From Parliament or the English Ministry nothing could be hoped, so
long as Sir Robert Walpole or the Duke of Newcastle controlled the
action of the State; the name of the first of whom is the synonyme
of private profligacy and public faithlessness, while of the
latter an English historian [Footnote: Lord Macaulay. Nor was
much, if any, more to be hoped for from Pitt, afterwards first
Earl of Chatham.] has said that his selfish ambition "was so
intense a passion, that it supplied the place of talents and
inspired even fatuity with cunning." Not under such auspices was
the Episcopate to be given to America.

To these causes of failure must, doubtless, be added the
opposition of the dominant religious bodies in the colonies. But
here it must, I think, in all fairness be said, that this
opposition was largely due to the fear that, were bishops sent to
America, they would, somehow and at some time, be "invested with a
power of erecting courts to take cognizance of all affairs
testamentary and matrimonial, and to enquire into and punish all
offences of scandal"; [Footnote: See _Minutes of Convention of
Delegates from the Synod of New York and Philadelphia and from the
Associations of Connecticut, held annually from 1766 to 1775
inclusive_ (Hartford, 1843). It is now a rare pamphlet, but
very valuable for its revelations touching men and measures.] in
other words, that they would be, or would become, officers of the
State as well as bishops in the Church. No such purpose, it is
almost needless to say, was in the minds of those who sought the
establishment of a colonial Episcopate. All they desired was a
bishop or bishops invested with those powers--and no others--
which were recognized in "Holy Scripture and the ancient Canons."
But this was just what some would not, and many others could not,