Scottish bishops could not quite comprehend. Says Bishop Skinner,
speaking for his brethren as well as for himself: "I should be
glad to know why he [Dr. Seabury] has been refused consecration in
England; as I cannot conceive any good reason for denying this,
after what Government has already yielded to the United States.
The Bishop of London, I presume, does not now think of exercising
any spiritual jurisdiction where the secular power of Britain is
no longer acknowledged. And if all the respectable characters you
mention would secretly rejoice at the establishment of Protestant
Episcopacy in America, even through Scotland, there must be some
ostensible reason for their withholding that confidence and
support they would otherwise give to this proposal." [Footnote:
Letter to Dr. Berkeley, under date of Nov. 29, 1783.]

Long years of suffering had taught the Scottish bishops caution,
nor can it be wondered at that while they were "keenly alive to
the necessity of preserving the Scottish Church from the odium
that would have been incurred by any hasty or mistaken step," they
were also "utterly at a loss to understand why considerations of a
purely political kind should have had such enervating influence on
the English bishops as to render them passive spectators of the
destitution of their American children." Brave men, men ready to
run needful risks and meet unavoidable dangers, are not the men
who are willing to be made cat's-paws. How the doubt was resolved
I am unable to say. That it was resolved is certain; since on the
8th of December, 1783, it was known that consecration could be
obtained in Scotland.

Just here the questions arise: Why, if the Scottish bishops were
ready to proceed to consecration in December of 1783, was that