“_I would remove every obstacle in the way of Subscription_, _by which tender consciences of unquestionable orthodoxy_, _agreeing on every point essential to Christianity_, _might be relieved from difficulties_, _which I know weigh much with men of honourable and high feeling_.” But when Subscription is objected to as it is by the petitioners, because they think it pledges them to an assent to things unscriptural, as for instance “the _unscriptural character_ of the Athanasian Creed,” as it is viewed by the _Messrs. Hull_, and the non-agreement of it, and other matters in the scripture as they are viewed by yourself—when the alternative is to give assent to matters that are _contrary to scripture_, or to sacrifice “_truth and honesty_,”—surely the expression of a _tender_ conscience is incorrectly applied to men like these. For what must be the _toughness_ of theirs who could submit to the alternative? But although the Bishop of Norwich would not allow “liberty of conscience” to extend so far as to trench upon the “essential doctrines of the Christian Church.” Nevertheless, having alluded in his speech to the difficult circumstances in which the reformers were placed, and in consequence of which “_the Articles of the Church were framed on a reference to the opinions of a very wide body who differed among themselves on many important points_.” His Lordship contends in the “brief defence” of his speech, “that it only _requires the full carrying out of this principle into practice_, to meet the difficulties of the present case.” {31} The radical reformer of the State contends that it only requires the _full carrying out_ of the principle of the Reform Bill, to give universal suffrage and universal satisfaction to the people, and I am inclined to think that the result in either case would be pretty much the same—equally disastrous to the Church as to the State. But it has been contended during the present movement, that if alterations be made in our Liturgy to meet one tender conscience, a similar boon should be extended to all. Upon this objection his Lordship argues, “if this be true, it is much more true that if _no latitude_ is to be allowed in any subordinate point, we cannot make exceptions in one case more than another.” But this appears to me to be a _petitio principii_, it is assuming that there is no existing “elasticity,” no departure from an _iota_ admissible, _no latitude_ in any point, subordinate or otherwise already recognized, and if so, seeing that on most of the points on which your objections hinge, his Lordship would seem, from his pamphlet, to coincide with you in your views, it might not unreasonably be asked,—how Dr. Stanley came to be at this moment, Bishop of Norwich. Still, I think it may reasonably be asked, as it is, if this principle of concession in consideration to _tender consciences_ be once admitted, where are the probable demands upon it likely to find a limit?