“_And by continuing these difficulties_ (_of Subscription_) _we should leave the way open only to those whose consciences have no scruples_, _and who would enter the Church only with a view to the profits and secular advantages_.” I would submit that a man may enter the Church with _a_ view to its _secular_ advantages, without being justly involved in the suspicion of _insincerity_, or of necessity, laying himself open to the imputation of entering it _only_ with a view to its profits. For instance, should a gentleman have in his gift what is commonly called a _family living_, he may design it as a provision for a younger son, who enters upon a course of study and trains himself for the ministry, and that without necessarily discarding all view to the _secular_ advantages of his profession, knowing that “they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel:” but so far from its following that he enters the Church with _no other_ or higher motive; how frequently do we find it the case with those whose lot has thus been cast, as it were, for them, that they prove not merely exemplary parish priests, but eventually rise to adorn the _Episcopal Bench_. His Lordship will not object to my adducing his own successful career as a case in point. But if such characters as his Lordship speaks of, can even _now_ in the teeth of all the imputed difficulties, enter the church, if they be so disposed, I do not clearly see how removing these difficulties will mitigate the evil—how widening the portal will tend to obstruct the entrance. Nor, although it stands so recorded in his Lordship’s speech, will I believe it to be, his deliberate opinion, that by leaving the matter of Subscription as it _now_ stands, we leave the way open _only_ to those whose consciences can feel _no scruples_. If these expressions of his Lordship are to be taken only in a good sense, I trust for the credit of the Church that his Lordship is not the only exception to the general rule. The _Messrs. Hull_, in their animadversions on the Bishop of London’s speech, draw a nice distinction between “opening the door,” and “leaving it open.” In cases of burglary I believe the distinction involves a difference; we may venture therefore to hazard a guess to which of the brothers, the lawyer or the divine, we may attribute that contribution to the joint stock pamphlet. {21} “_But there is an answer commonly given_, _and a weighty one_, _to this objection_. _The Church has a sort of elasticity which allows and graduates the differences that exist_.” Yet on the use of the word “elasticity” by the Bishop of London, you say, “I confess myself entirely unable to distinguish between the ‘expansion’ of the one prelate or the ‘elasticity’ of the other.” {22a} If there is no difference between the existing elasticity and the expansion pleaded for, for what boon did the petitioners pray? I anticipate your answer, and will reply to it presently.