BISHOP BROWNELL’S CENTENARY

The Right Reverend Thomas Church Brownell, D.D., LL.D., was consecrated Third Bishop of Connecticut in Trinity Church, New Haven, October 27, 1819. The Diocesan Convention of 1919 appointed as a Committee to arrange for a suitable celebration of the One Hundredth Anniversary, Bishop Brewster, ex-officio, the Rev. F. W. Harriman, D.D., Rev. W. A. Beardsley, Rev. Joseph Hooper, Rev. L. R. Sheffield, Messrs. F. Clarence Bissell, Alfred N. Wheeler and Frederick F. Fuessenich. It was decided to connect this celebration with the formal opening of Christ Church Cathedral, Hartford, which took place on Tuesday, January 13th, 1920. In the morning a Bishop’s chair, given in memory of Bishop Brownell, by his granddaughter, Mrs. John H. Rose, was dedicated, with other memorials. At 2.30 p. m. a service of hymns and prayers was conducted, by the Right Reverend E. Campion Acheson, D.D., Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese, assisted by the Rev. Dr. Harriman, Acting Chairman of the Committee. The Right Reverend Chauncey B. Brewster, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese, spoke briefly of his personal recollections; and the Reverend William Agur Beardsley, Rector of Saint Thomas’s Church, New Haven, and Registrar of the Diocese, delivered the Historical Discourse. The Diocesan Convention of 1920 ordered this printed for permanent preservation and distribution.

THE ONE HUNDRETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONSECRATION OF THOMAS CHURCH BROWNELL

Bishop Williams, in his sermon commemorative of Bishop Brownell, said that he could never read those words of the Psalmist, “So he fed them with a faithful and true heart, and ruled them prudently with all his power” (Psalm lxxviii, 73), without the involuntary application of them to the life and work of the Bishop.

In so far, then, as we need a text we will take those words, as, perhaps, the most appropriate we could select.

October 27th, 1819, is a date in our Connecticut Church history which ought to be commemorated, for on that date was consecrated Thomas Church Brownell to be the third Bishop of Connecticut. And now that one hundred years have gone it is very fitting that we should turn our thoughts back to that event, and revive in our memories the story of him who for forty-five years presided over the destinies of this Diocese.

Connecticut Churchmen are justly proud of the fact that, owing to the initiative and determination of that little group of clergymen, which was loyally and bravely shepherding the faithful in Connecticut in 1783, the first American Bishop was Connecticut’s Bishop. But we are not concerned now with Seabury. His story has been told in detail, and you are all more or less familiar with it. It is enough to say here that Seabury laid the strong foundation upon which his successors built, and that even to this day the Church in Connecticut bears the impress of his masterful personality and sturdy Churchmanship.

They were difficult times in which Seabury served the Church as Bishop of Connecticut, but he served it well. During the Revolution the Church in the Colonies had been Tory in its sympathies. Seabury himself was a strong Tory. Now this fact of the Toryism of the Church was not a particularly valuable asset in the days immediately following the Revolution. Indeed it was a distinct liability.

But as the work of reconstruction went on, and the nation more and more settled down to its great task of developing its wonderful experiment in democratic government, the Church accepted the decision, and went bravely to work to adjust itself to new conditions, and make itself a real American branch of the Anglican Church. Seabury contributed his full measure of effort in that work of adjustment. He died in 1796, and the work went to other hands.

But his successor was not chosen at once nor without difficulty. Seabury had died early in 1796, and it was not until October 18th, 1797, that Dr. Jarvis was consecrated. However this delay was not due to the failure of the Diocese to take action. A special Convention was held in Trinity Church, New Haven, on May 5th, 1796, and after spirited balloting on the part of the clergy the Rev. Abraham Jarvis was declared elected. The laity were slow in their confirmation of the choice, and by no means unanimous, and the result was that Mr. Jarvis declined to accept the election.

The Convention adjourned to meet in October. The specific and only business of that Convention was the election of a Bishop. The Rev. John Bowden, Principal of the Episcopal Academy of Connecticut, was unanimously chosen by the clergy, and his election was promptly ratified by the laity. He requested and obtained time in which to render his decision. At the annual Convention held in June he declined the election on the ground of his health. The Convention immediately proceeded to another election and the Rev. Mr. Jarvis was unanimously chosen by both orders, which election he accepted. His Episcopate was terminated by his death on May 3d, 1813, and the Diocese was once more without a head, and was to remain so for a much longer time than that which intervened between the death of Seabury and the election of Jarvis.

As yet no adequate provision had been made in the Diocese for the support of the Bishop, and this was a source of embarrassment in the selection of Jarvis’s successor as it had been in the selection of Seabury’s. The Churchmen of those days were normally human, and so it would not be surprising if the Episcopal lightning showed a tendency to streak in the direction of one who was in a position to fill the office without too great a strain upon Diocesan resources.

But this was a very important matter, and in the Convention of 1812, and again in that of 1813, definite steps were taken “to devise ways and means for increasing the Bishop’s Fund.” The response to the efforts made was not particularly encouraging, and so the election of a successor to Jarvis was put off. One Convention after another met and adjourned, and still it did not seem expedient to nil the vacancy. But all the time the Fund for the support of the Bishop was slowly accumulating.

On February 21st, 1816, Trinity Church, New Haven, was consecrated by Bishop Hobart of New York. He also preached the sermon. It was, of course, a great occasion for the city and for the Diocese. Most of the clergy were present and many of the laity from the neighboring towns. The impression produced by Bishop Hobart’s personality and his words was most profound, and it is not surprising that, when in the Convention of the following June the matter of the election of a Bishop came up as it was bound to do, and the suggestion of a provisional Bishop prevailed as a temporary solution of the problem, it is not surprising, I say, that all minds at once turned to Bishop Hobart. He consented to take oversight of the Diocese, and formal arrangement was made for his doing so. All things considered it was a very wise move.

But Connecticut was too important a field to remain in charge of a Bishop, who could give but a portion of his time to it, any longer than was deemed absolutely necessary. But it was not easy for the Diocese to unite upon a man. In 1815 an election had been attempted, and the Eev. John Croes of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was declared to be duly and canonically elected, but the vote was such that we can understand the historian’s comment that “Providence wisely ordered that these proceedings should not be consummated.’’ While negotiations were in progress New Jersey claimed her own, and. Dr. Croes was to exercise the office of a Bishop in the Diocese where he had been born and reared. From correspondence preserved in our Archives it is clear that there were those in New Jersey who did not view with equanimity the prospect of Connecticut taking Dr. Croes from them.

The Convention of 1819 met in New Haven, in the Senate Chamber of the Old State House. It was the purpose of the Convention, determined a year before to proceed to the election of a Bishop. There were good men in the Diocese, but for age or some other reasons they seemed somehow to be disqualified, although the Rev. Stephen Jewett, writing under date of February 2d, 1814, to Dr. Tillotson Bronson, Principal of the Episcopal Academy, says, “I should not like to have the world think that Connecticut, the cradle of churchmen, has not among her Clergy one suitable to preside over the rest.

My regard for the Academy did, at one time, induce me to wish you would seek a candidate out of the state. But I have given up that wish and if anything could induce me to regret my present establishment it would be my desire to contribute my mite in placing that very important office in the hands of him to whom it justly belongs.” [Manuscript letter in the possession of the author.]

But those upon whom the duty rested to give the Diocese a Bishop had not been idle. There had been some consideration of the qualifications of those who might be called to the high office, and attention had been focused upon the Rev. Thomas Church Brownell, Assistant Minister in Trinity Church, New York.

When the time came for the election the two orders separated, the clergy repairing to Trinity Church. There under the Presidency of Dr. Richard Mansfield of Derby, then in his ninety-seventh year, the votes were cast, and Mr. Brownell was unanimously elected, which election was subsequently unanimously confirmed by the laity. Apparently there was really but one mind in the matter! The local paper says, “Mr. Brownell was elected with a degree of unanimity seldom witnessed in cases of this kind.”

Connecticut had waited long for a Bishop, but the waiting had not been in vain. Bishop Hobart had Tendered faithful service up to the limit of his ability, and the work had not languished. The Diocese had now united upon a man to be its Bishop, to whom it was ready to give an undivided support, even if, as yet, it was unable on the material side to give an adequate support. However, the Bishop-elect was not worrying about this, for in his letter of acceptance he says, “With respect to pecuniary support, I do not feel any great solicitude. I have no doubt but the Diocese will cheerfully take upon itself the maintenance of my family; and till the Bishop’s Fund is adequate to this object, I think it proper to reserve to myself the right of deriving any necessary aid from the performance of such Parish or Missionary services as may not be incompatible with my duties to the Diocese at large.’’

The election took place in June, and. on October 27th, the consecration, in Trinity Church, New Haven. The Bishops present were Rt. Rev. William White, D.D., of Pennsylvania, Rt. Rev. John Henry Hobart, D.D., of New York, and Rt. Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, D.D., of the Eastern Diocese, which included all the New England States except Connecticut. The sermon was preached by Bishop White.

But now who was this man whom Connecticut had placed at its head? Well he was not a man who was in the Episcopal Church by the accident of birth. When he-arrived there it was from conviction. He was born in Westport, Massachusetts, October 19th, 1779, and was the eldest of a family of eleven. His father was a farmer, and therefore young Brownell’s early education was such as a farmer lad of those days would be apt to get. But he made the most of his opportunities, so much so that when at the age of fifteen the district school in which he studied was without a schoolmaster he consented to serve in that capacity, and did so with such success as to win the respect of those who had been his former schoolmates.

For a while he studied with his pastor, and then by his advice he went to an Academy in Taunton to complete his preparation for college. This was Bristol Academy, which opened in July 1796 with the Rev. Simeon Doggett as its first preceptor. It is told of him that, though a Congregational minister for more than fifty years, he went to the Lord’s altar in an Episcopal Church on every Christmas day. This was no doubt due to the fact that his mother was a devout Churchwoman.

In the fall of 1800 Brownell entered the College at Providence, which is now Brown University. This institution then had for its head the Rev. Jonathan Maxcy. A strong attachment sprang up between the two men, and when in 1802 Mr. Maxcy was called to the presidency of Union College, Schenectady, young Brownell went with him, entering the Junior class, and two years later graduating as its valedictorian.

He had had it in mind for some time to turn to the study of theology, but the old Calvinistic doctrines in. which he had been brought up were beginning to bother him. And yet that he might be perfectly just to himself and to them he sought to know more about them before he made any final decision. To that end he placed himself under the instruction of the Rev. Eliphalet Nott, then in charge of the Presbyterian Church at Albany. As Mr. Brownell somewhat naively says, “He had the faculty of presenting these doctrines under a somewhat mitigated form.” And always his advice was to study well the early history of the Church.

Mr. Brownell was conscientiously and cautiously searching out his way, and he was peculiarly alone in the attempt. As he says, “I had no near relation, and no intimate friend, belonging to the Episcopal Church; and I seemed to be left alone in the world, in regard to my religious sympathies.” But he was not to make his decision at once. On the 5th of April, 1805; he entered upon his duties as tutor in the Latin and Greek languages in Union College, and the exactions of this position demanded all his time. Two years later he was made professor of Belles Lettres and Moral Philosophy. Two years later still a new department was established in the College, that of Chemistry and Mineralogy, and Professor Brownell was appointed to that department. There went with this appointment a year’s leave of absence in Europe to study ‘similar departments there. It was a disturbed time, the famous Embargo was on, and Napoleon, was allowing no communication between England and the Continent. Professor Brownell’s visit was, therefore, confined to the British Isles, but in spite of that limitation of his activities, when he returned he brought with him many specimens and appliances with which to enrich his newly organized department.

But now occurred an event which had an important bearing upon his whole future career, and that was his marriage to Miss Charlotte Dickinson, of Lansingburg, N. Y. That loneliness in regard to his religious sympathies, of which he had complained, was henceforth removed. His wife belonged to a strong Church family, and now there was brought into his life the influence which enabled him to bring his outward Church relations into conformity with his inner convictions, which had already been formed for as he says, “Previous to this, I had become convinced of the, historical and Scriptural grounds of Episcopacy, yet I had not felt the necessity of changing my church relations.” Dr. Nott’s advice to study well the early history of the Church had borne its fruit, perhaps not in just the way he had expected or desired. He had never been baptised, and so on September 5th, 1813, he received that rite in St. George’s Church, Schenectady, and within the week following the rite of Confirmation. He appears as a member of the vestry from April, 1813 to April, 1816.

He now began to study theology, not, however, with the idea of making the ministry his life work to the exclusion of teaching, but with the thought in mind that possibly he could be of more assistance if he were in Orders. On April 11th, 1816, he was ordained to the Diaconate by Bishop Hobart in Trinity Church, New York, and on August 4th of the same year advanced to the Priesthood by the same Bishop. The winter of 1817-1818 he spent in the South on the advice of his physician. Returning in the spring with health restored he went back to his duties at the. College. Very soon there came to him an unexpected call to become an Assistant Minister in Trinity Parish, New York. This he accepted, and was working there when Connecticut elected him to be its Bishop.

This then was the man who was to be the successor of Seabury and Jarvis. And his story is interesting. Less than six years a member of the Church, and but three in its ministry, yet he was chosen to the highest position in the gift of the Church. But as I have said he came into the Church from conviction, and he was, therefore, as loyal to her traditions, to her standards of faith and order, as if he had been trained in her ways and works from infancy.

But now let us come to Brownell the Bishop. He entered Upon his work at a favorable time in the history of the Diocese, The year 1818 had witnessed a change in the State Constitution, or’ rather the adoption of a new Constitution, which was bound to be of benefit to the Episcopalians. All religious bodies had been tolerated in Connecticut, but mere toleration isn’t the pleasantest state in which to exist. Governmental control was kept strictly in the hands of the Congregational Standing Order, so that Congregationalism was really the State religion. By the adoption of the new Constitution that situation was altered, and greater civil and religious privileges were given to all the people irrespective of their church affiliations. It was just at this time that Brownell assumed the leadership of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut. The situation offered a fine opportunity for the unhampered exercise of his proved intellectual powers, as well as a test of his capacity for leadership in a new and untried field. Most of his time since his graduation from College had been spent in an academic atmosphere. What sort of success would he make of the office of a Bishop, where the work was totally different and more exacting, and the responsibilities heavier?

After his consecration he took up his residence in Hartford, and from December, 1819, to December, 1820, he served as rector of Christ Church there, the Rev. Jonathan M. Wainwright having resigned to take the place in Trinity Parish, New York, which Mr. Brownell had relinquished to come to Connecticut.

In 1817 formal steps were taken to organize a general theological seminary. It was in due time organized and located in New York City. But at the General Convention held in the spring of 1820, it was voted to transfer the Seminary from New York to New Haven. The Convention was influenced to take this action because there existed strong objections to its location in the former city, which was regarded as an expensive place in which to live, both for professors and students. Also, it should be said, the institution was not prospering in New York.

It is clear that for some time the matter of establishing a theological seminary had been occupying the mind of Professor Brownell. Samuel Johnston, a student in Union College, and formerly a student in the Academy at Cheshire, and who later was prominently identified with the Church in Cincinnati, writing to Doctor Bronson September 6th, 1816, says, “Professor Brownell still continues desiring to have d Theological School established in Schenectady—and he is willing, to do all in his power to do it— He has been twice to N York & has been sounding the clergy there— and they are all desirous to have it in the city—— New York is not the place for it—I do wish & pray that it could be in Schenectady & I could wish that you were at the head of it—How far the student reflects the Professor’s mind regarding the head of the institution I am not able to say, but unquestionably he did reflect his mind as regards its location. [Manuscript letter in the possession of the author.]

When, therefore, the General Theological Seminary was transferred to New Haven, Professor Brownell, now become Bishop Brownell, was, in a measure, realizing his desire. Of course as Bishop of the Diocese in which the Seminary was now located he would naturally have certain responsibilities in reference to it. And he promptly and gladly accepted those responsibilities. He had long been a teacher, and here was a chance for him to teach young men who were preparing for the work of the ministry. Consequently he gave up his home in Hartford, and went to New Haven to live. For part of the time at least, perhaps for all of the time, he occupied the house on Crown Street, which was later occupied by Dr. Jeremiah Day, ex-President of the College.

It was during his residence in New Haven that he found time, amid all his other duties, to compile and publish his valuable Commentary on the Book of Common Brayer, a book little used now, but which was highly esteemed by the Church people of that day. In his preface he says “he is persuaded that many who habitually use the Book of Common Prayer, have a very imperfect apprehension of the full import of its several Offices, and catch but a faint inspiration from that spirit of piety which animates them. If, by collecting together the lights which have been shed upon the Liturgy, he can afford a guide to its clearer comprehension, and a more pious use of it, his labours will not have been in vain.” It was in that spirit and with that purpose that Bishop Brownell edited a volume, which, however serviceable it may have been in its time, has long since taken its place on our library shelves in that vast and imposing array of forgotten books. Later on he published several other works of a theological character.

But whatever satisfaction the Bishop may have experienced because of the transference of the Seminary to New Haven was short-lived. At a Special General Convention held in the fall of 1821 it was voted to take it back again to New York. In his Convention address for 1822, the Bishop reports its return to New York that it might avail itself of a munificent bequest, and adds, somewhat regretfully I think, “it was acquiesced in by the delegation from this Diocess, from considerations affecting the peace and unity of the Church.”

The matter of establishing an institution for the higher education of the sons of Churchmen had long been occupying the minds of Connecticut Churchmen. They had tried in vain for an enlargement of the charter of the Academy at Cheshire so that it might confer degrees, and be in fact a College, but their aspirations in that direction had been consistently denied. The’ adoption of the new State Constitution, however, had broken the grip of the Congregational Standing Order, and the situation now was more favorable to the realization of their dreams. The project of founding a College was one which would appeal to Bishop Brownell.

In 1823 a charter was granted for Washington College, now Trinity, to be located in Hartford. Bishop Brownell was made its first President. He moved to Hartford and took up his new duties with zest. He was on familiar ground now. He threw his whole heart and soul into it, and for seven years continued to guide its destinies, and lavish his affections upon. it.

But the demands of the Diocese were becoming more and more exacting. Apparently the Bishop’s connection with the College had been acquiesced in for financial reasons. The Diocese was dissatisfied with this condition of things, and so in the Convention of 1831 the following resolution was passed;—

“Whereas, it is highly desirable that this Diocese should have benefit of the undivided labors of its Diocesan, and particularly so at the present time, when many of the Parishes are destitute of settled ministers. Therefore

Resolved, by this Convention, that while they bear in grateful remembrance the important services rendered to the Church at large, by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Brownell, in founding and raising up Washington College, to its present state of prosperity and usefulness, they do also express the earnest hope that he will devote his labors exclusively to the pastoral care of the Diocese, as soon as a suitable gentleman can be provided to fill the office of President of the Institution, and a competent support for the Bishop shall have been provided by the Diocese.”

Bishop Brownell recognized the wisdom of this, and in his response very graciously says, “I feel very grateful to the Convention for the kind manner in which they have been pleased to speak of my labors, and entirely concur with them in regard to the expediency of devoting myself exclusively to the charge of the Diocese, so soon as the contemplated provision shall have been* made.’’

Whether the Diocese was at all influenced to take this action by the fact that the Bishop had been absent on a long missionary journey throughout the Southwest does not appear. It might well have felt that there was work enough for him to do at home. But Bishops were not as numerous then as they are now, and if there was need, as indeed there was, for a Bishop to go far afield in search of the scattered sheep, we will give Connecticut the credit, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, of willingly parting with her Bishop for a season that the Church’s message might be carried into the great un-shepherded territory which lay to the south and west.

The General Convention of 1829 met in Philadelphia, and Bishop Brownell preached the sermon from the text, “But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing.” In the course of it he spoke forcefully and eloquently and sympathetically of the work of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. As the immediate result of that he was asked by the Missionary Society to visit the States lying west and south of the Alleghany mountains, “to perform such Episcopal offices as might be desired, to inquire into the condition of the missions established by the Board, and to take a general survey of the country, for the purpose of designating such other missionary stations as might be usefully established.’’

Of the eleven Bishops living at the time Bishop Brownell was, perhaps, the only one who could undertake the task. With the exceptions of Bishops Meade and Henry Onderdonk, they were all older than he was, though Bishop Bowen was only a few months older, and Bishops Hobart and Chase were not so much older, that, other things being equal, they could not have undertaken it. But the essential thing was that the Bishop of Connecticut had given evidence of a missionary enthusiasm of which the Board was quick to avail itself. And besides he had other gifts which strongly commended him for this apostolic business.

In the spirit and zeal of the true missionary he made his journey, which had important results, not, alone for the particular region through which he travelled, but for the Church-at large, as we may learn from the somewhat detailed report which he. made to the Directors of the Missionary Society upon his return. The Rev. Francis L. Hawks, at that time. Assistant, Minister.in Trinity Church, New Haven, had been appointed to accompany him, but upon his declining, the Rev. William Richmond of New York was appointed in his place. Bishop Brownell left Hartford November 25th, 1829. The Episcopal Watchman reporting the event says, “He took his departure from this city in the Steam Boat Oliver Ellsworth, amid such demonstrations of respect and affection from the Officers and Students of Washington College, and others of our citizens, as must have been to him truly grateful.”

I will not follow the Bishop in any detail on his journey, though we might make much of it, for it was an event of great importance for those days. They travelled nearly six thousand miles. “The general trend of our tour,” says the Bishop, “was from Philadelphia to Pittsburg; thence down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to New Orleans; thence to Mobile; and from thence homeward, through Alabama, the Creek nation, and the Atlantic states. My Episcopal duties were performed in the states of Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama.” It is of interest to us to note that while he was at New Orleans the first formal steps were taken under his direction to organize the Diocese of Louisiana. At Mobile the same action was taken regarding the Diocese of Alabama. And thus Connecticut, the mother, has her connection, you see, with the organic life of the Church in these states.

The Bishop closes his report with these graceful words: ‘‘It is probable I have seen the fairest aspect of society, in the country through which I have travelled; but it is no small commendation, that in so long a journey, nothing disagreeable or offensive should have obtruded itself in my way. Deplorable as are the spiritual wants of the western country, there is evinced an honourable frankness and amenity, among all the better classes of inhabitants, which give a charm to society, and needs only the crowning grace of religion to render it altogether delightful.”

Having relinquished the Presidency of Trinity College the Bishop was now able to give his undivided attention to the work of the Diocese. It is gratifying to study the record and see how splendidly the Diocese responded to his strong and judicious leadership. We may rapidly pass, over the years that remain, not because they were unimportant, either to the Bishop himself or to the Church, but because their record is simply one of quiet and consistent work, and to write about it would be to enter upon details which need not occupy us now.

Bishop Brownell gave increasing evidence of his power of leadership. The Diocese steadily forged ahead. New parishes were organized, and the old parishes were strengthened. The Bishop’s Convention Charges were strong and statesmanlike. The Church in Connecticut was indeed responding nobly to the efficient and godly leadership of its efficient and godly Bishop.

We have seen that he possessed the true missionary
spirit. It did not burn out in that first venture of his
into the great Southwest. The winter and spring of
1834-35 were spent in the South, mainly in New Orleans.
He was visiting again the scattered sheep, and strengthening those far outposts of the Church. As Connecticut had
once received the care of a provisional Bishop, so now
she was giving that care to Alabama. Again in 1836 the
Bishop made a third journey to this region. On neither
of these journeys did he go, because he was sent, but
because he was invited, and New Orleans was not disposed
to put any limit on his stay.

The Bishop had been an indefatigable worker, and it was beginning to tell upon his health. Besides, the years were fast multiplying upon him. He was experiencing serious trouble with his eyes, from which he could get only a measure of relief. And so in the Diocesan Convention of 1845 he felt constrained to bring to the attention of the delegates the matter of an. Assistant Bishop. He realized that he was not able to do justice to the work of the Diocese. But there were difficulties in the way of an election at that time, and so the matter was deferred. It was not until 1851 that he broached the subject again, and received the relief which he very much needed in the election of Dr. John Williams, who was at that time the President of Trinity College. The following year Bishop Brownell, by reason of the death of Bishop Philander Chase, became Presiding Bishop.

The latter years of the Bishop’s life were an exemplification of the Psalmist’s words that “though men be so strong that they come to fourscore years: yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow.’’ For the ten years immediately preceding his death he was able to do but little work. Those closing years of his life were momentous years for the American Church and for the American nation. But he had little part in all that was happening. As his life drew to a close so also drew to its close that fratricidal war which had threatened the Union’s existence, and the Church’s solidarity. But the Union lived, and the Church came through still the American Church. Bishop Brownell died January 13th, 1865.

The Diocese over which he had presided for more than forty-five years was quite different from that which elected him. His vigorous labors, and his strong adherence to the teachings of the Church in a day when polemical discussions were more in order than they are now, made the Church more and more a respected and respectable body within the borders of this commonwealth. He built well and wisely upon the foundations which his predecessors laid.

In the Convention which elected him there were thirty-three clergy present. When he died there were one hundred and forty-three connected with the Diocese. He ordained to the Diaconate 179. Dr. John T. Huntington was the last-survivor of the long line of those upon whom he laid his hands in ordination. The communicant list had grown from one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four to thirteen thousand one hundred and eighty-one. Figures never tell the whole, story, of course, but when we bear in mind against what great odds the Episcopal Church had to contend, particularly in the earlier days of his Episcopate, we are bound to regard those figures with no little enthusiasm, and to conclude that Bishop Brownell nobly represented the Church, and by his godly and statesmanlike administration of its affairs advanced its interests in the face of prejudice and opposition, which were taken very seriously then, but which would be rather the exception now. Certainly the comment of the Boston Centinel at the time of his election had had its justification:—“The cause of Episcopacy” is making rapid progress in Connecticut, and while the Episcopalians continue to prefer in their Clergy, learning and liberality, the public felicity will increase in the same proportion.”

In Connecticut’s worthy line of Bishops the name of Thomas Church Brownell stands high. And now one hundred years after his entrance into the office of Chief Pastor of the Diocese of Connecticut, it is fitting that we, children of the Church which he loved and in which he worked, should bring him back to mind. It will do us good to know something of the rich heritage which we possess in the way of faithful lives wrought into the fabric of our Diocesan history. And it should be an inspiration to us to carry that history on to something grander yet, and to make the Church in the Connecticut which we love a mighty power for God and for good.

Out yonder on the campus of Trinity College there stands a stately statue of its first President, of Connecticut’s third Bishop. The tall, erect figure, clad in Episcopal robes, holds in the left hand a Prayer Book, while the right is outstretched in blessing. It is all beautifully symbolic. Bishop Brownell was a Christian and a Churchman, a Prayer Book Churchman in the finest sense of that term. And his life and ministry, as chief shepherd of the flock, was a blessing to the Church. And what is more it is a blessing still. The cold impassive granite figure on its lofty pedestal suggests the continuity of that blessing. The Bishop’s strong, true life did not cease to be when the frail frame that held it was shattered. His spirit is still abroad in the old Diocese. It is hovering over those who are alive and laboring here now. It blesses all, who, in the power of the Holy Spirit, are striving honestly and earnestly to commend the Church to every man, and to make the religion of Jesus Christ ring clear and true.

As a summing up of the Bishop’s life and labors I quote his successor’s words:—”Our late Bishop was a godly man. His religion was not a religion that spent itself in words. Its stream was too deep and too full to flow otherwise than silently. But it spoke with that strongest logic and most persuasive rhetoric, the logic and the rhetoric of a consistent, even, well balanced Christian life. He was a true-hearted Churchman. He was a wise ruler. . . . He was a faithful Bishop.”