y seemed
warranted by the wording of the subscription.

Dr. Jortin, in a treatise which he published about the middle of the
last century, summed up under four heads the different opinions which,
in his time, were entertained upon the subject. 'Subscription,' he said,
'to the Articles, Liturgy, &c., in a rigid sense, is a consent to them
all in general, and to every proposition contained in them; according to
the intention of the compiler, when that can be known, and according to
the obvious usual signification of the words. Subscription, in a second
sense, is a consent to them in a meaning which is not always consistent
with the intention of the compiler, nor with the more usual
signification of the words; but is consistent with those passages of
Scripture which the compiler had in view. Subscription, in a third
sense, is an assent to them as to articles of peace and conformity, by
which we so far submit to them as not to raise disturbances about them
and set the people against them. Subscription, in a fourth sense, is an
assent to them as far as they are consistent with the Scriptures and
themselves, but no further.[414] Jortin's classification might perhaps
be improved and simplified; but it serves to indicate in how lax a sense
subscription was accepted by some--the more so, as it was sometimes, in
the case, for instance, of younger undergraduates, evidently intended
for a mere declaration of churchmanship--and how oppressive it must have
been to the minds and consciences of others. From the very first this
ambiguity had existed. There can, indeed, be no doubt that the original
composers of the Articles cherished the vain hope of 'avoiding of
diversities of opinion,' and intended them all to be understood in one
plain literal sense. Yet, in the prefatory declaration, His Majesty
'takes comfort that even in those curious points in which the present
differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of
England to be for them,' even while he adds the strangely illogical
inference that 'therefore' no man is to put his own sense or meaning
upon any of them.

Those who insisted upon a stringent and literal interpretation of the
Articles were able to use language which, whatever might be the error
involved in it, could not fail to impress a grave sense of
responsibility upon every truthful and honourable man who might be
called upon, to give his assent to them. 'The prevarication,' said
Waterland, 'of subs