Files
Download Full Text (16.7 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
Thanks for the resolutions "tendering to me their 'cordial congratulations' on the account of the 40th anniversary of my consecration at the hands of the venerable Bishop White"; their prayers and sympathies for ill health/necessary absence.
Date
11-21-1865
Keywords
letter, McIlvaine, Whittingham, church
Recommended Citation
McIlvaine, Charles Petit, "Letter to Bishop Whittingham" (1865). Charles Pettit McIlvaine Letters. 329.
https://digital.kenyon.edu/mcilvaine_letters/329
Rights Statement
Transcript
Cincinnati
Nov. 21 /65
My Dear Bishop,
Before the adjournment of our House, I asked your view of what sort of Title-page should be given to that part of my abortive[?] Past Letter, which the Resolution, offered by Bp. Potter, requested me to publish. I write now on the same subject. What I wish distinctly get is to what extent is the sanction of the House given to the part requested-- & how is that to be indicated.
The resolution is thus-
That the Bp. of O. be requested to publish in the form of an Address to the Clergy & Candidates for order, so much of his Pastoral Letter, read to this House, as relates to Rationalism, with such notes & additions as he shall see fit.
You remember I asked in what name it was expected to go out, saying, if only in my name the object will not be answered. Bp. P then rose & indicated by gesture, as if he were reading a title-page, & by voice (the words I do not remember) that it was not to be thus issued, but was to go (in some way or other) as the address of the House, at least so I understood him. Thus I asked, How is the expense to be met, & you answered, by the House or Gen. Convention or the Church, I forget which. Thus I inferred that while it was not to be a Pastoral Letter, it was to go to the Clergy, [bc], in the same relation to the House, as in print of sanction, as if it were. But I want to be clear on that point, so that if it shall be published there may be no trouble as to its relation to the House. If it is to have no sanction other than my authority, I do not want to publish it. The Resolution called for publication of that part of the Address as it had been read to the House--& as it then was--only changing it from the form of a Pastoral Letter to the whole Ch. not an Address to certain persons. Well, as it was & is, it speaks in the plural we--your Bishops. This style runs throughout. I do not appear. The force depends on retaining that mode. The Resolution will not be complied with if it be changed. Now the question is, Is that style to be changed? And if not then does it meet your view of what the House contemplated to give the paper such a title as the following
Rationalism
As exhibited in the writing of certain Clergymen of the Ch. of E.
An Address to the Clergy, [?] [?]
Being a paper subtitled to the House of Bishops at the late General Convention by the Bishop of Ohio & now published at their request.
I have appended some notes by way of further elucidation of the infidelity, & purpose adding something concerning the duty of clergy arising out of the infidel trust, they must expect to meet. But I shall state that exactly what was read to the House, & what has been appended since. I will thank you to write at your earliest convenience.
The action of the Council of the Southern Dioceses has not met our expectations. A portion of them are evidently expecting to stand aloof from us, at least for three more years. Meanwhile what are to be our relations to them? Are we to acknowledge them by giving and receiving Letters Dimissory? Are clergy ordained by their Bps. during their secession, to be rec’d to our parishes? If so, on what footing? As we receive clergy of a foreign Prot. Ep. Church? Certainly, not as we receive our own, from one diocese to another. Again what is the condition of the Churches of West Va.? Bp. [Johns] belongs to another Church, & is under their Canons. They continue in unison with us & in a separate State from Va. Is Bp. [Johns] to come, by right, from another Church & hold jurisdiction over Churches belonging to this Church?
By our confidence that they would all come back very soon, & our disappointment in their action, we have left a great deal of needed arrangement undone.
I remain, my dear Bp,
Your friend & brother,
Chas. P. McIlvaine