must, from the necessity of the case, hold Catholic
doctrine. Therefore, the whole Catholic Creed, the acknowledged doctrine
of the Fathers, of St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, St. Ambrose,
is the _form_, is the one true sense and interpretation of the Articles.
They may be ambiguous in themselves; they may have been worded with
various intentions by the individuals concerned in their composition;
but these are accidents; the Church knows nothing of individuals; she
interprets herself."

Reding took some time to think over this. "All this," he said, "proceeds
on the fundamental principle that the Church of England is an integral
part of that visible body of which St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, and the
rest were Bishops; according to the words of Scripture, 'one body, one
faith.'"

Bateman assented; Charles proceeded: "Then the Articles must not be
considered primarily as teaching; they have no one sense in themselves;
they are confessedly ambiguous: they are compiled from heterogeneous
sources; but all this does not matter, for all must be interpreted by
the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Bateman agreed in the main, except that Reding had stated the case
rather too strongly.

"But what if their letter _contradicts_ a doctrine of the Fathers? am I
to force the letter?"

"If such a case actually happened, the theory would not hold," answered
Bateman; "it would only be a gross quibble. You can in no case sign an
Article in a sense which its words will not bear. But, fortunately, or
rather providentially, this is not the case; we have merely to explain
ambiguities, and harmonize discrepancies. The Catholic interpretation
does no greater violence to the text than _any other_ rule of
interpretation will be found to do."

"Well, but I know nothing of the Fathers," said Charles; "others too are
in the same condition; how am I to learn practically to interpret the
Articles?"

"By the Prayer Book; the Prayer Book is the voice of the Fathers."

"How so?"

"Because the Prayer Book is confessedly ancient, while the Articles are
modern."

Charles kept silence again. "It is very plausible," he said; he thought
on. Presently he asked: "Is this a _received_ view?"

"_No_ view is received," said Bateman; "the Articles themselves are
received, but there is no authoritative interpretation of them at all.
That's what I was saying just now; Bishops and Professors don't agree
together."

"Well," said Charles, "is it a