The difficulties of the subject seem to be confessed by all, except it may be by the _Brothers Hull_, who seem to see none or very few. But the Bishop of Norwich observes, “_I agree that there are what to some may be deemed almost insuperable difficulties in the way of any change in the Liturgy_, _and perhaps in the Articles_.” Nor would these difficulties seem to be lessened, if his Lordship’s view of the present state of the Church be correct, it being his opinion “that there never was a period perhaps of our Church History with so little harmony within the pale, and so fearful a prospect of fiercer and wider dissention.” {36b} “There is a lion in the way”—and for my own part I am craven enough to say there let him lie—_couchant_ he is likely to be less troublesome than _rampant_. And the better part of valour is discretion. And as his Lordship tells us that “he believes the Clergy as a body would not consent to any change” in the Liturgy. We may infer that that absence of harmony to which his Lordship alludes, from whatever other causes it may arise, originates in no want of unanimity in the Church on the score of _Subscription_, and that there would seem but little necessity, for the sake of _peace_, to embark upon the dangerous experiment of a revision. It being then admitted that “the Clergy as a body would not consent to any change in the Liturgy or Articles,” we must presume that they can _unreservedly_ make the Subscription in its present form. And putting aside your own peculiar case, we must also presume of those persons who recently petitioned parliament, in the character of Clergymen of the Church of England, that although they might think some _Expansion_ of Subscription desirable, in consideration to others, did nevertheless make their own with a safe conscience and with the honest intention of fulfilling their engagements, by a general conformity to the prescribed Services of our Church. They subscribed, we must presume, with no _such latitude_ of _opinion_ as would admit of an habitual _deviation_ from, either by alteration or a summary omission, of such parts of our Services, as they could not satisfactorily reconcile with their own private opinions. _Mr. Maty_, a former seceder from our establishment, could not consider such a latitude of the construction of his Subscription compatible with his honesty. In a letter to _Mr. Lindsey_, he says, “finally, I can neither submit to acquiesce in silence, after having made my objections known, nor take upon me to alter the Service of the Church as long as I continue to profess myself a minister of it.” {37}