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."
"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 _tolerated_ view?"
"It has certainly been strongly opposed," answered Bateman; "but it has never been condemned."
"That is no answer," said Charles, who saw by Bateman's manner how the truth lay. "Does any one Bishop hold it? did any one Bishop ever hold it? has it ever been formally admitted as tenable by any one Bishop? is it a view got up to meet existing difficulties, or has it an historical existence?"