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 tolerated view?"