I've never seen an example of a category with a subobject classifier which didn't embed nicely into a topos. Is there a good reason for this?

**Question 1:** Let $\mathcal C$ be a category with a subobject classifier $\Omega$ (and whatever finite limits this entails -- namely, a terminal object and pullbacks along monomorphisms). Does there exist a fully faithful functor $\mathcal C \to \mathcal E$, where $\mathcal E$ is an elementary topos, which preserves the subobject classifier and the aforementioned finite limits?

**Question 2:** Same as Question 1, but assuming that $\mathcal C$ has all finite limits, and requiring that $\mathcal C \to \mathcal E$ preserves them.

**Question 3:** Same as Question 2, but throwing in finite colimits as well.

**Question 4:** Now assume that $\mathcal C$ is locally presentable and has a subobject classifer $\Omega$. Does it follow that $\mathcal C$ is a (necessarily Grothendieck) topos?

Question 4 may be the most heavy-duty-sounding formulation, but it also gives me the most reason to think the answer might be "yes" -- after all, in order for a category $\mathcal C$ with finite limits and a subobject classifier to be a topos, it just needs to additionally be cartesian closed. And if $\mathcal C$ is locally presentable, then by the adjoint functor theorem, to verify this one just needs to check that the functors $X \times (-)$ preserve colimits. Plausibly, the subobject classifier might force this. As partial progress, I think I can show that in this case, coproducts are disjoint.

notthe terminal object. I did not realize this was possible! $\endgroup$ – Tim Campion Sep 17 at 20:43