Files
Download Full Text (11.2 MB)
Content Warning
The Charles P. McIlvaine letters were written in the 18th and 19th century and therefore may contain language that we understand today as harmful or offensive. You may encounter paternalist descriptions of Native Americans, racial slurs, or sexism. For more information, see our policy page.
Description
Problems with Dr. Tullidge. List of displacement of ministers. Dislikes Bedell's report of Newton's sermons. As you heard it, you see the Bishop and talk with him to find what he believes. Cracroft now in regular standing.
Date
2-16-1865
Keywords
letter, McIlvaine, Bedell, Tullidge, church
Recommended Citation
McIlvaine, Charles Petit, "Letter to Bishop Bedell" (1865). Charles Pettit McIlvaine Letters. 283.
https://digital.kenyon.edu/mcilvaine_letters/283
Rights Statement
Transcript
Cinc. Feb. 16, 1865
Dear Bishop
I can not yet get to the point about poor [Tulbridge] - that is how to do it. Alas! Alas - I suppose I shall have to call a meeting of Trustees soon about the sit. Mr. Andrews + Dr. Brown besides Judge Hurd (I have not heard from others) think some things should be done. Hurd + Brown think the Committee on Finances have power, Mr. A. thinks it questionable. I think (whatever the letter of their power) they should not act on so new a matter without application for direction to the Board.
[2]
Would it be best to postpone Tulbridge to that meeting? Oh! what [?].
I would enclose all that I have for publication. The displacement of Ministers on their own request I have never published but in the Annual Address, besides the notification to teh Bishops - which I have made formally to all but you.
Rev. B.R. Maltby, Displaced June 8 / 64
[W?] Rev. Samuel Clements
Rev. Charles E. McIlvaine
Rev. James E. Norman Peter Neff [?]
Jan. 18, 1864
[W?] Rev. Samuel Cox
Rev. Wm. A. [Sandalwood]
Rev. Richard Holden
same date + [w]
The only other case since you came is that of
Rev. Chas. W. [Feamus]
Ap. 2, 1862
[W] Rev. Richd. Gray
Rev. Wm. A, Sandalwood
I do not think such cases are published in any diocese but the ways above mentioned. What you mention of Newton’s discharge is very serious, & awful. He might as well say that God shed his blood for us on the Cross, literally + truly, the blood of a Divine nature, because in Act. XX we have “the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood” We might as well say that where I am “increased in wisdom + stature,” it was the divine nature that did so, because it was Jesus himself that increased [pg1] + his human nature was not himself. Care must be taken to ascertain whether his meaning after all is worse than we have been accustomed to give to the above passage from Acts, namely that as the two natures are united in one person, what is peculiar to each is ascribed that one person. As Hooker says “As oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claim[?] or to man what his Deity hath [ought unto] we understand by the name of God + the name of Man, neither the one, nor the other nature, but the whole person of Christ in whose both natures are “B.V.; S53/
It may be that in the tendency of his mind to strong + [imputence] statement + perhaps having only recently
[pg 4] Bp. Cracroft case
had his mind drawn to the precise point, he has only stated unguardedly & obscurely what has always been held. But if he means that the [?] Deity in Christ did suffer the agonies of the [?], then the error is heresy, & very serious indeed. What Bancroft can mean by [word], I don’t understand, except it be as God is said to be grieved. I think that as you heard [Sawton] it is right that you should as Bp. have a conversation with him to ascertain exactly what he does hold, for it is a serious matter.
I will write again soon. I hope about poor [J]. The Cracroft case has given me a great deal of work +
[3]
writing. On his con[?] of facts, I [?] [Semblance] of Administration + have administered it through [??] of the charges by staying 2 days more than six months allowed with letters of Transfer + officiating as Rector with [?] the Bp’s certificate, which is done so often + [C] one of his [Stand] Committee says [??] his case + he supposes of way of the Clergy of Ill., it was difficult to say with a stretch, enough to look [administration] in even the lightest sense.
Having administered the sentence. I have informed C. that he is now discharged from all the complaints + proceedings, + in regular standing.I have also sent Bp. W. a copy of the Rept/ of the Committee, with the Presentment Sentence + fact of Administer. A copy of the last I have not sent him, as he has no right but to the fact. If Cracroft chooses to make it also thus private, he may. I have now advised C. to apply at once for a letter Dismissing. If that is accepted Bp. W. cannot go behind it & must remove his Institution. If he rejects it, he must show cause + then we will see what we shall see. I opened Sunday in Springfield, + hope soon to make out something about [Institutions].
Yours &c.
C.P.M
P.S. For the sake of uniformity + to take away objections to the length of the [former] prayer opened (permanently, not by direction) by me, on the ground of too great length, + to furnish a [prayer] letter adapted to the present aspect of affairs, + to secure use in all the Churches I enclose a prayer to be appointed. If you have any opinion to give me on that head (appointed) let me know it before printing. Otherwise have it in the paper + have extra copies struck off to be sent in each paper to the clergy, taking care that copies be sent to such as do not take the paper. If you think the requirement had better be confined to Morning Prayer you may erase Ev. Pr.