Download

Download Full Text (37.2 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.

ISBN

KMcI 601114

Date

11-14-1860

Keywords

letter, McIlvaine, Bedell

Transcript

Cinc. Nov. 14, 1860

My dear Bishop,

I begin with all you have given me to write about. In the first place–the smaller [?]–[Title?]. I do not know him enough to say how he would do at Youngstown. He is amiable, and I believe is, in the main, right, but not distinct and proactive–nor likely to hold a strong position against [?] adversaries–though in a place where the influences around all favourable he would do well. Such is my [?] but as he is in [PA] I think you had better get an account of him from some [?] [PA] brother brother. Let us place somebody at Youngstown as soon as possible. They are not accustomed to, or angry after, much [?] of manner there. If Phelps cannot be got to [?] or Hillsborough, could he be got there? I know he is slow and somewhat heavy, but are many very useful pastor, and he is reliable for [?] and judgment.

Glad of the news from Delaware. I hope that project is now at rest and our way is clear. What about [name?]. Is it vacant? Has Meyer returned? Has he left? Have you any thoughts of any body for the place? You must “heal thyself” [?] medicine about questions unanswered, before you hint to me. This is the second or third “time of asking” about [name], as they say when [?] are published. I was much interested in Holden’s account of his tour [?]. We must get an [?] as soon as possible from that field. I wonder if [?] would not like it. Except as to health, he would [?] exactly. But is Phelps out of the question in that direction? Lee is at Dayton and they are greatly pleased and he writes in a very good spirit. They will give him 500 and board–for all his time–I do not know what is best as to that– for it is the only way of supplying Greenville unless we could get an [?] for Urbana, [?] and Greenville.

I write that Goddard had backed out of his pledges to [?]. He has paid 25 of his own promised 100, and promises the rest. Mr. Anderson paid me the rest of his 50 promised G, and without any hesitation. That is all that has been paid. G. [?] all July to assure me it would come in time. The year is out Dec. 31. When he returned from his long absence in Sept. I wrote him again urging him to get it and saying I had borrowed $200 for [?] on the strength of it. I got an answer. Recently a Committee of [??] went to see him about it. He declined any thing further, and placed it on the ground. What his people will not and him or pledge themselves, on account of a meeting in May last contemplating a [?] of the Ep. Churches of Cinc. in a Ch. [?] Doc. disguised to aid the new parishes – and also because money had been contributed at said meeting for the temporary relief of [name]’s Ch. I quote from the Report of the Committee. This of course is a disgraceful [shift]. I don’t believe he [?] made any effort with his people, or that a more [?] to form a society – which did not form one – or that the collection of $25 to supply pressing needs of Mr. M. while Goddard’s promise was deferred or the [?] of making a society (not by [?] of parishes) – but by combination of any individuals who might be willing [?] matter whence they came has had any influence on Goddard’s people – except perhaps [Storer ]– or if any of them have taken such grounds it has been because Goddard put into their heads. In reality it is his own [?] to these [?] parishes, expressed in other ways – to anything that is not Christ Ch. or under his entire [?]. I know that in conversation he has [?] to [?] all such enterprises. He did so as to the parish at [??]. He has nothing to now with [?] about [name]’s support or anything else – thought as much as five times he has promised me the 500 should be raised. But I shall have to [?] with [?] – and now at this point, I consider the breach between him and me – as [?] – for I can have [no] confiden in him and he has already drawn from me.

We have another thing. The project arose among us of holding weekly meetings for Prayer in the Churches – from one to the other – conducted by the Clergy. – A meeting of all the clergy was invited to consult about it – whether to attempt it and how. All in the City and [?] and Newport and [?] and Clifton were invited. Heather wanted us to dinner with him at the Burmet H. and there consult. Goddard declined and tried to influence [Curry] of [?] by a letter of praise and patronage, having taken no [notice] of him before, and have nothing to do it. Curry understood it and was not influenced. We met and that day came out in the [?] – written by an employee of Goddard’s an [?] – paragraph – headed [?] Ch. [?] party at the Burmet H. – a silly thing and disgusting. The project was adopted. We have had two meetings – in St. John’s and Redemption. Next Tuesday it is to be in [?]. The meetings are attended beyond our expectations. I have presided in both. We open with brief selection from the P. B. then [?] addresses – prayers and singing. Goddard comes not. His open reason I have not heard – the real can understand. Thus however he can be nothing but an injury as long as he continues in Cinc.

Mr [Ibelanci] the way in purpose for heaven qua[lities]. Where of your long letter [?] Grece Cla[?] Lit in [?] who work - Ever cautions & carefully and suggestion. And I [will] place [Smith] [?] there a.

Now let me separate the question of our[?] from what of va[riations] we [?] of [parenting] us the [?] [?] take the [?] first - The Council of Conciliation has our reference to any thing but declam[?] to make visitation.

A [?] us a legal [?]ew. What is of the law of the land being the complete hold on of the Church, a prophet, have certainly a mythic to put any thing in if why please especially while it is unconnected. What is - not placed by by the unh[?] of d[?], in Consecration, under the Bpr - jurisdiction - But whether they have a right at the a [representation] of a Church or Parish, in crisis - [?] with & pledged & the Laun [Family] of the Church in their [?], is another question. The whole com[union] of the Church has myth in that parish, in reference it it what it ought put the place of [?], because all communicants have a right to commune these and want to have their [?] [?] & n[?] [?] offend [?].

Grace Church eclipse is not under my peni[?] [?] get. [Under] the Parish & its representatives again a H[?] I have not [depart] any other myth of C[?] in my correspondence other than that a[?]y out of my official selection [&] the parish & the communion of the whole Church. In that aspect, I have stated the objections to what they have placed [?] [unhappily] in that edifice & neglected ne[?].

When they repent one to compensate the edifice (if they ever shall) they will ask me according to the [?] of the S[?] of [Douden], & take the house under my official [sanction]. [?] [?] Now there is no law, canon or [?] giving a [truly] any right to what all in the pamphlets. Bp - the church [?] [no] consecrations of a Church - What of the parish in per[?] or mountains prw life depend on Consecration. [Many] so power without it the just a fully in population of the Church & D[?] pr[?]. The laws & [make-up] of the Church have done nothing but provide a form of [care] [?] about the [?]. Consequently when a people ask of [one] consecrations. Where is not a send of law [?] one, in any c[?] & grant it. The right of judging them for whether consecration should take place or not, is not exclusively in the hand of the [clergy]. I at least have a part of it. I [maintain] what it is [wholly] discretionary with the Bishop [exactly] with reference to the [?] of r[?] this [day of] God, under his best [consecration’s] judgement. A Bishop like every other officer must have [discretionary] proven. A judge is in [?] ev[?] her it & must have it. What is, he must judge what the law is. & if a Supreme Court Judge - has [just] [?] in first. What can my [?] & accent. Our Mandatory Committee have it, in [accommodating] candidates for order. [He] need[n’t] order. [Profiter] have it [in] [?] to Communion, in [duplicity] in preaching [?] for [Compensation]. There is no jealousy of such d[?] proven but with [negated]. Bpr. We have [it] & [?] must have it say what people [way], a [&] character for order whether we shall [receive] [such] [and] [are] [?] recommended of the P. Committee. & whether we will afterword order them. [&] we have it when asked to consecrate a Church. No parish has a right to the consecration of the Church edifice and - subject to the discriminatory power of the Ps. [?] it under his jurisdiction & [setting] it apart in [on] her part [are] enpr[?] of eff[?] that those in m[?] in it of whether he [an] administrator of the Church! [?] & the ju[?] of her do [charmer], & [?], [?] objects - Such [disorder] [?] use, (I may body grant it) where we [?] & cin[?] un[?] that Church debt are par - March Bishop on [rant] do [?] - Of a [?]ty say we have the legal title & this prophet - [?] why not dedicate it [?] [?] [answer] because it is little & [Lee] old for d[?]. Thy reply, but as lay a it is not [bold] it is in [an] [?] subject & our whole anp[?] for [devise] sem[?] why [?] consecrate & lea [would] [exchange] for such her nice; [within] it be sold for debt if ever? We reply because we do not benefit & [debt] apart & [Gerd_ what [away] then [?] [?] away from her. [Yet] but [Whig] pay - Her building of out of debt & consecrated, would not Lee exempt from such a nik. Church [?] are often [sold] for that under when old or unfit or too [?] - & our objective is [?]. We then place m[?] on our [discriminatory] power - & pay we do not see fit & consecrate. We are this Judge & move else & it [?] Lee Dr -

Now when asked to consecrate a Church, I begin in the exercise for any discretionary [power] [?] c[?] whether what church might be Lee consecrated. [?] in it [?] of d[?]? Much in it in [complicitly] with the laws of our communion. Under the C[ather] I fund our communion table. The lawn of this Church (see if the Rubic; of the Communion Office) require such a [lethe]. I fund in place of it [an] [other]. The Church [?] our [match] [thing[. It in opposed & the Church while decline of the Communion. I say that after an [illegal] [?] false do [?] - I say there is rep[?] by law, not an after but a little. I am the judge [of] the case - because I am to decide whether I will grant the [?] [?] - But what is [am] after & what a [?] [?] I answer c[?] s[?] & communion con[?] - & [common] use of Ca[?] - the history of the Church - especially all the [?] [letters] of Mr Rubuc, which the [?] of the Ch. of Engld the deanm[?] of her [?], & [?]. Me practise of the Ch. of Engld & will [?]y [?] the [?]. Our practice of the Ch. [?] country all determance - Over R[?] sep[?] little [cora[ p?] there of the Church of England. [?] from her work; & preach a [we] [?] & her Reform for her interpretation. Of the [?] & Office do we want to go to her Bpr - & Church & wager for interpretation of what a tethe in a for the Lord; [?] & what it is not. Whether in any church, for while consecration is requested, the churches for the Lord; [disappear] Lee [sufficiently] in a c[?] in the that u[?]. & enoble more property & [?] it by consecrations my [are] the duty. Is it said, such [discriminating] power may be checked - of course - do [on] [?] or by P[?] and it C[?] & [Communion] do by judge of [course]. & the [Precident] of the U.S. but [rate] there [?] be with [disdain] - & the danger of [?] cannot be [?] - which is the [inherent] of [dominion], [agreed] by the b[?] [?] are unt[?] of [probable] [distinction]? The service [?] of the [needy] of each paper - but the Ch. on whose pays what it shall be. In way decree & is the [precedent] of the bishop use of [?] ac[?] power - In it we require the edifice has placed under the official jurisdictions with [?] of the uses for which it is consecrated. But where is law for that? The whole question seems to me perfectly planned - whose than is my Law of [Consecrations] other than the [person] [who] can be our calling & accountable [?] at the h[?] of public opinion [which] I am with[?] [?].

The only difficulty is at & those [shadowing] down from lethe to other d[epend] & [cede] the power as much as profitable tha[?] who [?] a such a, that is h[?] Cla. [Cleveland]. & when we [?] apt for the Duke of peace be [?].

We can to [Variations] a whole what [?] [?] I should not decipher of a Council of Concalation De Laccy would not get with it by C[?] a W[?] & Mr Cu[?] untold - & h - the & the two B[ishops[ of Ver[?] with of when are meant to Ohio in [?] d[?] the[?] Potter. [Builders] I question whether it would and Lee good for the Church L have such a question tired - while her way [?] Church in may[?] deade. P[?] opium for it would be [?] [?].

But what to do when [?] is done - where will the plenty of there to consider. Meantime I have notun[?] & any body what I will do, except [for] [you] - our while J. The way will be open to [?] f[?] [light] . I thought A “variation” does not [reprise] that I should preach - or impart “the [?] of the clergy” by [?] with a Church Edifice a [new] what I should emphasize is what Edifice when the [?] they in - murr at the Chancel [?] - The Bp?] in [England[ do not emphasize in more that one not of from of the Churches a the candidate, being gathered from the next of Dunne one meant one meant [environments] - Their [?] do not surprise when to do more when m[?] where clergy & [?] [?]. & candidates at certains elected places. In the Canon of [?] has Church in [?] with “Parish or [Corpse] - ga[?]” These now reference to a [?] - see Little L Can. 13_p 4h -

Should I conclude to visit under [pretext] cer c[?] [?], my ideas would be, subject to future c[?]’s there a first, & require unfor[?] whether they sufficient change her token place as & the [?] - [?] after a [?] when & c[?] u[?] p[?]. This cease must in priest in the this while corresponding abp?] a meeting e[?] & the [?] may pristine. When it [confirms] but not [?] the chanced little we c[?] [?] begin - & playing where only what it is in prop[?] - this [?] any [?] of the objectionable furniture - keeping away from - & I [?] [exiting] the Ch. about any other [?].

But these in [?] [?] [?] of all [things] is about the consecration. I am heaven sent - But & is not which of the asked doom & I life will not see.

We what - a villa - yours are [?] write back a lay [?] - I am glad to hear you are doing so well - through no your back - I open the new Ch. st [merchant] half in handing mist - [?] heavens to consecrete - Fill [?] Bedelle the box at Clefton - for now Mr. Lewis is going on very well.

Yours very [?]

C.P. M.

Do you want Kalthy Killy’s letter on [?] returned? I send a copy of “Reason for not corresponding a Church 8c” which will illuminate much of what I have written.

Letter to Bishop Bedell

Share

COinS
 

Rights Statement

No Copyright - United States