lding them, but as not opposing them. Therefore, when we
sign the Articles, we only engage not to preach against them."

Reding thought; then he said: "Tell me, Bateman, would not this view of
subscription to the Articles let the Unitarians into the Church?"

Bateman allowed it would, but the Liturgy would still keep them out.
Charles then went on to suggest that _they_ would take the Liturgy as a
Liturgy of peace too. Bateman began again.

"If you want some tangible principle," he said, "for interpreting
Articles and Liturgy, I can give you one. You know," he continued, after
a short pause, "what it is _we_ hold? Why, we give the Articles a
Catholic interpretation."

Charles looked inquisitive.

"It is plain," continued Bateman, "that no document can be a dead
letter; it must be the expression of some mind; and the question here
is, _whose_ is what may be called the voice which speaks the Articles.
Now, if the Bishops, Heads of houses, and other dignitaries and
authorities were unanimous in their religious views, and one and all
said that the Articles meant this and not that, they, as the imponents,
would have a right to interpret them; and the Articles would mean what
those great men said they meant. But they do not agree together; some of
them are diametrically opposed to others. One clergyman denies
Apostolical Succession, another affirms it; one denies the Lutheran
justification, another maintains it; one denies the inspiration of
Scripture, a second holds Calvin to be a saint, a third considers the
doctrine of sacramental grace a superstition, a fourth takes part with
Nestorius against the Church, a fifth is a Sabellian. It is plain, then,
that the Articles have no sense at all, if the collective voice of
Bishops, Deans, Professors, and the like is to be taken. They cannot
supply what schoolmen call the _form_ of the Articles. But perhaps the
writers themselves of the Articles will supply it? No; for, first, we
don't know for certain who the writers were; and next, the Articles have
gone through so many hands, and so many mendings, that some at least of
the original authors would not like to be responsible for them. Well,
let us go to the Convocations which ratified them: but they, too, were
of different sentiments; the seventeenth century did not hold the
doctrine of the sixteenth. Such is the state of the case. On the other
hand, _we_ say that if the Anglican Church be a part of the one Church
Catholic, it