credit upon their regulations, or Bishop
\ Talbot's accusa tions are absolutely
( false-and I know that the word OF
/ these gentlemen cannot be fmpu1ned-"
! DR. Irvine said in conclusion that he
was not a member OF the Catholic Club
/ nor had he ever made any accusations
/ in the club or had words with DR.. Up
john.
Headaches From Colds