SOME AMAZING MISQUOTATIONS EXPOSED.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 11, Issue 10, 11 March 1909, Page 371

SOME AMAZING MISQUOTATIONS EXPOSED.

THE LATE DR. GRACE MALIGNED.

The following correspondence has Keen sent for-publi-cation to the Otago Daily Times : — Sir,—-' R.W.s ' latest version — or, rather, perversion — of the relations of Catholics to the old Otago education system and to our present secular system has been sufficiently dynamited in my two last preceding articles. I ask permission, however, to ,deal with two. shockingly mutilated quotations of his in the Otago Daily Times of March 6. 1. In one of these * quotations ' ' he describes the /editor N.Z. Tablet' us 'the scorner of Bible-reading.' (a) He does not say ' an ' editor, or 'a former' editor. And throughout his articles he has constantly made ' Father Cleary ' and ' editor of the Tablet ' (or some such equivalent phrase) convertible terms. The inference "is obvious — Father Cleary is 'the scorner of Bible-reading.' And this is passing strange. For, during the past twentyfive years, this ' scorner of Bible-reading ' has been reciting every day, as a solemn, official, and obligatory act of religious worship, large tracts of that very Bible, of the reading of which he is now alleged to be ' the" scorner.' Moreover, in doing this he is merely doing, what' is the <bounden duty of every subdeacon, deacon, priest, bishop, and of immense bodies of religious men and women of his faith throughout the whole Catholic world. And among other things that this ' scorner of Bible-reading ' has learned in those sacred, pages is a familiar but oft-neglected commandment which • places a serious discount upon rash judgment, calumny, and every form of bearing false~witness — including the ungentle "art of 'faking' and garbling quotations for controversial purposes, (b) ' The scorner of Bible-reading ' is quoted as saying in the N.Z. Tablet of May 7, 1880 (18 years before he ever touched editorial work of any kind) : ' Mere Bible-reading

has failed to do any good in America and anywhere else it has heen tried.' Catholics; and the great "bulk of Protestants, believe that, to derive real spiritual benefit from the Bible, it does not suffice ' merely ' to read ,it. It is necessary to' learn it, to get at .its. true meaning, to store up and apply-its sacred truths and principles. Both Catholics and the vastly greater part of Protestants acknowledge that ' mere ' Bible-reading by children (which is the thing here in question) effects little or no good. This, for instance, was a-ground of objection by Anglicans to the" Bible-reading proposals of 1877 (as, for instance, in the meetings of July 30, 1877, in Dunediu). For ' mere ' Bible-reading by children means "any mechanical or halfmechanical or empty and unintelligent perusal — perhaps mere gabbling — of the printed words of the Sacred Volume. Catholics, and very many Protestants, too, hold that this ' mere ' reading of the Bible may even be harmful, on account of the lack of reverence arising out of treating the Word of God as something less than a mere text-book, and devoting to it less intelligence and study and attention than children would give to the multiplication table" or to the stories of Robinson Crusoe or of Ali Baba~-and the Forty Thieves.

(c) ' R.W.'s ' quotation from the New Zealand Tablet of May 7, 1880, is — like every one of the many other quotations of his that I have tested — mutilated and in effect fraudulent. Here is what the Tablet actually does say : ' Mere Bible-reading has failed to do any good in- America and anywhere else it lias been tried, and from the nature of the case it could not have been otherwise; for, as Dr. Johnson said, " The New Testament is the most difficult book in the world, for which the study- of a life is required." If one of the greatest minds, and one of the most learned men England ever produced, found the New Testament so difficult to be understood, what is to be said of the folly of thinking that any good can come if reading such a Book, without explanation, to little children? No, it is not by such a practice children are to be taught their duties to God, their neighbor, and themselves.' In the very same article the New Zealand Tablet declared that c a Christian people ought to be educated as Christians ' ; it appealed, not for a ' mere ' empty and unintelligent reading of the Bible, but for the English system of proper religious education in both the public and the denominational schools ; and it denounced f our godless system ' as likely to ' lead to loss of faith and consequent loss of moral principle.' ' The scorner of Bible-reading ' is thus, in reality, the advocate of intelligent, useful, and effective Bible-reading in the schools. The New Zealand Tablet has never regarded the Civil Government as a competent teacher of ' religion ; it has nevertheless been all along in favor of the 1 -- reading of the Bible in the public schools, so long as this can be done without violating the civil and religious rights of Catholics. I may add that the files of the Tablet are open to inspection by ' R.W. ? or his representative, or by any responsible person interested in this discussion.

2. In a long experience of the meaner and meanest forms of No-Popery controversy I have never come across so outrageous a case of utter dishonesty of quotation as that with which ' R.W. in the Otago Daily Times of March 6, 1909, sought to dishonor the grave and the memory of the late Dr. Grace, of Wellington — one of the finest specimens of true Christian manhood ' that ever adorned public or private life in New Zealand. "' R.W.,' with his accustomed inaccuracy, makes the Pope create Dr. Grace a Coiint of tho Holy Church — a title which, by the way, was quite unknown either to. Dr. Grace or to the Pope. By a shocking mutilation and misrepresentation of Dr. Grace's noble and high-minded speech of June 16, 1886, ' R.W. paints him to your readers as a modern Anti-Christ, a rabid and altogether diabolical enemy of the Bible. I place hereunder, side by side, the real sentiments of Dr. Grace, and the scandalous misrepresentation of them by his anonymous accuser. To Hansard 'R.W. has appealed; to .Hansard let *is go: —

' R.W.'S ' DB. GBA.OE. ' The Tablet editor did not know till I told him the discreditable part played l>y his clerical superiors- in firing down the " flag of Christ " in the schools. I wish now to tell him tlie part played by his pupils in Parliament in trampling on the " flag " that was fired down by his "superiors. Let us go to Hansard and find an illustration. On June 16, 1886, the Hon. Dr. Menzies, in the Legislative Council, moved the sec-

THE REAL DR.' GRACE. '. c • • • I have the greatest reverence for the Scriptures. I was educated in tho knowledge of the Scriptures -from the time I was a small child. The language and teaching of the Old and New Testaments form a hackground of poetry to my nature — it has become part of my being; But I think it is of more importance that our children should' be saturated with a reverence of this kind rather than that they should

This is the noble-hearted Christian gentleman * whom ' R.W. represents as an Anti-Christ and a rabid enemy of the Bible 1 Be it noted: (a) Dr. Grace knew and studied and deeply loved his Bible, (b) He wished to see the children in the State schools ( saturated ' with rever.ence for the Bible, instead of the ""• 'irreverential- repetition ' that would probably result from the ' mere ' reading of the Sacred. Book proposed by the Hon. Mr. Menzies. (c) He would have voted for even the ' mere ' reading c-f ' the Bible — and of the Protestant version of the i Bible (which was the one intended — in the State schools, but for the wrong that this would have inflicted upon the Catholic teachers by excluding them all from those schools. In this he was fully borne out hy the Hon. Mr. Swanson {Sansard, same volume, page 505). There was another grievous wrong to Catholics in this bill, which wrong Dr. Grace had sturdily opposed on a previous occasion. This was the sham conscience clause, with which, according to ' R.W.,' Mr. Menzies' s bill was ' guarded. 5 The ' conscience clause ' in the Menzies bill (like those in the Bowen bill of 1877 and the bill introduced by Mr. Fulton in 1888), proposed nothing less than to make legally compulsory the proselytising of all Catholic children whose parents or guardians forgot or neglected to enter formal protests

ond - reading of a bill that would permit the reading of the Bible in" our schools, guarded by a conscience clause. The most vigorous opponent of this .proposal was the most outstanding Roman Catholic layman in New Zealand — the Hon; Dr. Grace. Like Dr. Cleary, Dr. Grace was specially honored hy the Pope, for he was created a "count" of the " Holy Church.". Dr. Grace took up- the position that if the Bible should be read in the schools, even with a conscience clause, the Roman Catholics, especially in the Auckland Province, would feel that faith had been broken with them as a class, and that they have been outraged in ' their finest feelings ! ' ' He was good enough to say that his boycott on the Bible would not he for ever, for he added that when the Roman" Catholics had their own schools all over the land, then — " we may" even, in the cause of Christianity, assist you to pass this measure, lest the knowledge of God — the very foundation of our civilisation — should die out amongst you, and you should bring on yourselves the curse all history shows to be the heritage of an infidel people 1" '

be accustomed to the irreverential repetition of Scrip- ' tural passages. However, so sincere and earnest is -my belief in the extraordinary influence and benefit of acquaintanceship with the Inspired Writings, that' Iwould vote for this bill were it not that, in doing so, I cannot avoid a gross injustice to others. . .„ . We cannot, as a Legislature, pass this bill without necessarily leading to the exclusion of all the Catholic teachers from the State schools'. That would, perhaps, in the opinion of many, be but a small misfortune ; - but you cannot pass the bill without doing a very great injury to a very large proportion of the inhabitants of the Provincial District of Auckland, which they will certainly resent. . . « (Dr. Grace goes on to explain that in that province Catholics -had shown " greater confidence in the good faith of the Government " than elsewhere, and had consequently "made no commensurate provision for the education of their own children." He added that the proposed measure would create "an immense revulsion against our system of State education." He then goes on as follows : " Have patience for a few years, and you may then pass this hill, because, as CatholicSj we intend to make ourselves entirely independent of your system of education, even though the~ sacrifice involved should still further strain our resources and impoverish our people. We may even, in the cause of Christianity, assist you to pass this measure, lest the knowledge of God — the very foundation of our civilisation—should die out amongst you, and you should bring on yourselves the curse all history shows to be the heritage of an iiifidel people.' — (The Hon. Dr. Grace's speech, from Hansard, Parliamentary Delates, June 16, 1886, vol. LIV., pp. 504-5; debate on the second, reading of the Hon. Mr. Menzies' s bill to introduce mere Bible-Teading 'into the public" schools.)

against it. (d) In the speech quoted above, Dr. Grace expressed this generous personal opinion: Catholics would continue to pay double contributions for education— one !£ r 4. ? maintenance of their own system, the other for that of the non-religious State system which they cannot in conscience accept; they would go on extending their own system, at their own expense, until Catholic children would be practically removed from the dangers of both secularism and of proselytism in the schools; Catholics might then (according to Dr. Grace) help Protestants to Protestantise the public schools, and contribute, as before, to the cost of Protestantising them. And for what purpose? Lest Protestant children might lose faith in Christ owing to the failure of their parents and clergy to make the sacrifices for religious education that Catholics have been cheerfully making for more than a generation In other words, having secured the faith of their own children (which is their first and paramount duty), Catholics, although perhaps ' impoverished ' by these sacrifices, would according to Dr. Grace, contribute, financially and otherwise to saving the faith of Protestant children neglected by their own Churches. All this showed a magnanimous spirit indeed. But it only moved Dr. Grace's masked accuser to dance an unseemly can-can upon the grave of that noble-hearted man; it only moved ' R.W. to mutilate and misquote a public document in order to make that fine type of Christian gentleman and scholar appear to be a rabid hater of Christ and of the Christian revelation. If < R.W ' manipulated a will or deed as he manipulated this parliamentary document and the book of the Rev. Mr. Ross both of which were open before him— he would be judicially afforded an unpleasant opportunity of expiating his offence. It is to the last degree painful to me to say these things. But this shocking and persistent and clearly deliberate form of misrepresentation is not to be treated with kid gloves or lisping accents or swords of boiled leather. And— may God forgive him!— after these cruel and bitter calumnies, « R.W. finds it in his heart to preach the Gospel of truth and Christian chivalry and brotherly love! — Yours, etc., EDITOR NEW ZEALAND TABLET.