But the answer of those who claimed a greater latitude of interpretation was obvious.  ‘They,’ said Paley, ’who contend that nothing less can justify subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles than the actual belief of each and every separate proposition contained in them must suppose the Legislature expected the consent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual succession, not to one controverted position, but to many hundreds.  It is difficult to conceive how this could be expected by any who observed the incurable diversity of human opinions upon all subjects short of demonstration.’[419] Subscription on such terms would not only produce total extinction of anything like independent thought,[420] it would become difficult to understand how any rational being could subscribe at all.  Practically, those who took the more stringent view acted for the most part on much the same principles as those whom they accused of laxity.  They each interpreted the Articles according to their own construction of them.  Only the one insisted that the compilers of them were of their mind; the others simply argued that theirs was a lawful and allowable interpretation.  Bishop Tomline expressed himself in much the same terms as Waterland had done; but was indignantly asked how, in his well-known treatise, he could possibly impose an altogether anti-Calvinistic sense upon the Articles without violation of their grammatical meaning, and without encouraging what the Calvinists of the day called ’the general present prevarication.’[421] A moderate Latitudinarianism in regard of subscription was after all more candid, as it certainly was more rational.  Nor was there any lack of distinguished authority to support it.  ‘For the Church of England,’ said Chillingworth, ’I am persuaded that the constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved, and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of it.  This, in my opinion, is all intended by subscription.’[422] Bramhall,[423] Stillingfleet, Sanderson,[424] Patrick,[425] Fowler, Laud,[426] Tillotson, Chief Justice King, Baxter, and other eminent men of different schools of thought, were on this point more or less agreed with Chillingworth.  Moreover, the very freedom of criticism which such great divines as Jeremy Taylor had exercised without thought of censure, and the earnest vindication, frequent among all Protestants, of the rights of the individual judgment, were standing proofs that subscription had not been generally considered the oppressive bondage which some were fain to make it.