Download

Download Full Text (11.9 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

Kenyon trustees; Morse's case; McElree; Cracroft case; rebel diocese at General Convention

Date

8-23-1865

Keywords

letter, McIlvaine, Bedell, Kenyon College, Morse, McElree, Cracroft

Transcript

Cinc. Aug. 23, 28 / 65

Dear Bishop

On my return from Dubuque, last Saturday night, I found your letter of no date, or rather, I found it among a heap of 33 on Monday morning. I have received answers to my circular from all the Trustees but [Refance & Delano]. They show so great a difference of opinion, that I should be unwilling to decide the case & therefore I feel agreebly the relief given by the arrangement with Chapman by which the matter is left just as it is & was at the late meeting of Trustees - until the next annual meeting. He likes the office of [S] of Public Schools at Massillon + my belief is that we shall not be troubled any more with the case -

Morse’s case-

He resigned in July , to take effect Oct. 1. That is, he resigned to me who have no power to accept his resignation, & said nothing to the vestry. I sent them the fact & left it with them to decide whether they would urge their application to have the case brought under the new camp; They concluded to wait for his resignation to take effect. Meanwhile I supposed, of course, that Morse had resigned to them - A good while after he told the congregation ^ on Sunday that he had resigned, and then was all the vestry had from him. At the same time he called a meeting at his house to organize a new parish. The vestry complained to me of his proceedings, his whole spirit & ways & words as regard to them - taking advantage of his position as shall Rector to do mischief & divide the parish. I wrote him a pretty strong remonstrance - what in N.Y. would be called an unlawful “[admonition],” perhaps, & urged silence as a matter of honour & propriety - & especially expected my news on the matter of a new parish I have not heard since, I could not approve of his being placed on the [finds] of the [pg1] Miss. Comm. because he is not sane when excited & would do no good. The name & appointment in that salary I have no objection to, but I suppose he would not have it on such terms. I think he would properly come under the terms of the [??] was an [aged] infirm clergymen + perhaps as a destitute or needy one. You may see what should be done. I am too busy to have any more correspondence about it. You should see what a pile of correspondence it has cost already.

You have not written me about McElree.

About [Cracroft]. This position is perfectly defensible + right. He officiates [pg3] at Galesburgh under no engagement with the vestry “as Rector Ass Min. or [Stated] Minister.” The prohibition of Whitehouse is wholly unlawful & void. Any Presbyter; I have so said to him + Whitehouse. The case is as plain as possible. W. professedly [?] him under the second Section of the Canon = + that applies only to a superior & W. declares he is not a [?man], but a resident. Shall you say W. may complain to me &c. No. That provision is in the 1st sect. & applies only to a resident minister. The section under which he inhabits provides nothing concerning trials except to use the words “unless acquitted on Trial.” As it does not say the Bp. in which the clergyman sojourn, may try, it is the inferred of course, that his own Bp. must do it, especially as that is the case under the previous section, as to a resident. It does not follow that, as in the previous section the Bp. of Ill. would ever have the right to try a sojourner. But supposing he can + does make complaints to me. I shall send them to the Stand. Comm. + they would settle it as before.

My idea is that W. is waiting to see if C. officiates after the [??] & if he does, summons him for trial in Ill. on the ground of that one offence. I don’t see how the case can come before the Gen. [Couns]. I wish it could, but see no way, but as an argument for a Court of Applicable Juris Doctora.

The remedy you suggest [?] the Letter [?] would not answer because W. would bring up his have [sic] violated the inhibition ^ since that Letter was sent ^ as a ground of rejection. But I will not do any thing that would look like the least acknowledgement of the ground or rejection of the letter as it is. If he ^ (W) ^ is ever called to answer for his course; I want him put on his defence for rejecting that letter. My opinion is that the [pg3] demands of justice & equity against as tyrannical Bp. who is a greater[?] of [?] + has been ever since he was consecrated than any of the clergy - + holds himself superior to law, can be answered only by his being [Fired] - + probably it will result in that. He has been a nuisance + disgrace ever since he was called Bp. Now about the Div. Prof.

[Browne] thinks, [Ufford] would answer. Have you forward any opinion that way? I wrote Bp. Burgess + he answers nothing to [Butter] + he only asks if spear would do - + he would not. Now I have heard [pg5] of Dr. Smith, now of Bridgeport, who expects to be a candidate for order a Congregational Minister, graduate of the Union Theol. Sem. N.Y. & of Columbia College - a nature of N.Y. He has recently been made a DD. by Columbia College. He has been [?] years a minister - is 38 years of age. I wrote Dr. Dyer about him. He answers, “Dr. D. I know well. He is a superior man Well educated + very well read in theology. I do not think you could do better than employ him in the Seminary. He is a very good preacher, with much dignity of manner in the pulpit. His wife is a pleasant lady. No drawback that I am aware of.” About [manner] &c. I hear very favourably from other sources - Now if he were in our Ministry, probably there would be no cause of hesitancy considering what straits we are in. But how will it look to place in that [?] just from another denomination, only a candidate for orderly? To be sure his candidateship would be [more] in 4 or 5 months after his entrance on duty, + his Priests’ ordination could not be [?], but what would be the effect on students, + the [aspect] abroad. The idea is to appoint him now for a year - because of his candidateship - thus having liberty to change of [bent] + time to look around + to keep him if he suits; I have reason to believe he would accept such an appointment, especially because it would ease off his six months of candidateship during which he must otherwise be unemployed. How does it strike you. Write as soon as possible. Have the arrangements been made with Mr. Kellogg? Should we get Dr. Smith the way might be prepared for [?] will Newton, after a while.

I anticipate little return of rebel dioceses at the Gen. Couns. Burgess writes so.

Yours affly

C.P.M.

Letter to Bishop Bedell

Share

COinS
 

Rights Statement

No Copyright - United States