The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-01
IRVINE OUT OF TALBOT FIGHT
UNFROCkED PREACHER SAYS HE
PARDONS THE BISHOP.
Declares That He Cannot Get Justice, but
Has No Mallce-Blames Mrs. Elliott
for the Scandal and Says No Charges
or Crime We're Made Against Him.

PHILADELPHIA. Jan. 3l.-The Rev. DR..
Irvine has decided to end the long struggle
he has made against Bishop Talbot for rein
statement. In a long statement issued
to-day he says that he has forgiven the
Bishop for the wrong that has been done
him and implies that the libel proceedings.
recently begun against the Bishop. will be
withdrawn and that the Church may expect
no new presentment. He says:
And now to end this matter. | think
in the five years struggle for justice DR..
Irvine has demonstrated his innocence.
He has tried by every just means to open
up the case, knowing that he had nothing
to fear in the sunlight No one could per-
NIT him to do that but Bishop Talbot and
he has repeatedly refused.
The final step Is too well known. Bishop
Talbot has twice evaded the service OF a
summons in this city. If he were not
guilty he never would have run away, but
would have courted an investigation TO
the finish. Dr.. Iryines only object has
been to get vindication. He has not one
particle of malice. He has been the loser
in all this matter financially. Bishop Tai
bot has had ali of his legal expenses paid
by others.
Il 90 not know what else can be done
with Bishop Talbot. who has brought such
a scandal upon the Church and such sorrow
to others but TO forgive him. and here
with freely and without a reservation offer
him full and free pardon, a. If we were
standing in the last great day before the
Judgment Throne OF Jesus Christ and In
carnate God.
In bidding farewell to his long contest
DR.. Irvine, speaking of Mrs: Elliott, whom
he blames as the cause of the Bishops
enmity makes the following explanation.
First, there never could have been an
Irvine talbot case TO disturb either the
peace OF the Church or that of the world
II Philadelphia unconsciously had not
furnished to Huntingdon, Pa, Mrs. Emma
ID. Elliott. This person even might have
lived in Huntington in peace had she not
tried to push her divorces upon the rector
Of that parish. DR.. Irvine. and by other
methods seek to influence him to recognize
unscrptural contracts.
There is one thing certain. with all her
boasts and those of others Mrs. Elliott can
never say that Or. Irvine has ever been
the recipient OF one dollar for personal use
from her, nor has he been the creature of
her influences.
power to give reasons for their hatred Of
Dr. Irvine. For instance, that the causes
for his being deprived Of his diocesan
faculties were because OF some supposed
ullnCully ne nHu WIN his CnOI ItdOeT. or
that there had been some alleged rregu-
larity in the transfer of the property 10 the
parish. or that there were shady pieces
Of testimony in reference 10 his morals.
all OF which has been answered by an
abundance of reliable testimony as would
put any honorable man to shame II by ac-
cident he should ever refer To them
"One thing must be said once for all,
and removed once for all from the minds
Of those who have any interest in this case,
and it is this DR. Irvine was not charged
with either crime or immortality in the
imperfect presentment against him
Neither does either word appear in that
document. much less did such word drop
from the lips of Bishops lawyers during
the whole ecclesiastical trial Of The Rev
DR.. Irvine.
The offence with which he was charged
was conduct unbecoming a minister Of
this Church This has ceased 10 be an
offence now in the disciplinary canon of
the Church. 1t never should have been
there
DR.. Irvine then at some length describes
how, in his opinion, after Mrs. Elliott's
name had been used 10 bring him TO trial
he was prevented from showing that
through her a conspiracy existed against
him