Nevertheless, the position maintained by Waterland, by Whiston, by Blackburne, and by some of the more ardent Calvinists, was strong, and felt to be so.  In appearance, if not in reality, there was clearly something equivocal, some appearance of casuistry and reserve, if not of insincerity, in subscribing to formularies, part of which were no longer accepted in the spirit in which they had been drawn up, and with the meaning they had been originally intended to bear.  The Deistical and Arian controversies of the eighteenth century threw these considerations into more than usual prominence.  Since the time of Laud, Arminian had been so generally substituted for Calvinistical tenets in the Church of England, that few persons would have challenged the right of subscribing the Articles with a very different construction from that which they wore when the influence of Bucer and Peter Martyr was predominant, or even when Hales and Ward, and their fellow Calvinists, attended in behalf of England at the Synod of Dort.  On this point, at all events, it was quite unmistakable that the Articles (as Hoadly said)[427] were by public authority allowed a latitude of interpretation.  But it was not quite easy to see where the bounds of this latitude were to be drawn, unless they were to be left to the individual conscience.  And it was a latitude which had become open to abuse in a new and formidable way.  Open or suspected Deists and Arians were known to have signed the Articles on the ground of general conformity to the English Church.  No one knew how far revealed religion might be undermined, or attacked under a masked battery, by concealed and unsuspected enemies.  The danger that Deists, in any proper sense of the word, might take English orders appears to have been quite overrated.  No disbeliever in Revelation, unless guilty of an insincerity which precautions were powerless to guard against, could give his allegiance to the English liturgy.  But Arian subscription had become a familiar name; and a strong feeling arose that a clearer understanding should be come to as to what acceptance of Church formularies implied.  In another chapter of this work the subject has come under notice in its relation to those who held, or were supposed to hold, heretical opinions upon the doctrine of the Trinity.  The remarks, therefore, here made need only be concerned with the uneasiness that was awakened in reference to subscription generally.  The society which was instituted at the Feathers Tavern, to agitate for the abolition of subscription, in favour of a simple acknowledgment of belief in Scripture, and which petitioned Parliament to this effect in 1772, was a very mixed company.  Undoubtedly there were many Deists, Socinians, and Arians in it.  But it also numbered in its list many thoroughly orthodox clergymen, and would have numbered many more, had it not been for the natural objection which they felt at being associated, in such a connection, with men whose views they greatly