Jasper County Democrat, Volume 7, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 December 1904 — BISHOP TALBOT IS GRAVELY ACCUSED [ARTICLE]

BISHOP TALBOT IS GRAVELY ACCUSED

Diocesan of Central Pennsylvania Is Formally Presented for Unrightepusness. FORMAL DOCUMENT PUBLISHED Charges of Lying and Immorality Lodged Against Him. Letters That Are Said to Prove That a High Church Officer Has Been Faithless to HD Trust. Philadelphia, Dec. 29. —There will be no hearing of the charges against Bishop Ethelbert Talbot, of the diocese of Central Pennsylvania, by the court recently appointed by Bishop Tuttle, is the statement made by churchmen who are well posted in* the canonical laws of the Episcopal church. A complication has developed which they say will put a stop effectually to the proceedings of the court of inquiry as now constituted.

New York, Dec. 28.—Following Is the presentment in the case against Bishop Ethelbert Talbot,of the Protestant Episcopal diocese of Central Pennsylvania, in connection with the deposition of Dr. Ingraham N. W. Irvine, of Philadelphia, from the priesthood. “The undersigned, in virtue of the canonical authority reposed In them present the Right Rev. Ethelbert Talbot, D. D., LL. D., bishop of the Protestant Episcopal;*'church in the diocese of Central Pennsylvania#..ae being guilty of conduct unbecoming a bishop of tlie Protestant Episcopal church in the United States of America tn the several specifications hereinafter more particularly set forth, to the end that he may be tried upon such charge. * • *

Charged with Immorality. “Specification 1. The said presenters do hereby present and allege that Bishop Talbot Is guilty of immorality in having written a false, libelous and untruthful letter regarding the Rev. Ingraham N. W. Irvine, D. D., and mailed, or caused the letter to be mailed, to the Rev. Dr. Upjohn, presidentof thel'niladelpbia Catholic club.” This letter is signed by “Ethelbert Talbot” and charged Dr. Irvine with immorality, and closed by referring to Bishops Whitaker, Whitehead, Seymour, Scarborough. Potter, Doane, Adams, Taylor and Rev. Dr. Lefflngwell, “and a host of others who will bear out all I have said in regard to his character.”

Says the Bishop Has Usd. “Specification 2. That Hishop Talbot is guilty of lying in having written ‘May I therefore say to you that this man was deposed nearly two years ago for gross immorality and for lewd and lascivious conduct with women.’ For reference sec the proceedings of.the ecclesiastical court before which the Rev. Dr. Irvine was tried, in which no record will be found b yany such charges. “Specification 3. That Bishop Talbot is guilty of lying in having written ‘That Irvine for thirty years has been in the ministry and that for twenty of those years he has been under ecclesiastical discipline.’ [Here papers from three bishops as well as letters and other documents are given as references]. Another Charge of Lying. “Specification 4. That Bishop Talbot Is guilty of lying in having written ‘that he [lrvine] had been suspended once, admonished once in our diocese, and inhibited and made to leave repeatedly.’ “The charge of lying is set forth In specifications covering all but two of the remaining paragraphs of the letter following the paragraph reading: That all his [lrvine’s] talk about a divorced woman being excommunicated and then restored by me is baseless.’ ” Ths quotations in all the foregoing are from the Upjohn letter.

LKTTKKS THE BISHOP WROTE Time Being When He and Rev. Irvine Were on Good Terms. The presenters then proceed: “The presentment in support of the charge of lying sets forth the following letter [it is dated “Ddlocese of Central Pennsylvania Bishopric, South Bethlehem, Feb. 0, 1899”]: “My Dear Irvine: The woman to whom you refer is by canon excommunicated. I cannot believe she will have the presumption to present herself at the holy communion. If you think there la any danger of her doing so It would be better for you in some kind and gentle way to intimate to her her true condition. Of course, you have no discretion in the matter. If she should present herself before you can speak to her, and yon think she does so in ignorance, then .you can speak to her afterward. There is no reason in this case to make any row If the thing is managed quietly and firmly, with a little common sense. I thank you for what you say on this matter of the missions. Affectionately yours, “ ‘ETHELBERT TALBOT.’ “The exceptions to the charge of lying are as follows: “Specification That Bishop Talbot is guilty of conduct unbecoming a bishop, of breach of his ordination and consecration vows against involving other bishops in controversy by

writing untruthfulljpaa follows: That eight bishops have grave charges against him llrvJne];.that the venerable bishop of Quincy wrote me upon his death bed that Irvine had outraged two girls In his city, and Bishops Whitaker, Whitehead. Seymour, Scarborough, Potter, Donne, Adams, TnyF.*, and Itev. Dr. Lefflngwell, and a host of others will bear out all I have said as to his character.’ ‘Wherefore, the presenters, in view of the reasons as set forth; In the above specifications, do ask that Bishop Talbot be presented for trial before a court of his peers." Another letter Introduced as an exhibit In support of specification 3 is dated South Bethlehem, Nov. 80, 1898. and is as follows: “My Dear Irvine: What a nice time we all hod at Huntington. I did enjoy it. My dear Ingraham, you will, be-, fore many years, take a foremost place In my diocese. You have the ability, and no one would rejoice more than I to have it so. My cordial regards, please, to Mrs. Irvine and sister, and especially to that lovely daughter and the granddaughter. Think of It, verily you and I are getting old.” This letter Is signed: “Affectionately yours, Ethelbert Talbot.”