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 subscribing to forms which men believe not according to the true and proper sense of words, and the known intent of imposers and compilers, and the subtleties invented to defend or palliate such gross insincerity, will be little else than disguised atheism.’[415] Winston,[416] and other writers, such as Dr. Conybeare,[417] Dean Tucker,[418] and others, spoke scarcely less strongly.  It is evident, too, that where subscription was necessary for admission to temporal endowments and Church preferment, the candidate was more than ever bound to examine closely into the sincerity of his act.