that most unattractive period; but I may not pass by the different
obstacles to action which presented themselves, or were presented
with whatsoever purpose, as those months dragged their slow length
along. I know how difficult it is to carry one's self back into a
distant period of time and to surround one's self with its real
circumstances and conditions, especially when these are connected
with what were then new and perplexing civil and ecclesiastical
relations. But I cannot wonder that, looking back on so many
failures in regard to an American Episcopate, and the apparent
inability of those whose aid was invoked to grasp the issue
presented with all its grand possibilities--I cannot wonder that
the clergy of Connecticut should have said: "We hope that the
successors of the Apostles in the Church of England have
sufficient reasons to justify themselves to the world and to God.
We, however, know of none such, nor can our imagination frame
any." [Footnote: _Address of the Connecticut Clergy to Bishop
Seabury_, 1785.]

I name first, among the difficulties urged, the fear "that there
would be no adequate support for a bishop"; and I name it first
simply because it was, probably, the least. The answer to it that
came from our clergy was dignified and conclusive. "We can
contemplate," they said, "no other support for a bishop than what
is to be derived from voluntary contracts, and subscriptions and
contributions, directed by the good will and zeal of the members
of a Church who are taught, and do believe, that a bishop is the
chief minister in the kingdom of Christ on earth.... A bishop in
Connecticut must, in some degree, be of the primitive style. With
patience, and a share of primitive zeal, he must rest for support
on the Church which he serves, unornamented with temporal dignity,