THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3994, 26 July 1913, Page 2

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

[TO THE EDITOR] '[ Sir,—The Venerable Archdeacon Williams takes me to task for “assuming” that the editor of the “Church Gazette” deliberately attempted to mislead the public by mis-quoting a certain question set in recent Government examination. I challenge, him to say after* comparing, with an unbiassed mind, the quotation, or rather, mis-qUotation, in the article in question with the original, ho believes that the editor could have been so blind as to miss fihe other part of the question which, if it had also been quoted, would have disproved the false statement he started with. I may say, in justice to the writer of the article, that it was cleverly written, full of excellently conceived and excellently expressed humor; in fact, I read it several tunes in pure enjoyment and admiration of its humor. But the very fact that it was written by\ a master hand convinced mo thai the writer was not such a fool at English composition that he could not tell the difference between the question as lie quoted it and as it was actually set. The Archdeacon also twits me with being “much exercised over a statement of no great importance'in itself.’ I am much exercised over it, and I should have tlioxudit that every member of the Bible in. Schools Party would be “much exercised” over it, too. When a prominent writer on behalf of religious instruction can misquote so carelessly to score a point, any ordinary layman would have expected that a Churchman of the rank of the Archdeacon would have been even more exercised over it. And surely the Archdeacon docs not offer as an excuse that “the statement is of 110 great importance in itself.” What docs it matter whether tho statement was important or not? There is surely an equal moral element in whether the matter is important or trivial. It U strange to 'ine, when I point out such an offence by cm of such a party, that the party shou d not have been indignant and frankly said so publicly. Instead of that, we have had two champions of their cause- trying to excuse or minimise the offence. What is there in a religious up-bring-ing that makes a man blind to such offences when done on behalf of a religious cause? In conclusion, I wish now to deal with his suggestion of dishononty on my part in laying against the whole party the charge which should have been confined to one writer. In answer, I have to state that to the best of m.v recollection I did not write just what was published, tor I had no intention of doing what my letter has done. Unfortunately 1 kept no copy of my letter, and you, sir. have told me that my manuscript has been destroyed, so that I have 110 evidence to prove uiv statement. I shall not labor the point, but express rny regret for saying wiiat I did not intend to say. But the letter of the Archdeacon and the previous letters by “Ang'ican” go to show, by their sympathetic treatment of the “Church Gazette’s” article that some of the party, if not the whole of it, have justified my unintentional remark.—-1 am, etc., HONESTY.