"INTERROGATION MUMBLE, AND CO."

Feilding Star, Volume X, Issue 34, 30 August 1888, Page 3

"INTERROGATION MUMBLE, AND CO."

TO : THE EtDITOR OF THE STAR. Sib.—^f. ypur correspondent " f" would he consistent' with his . signature, and Ttindljput'a' question, make an objection, or touch upon a single jiV.iht of Mr ForJongV r addressi intelligrnily. then there might tie soffie% satisfaction in replying; bnt while he, like 'the fish that stirs up the inijd.. to; (Conceal his whereabouts, shroudj^Jiimself iin vague, meaningless phrases and generalities .; of course he is perfectly safe trpin the very bestargu» ments.' Of 'd»e thing the writer may rest assured-' i that f no' *' intelligent lads or lasses** will be influenced by his statement of the case. ? '•■• - : No«y:fdr Old Mumble. -Hi« " ink -withoutigsll reminds me of the saying : that every. inotlter's baby-is the prettiest, Ac. This writer's evident intention was to fill up iw much of a, column with as economical an expenditure of sense as possible. In fact, he seems to haye " retrenched" himself to death in that par:ticulah i£is inverted cdmmas. apparently, inclose' all that is worth reading. His first objection is to the terms " Christian and. genera! pub icJ' < Dues Old Mumble mean 4© say.tbat all, around -us claim to be, or are, Christians? Surely not:; then wherefore plject to the distinction ? Again he carps at .".judicious advertiss ing" — at fault again. Surely there are other means of inforniine the public besides " printer's ink," though perhaps none so Wiiat can be Jus jnotive o ror;.pbjfcting tb a church advtr'r- : Using its^Jßieetings -echo answers wh^tt'? Next, he i^ attracted by the '"words " proved to. a demonstration," and gees on to say, ift &en no 6n^ Can helpJßeliering it." Perhaps Old Mumble is giving himself, and human nature in general, too much credit for candour. Doesn't he betray considerable inexperience by thinking that evejry one; toitl understand, or even if they understand, will g&ejtt a deoipn^tration P; if .Nohe so bli»'d\as these who will not see." Mr Forldng does not expect, or wish, his opinions, comments, &c, to be received unless they are in agreement with the Book he professes to expound. Surely "extraordinary' 1 should not cause an opinion to be Condemned. If so, %\\- the newest and foremost opinions of the. age are io be rdected, %»d then it may only be extraordinary tq'pldLJMumble. Or, perhajs, 0$ Mumble his the patent rights for «4janeinjc"alJ tlie newest ideas ; if so, T kxo sorry for the age in which he liy.es. Me says th»t Mr^orlbng '/flatly cbotra, 4icts himsejf ' ; but so minute . if ,Jbae as brought out by Old Humble, that it would reiuir«! amioiro*

scopial or Argus-eyed reader to perceive it. The next point that paralses Old 3 Mumble's attention is Mr Forlong's comments on the " Reign of Grace " He is extraordinary on this point, if on no* thing else. It is notorious that the so* called Professor of Divinity or Theology has hardly brought forward a single scriptural quotation to support his extral ordinary, theory. What a pity he did a not know of the location ot the Feilding j Professor, who is prepared to brine: for- . ward twenty texts in support of his I theory for the one Mr Furlong can pro« 9 ! puce against it! What a pity Old > Mumble does not condescend to become l famous by writing (mother pamphlet on c ' this important subject. Now for the 1 comments of the " extraordinary yarn" of fli he French missionary. Old. Mumble » asks: "Are we really to believe, &c.P" . I reply : that .ordinary men will believe { what a gentleman of Mr Forlong's weil ? ', known veracity will say on this, or any » other subject, until evidence to the con* f. trary is forthcoming. Mr Forlong did i n>t " tell the tale as he heard tt." It is specially, implied in the communication i" that Mx Forlong had the information jXfroni'theiips of the man, well known in France, giving his name several times during the recital of the anecdote. I r .refrain from further encumbering your ' columns ' with a needless repetition of .mere perverse quibbles. I would earnB .estly advise your correspondents to study f 4pfiniteness, as the time> is long past 8 when nothing, no matter bow admirably t dressed up it may be, will be received or 3 respected. r In conclusion, I ask your correspond- ' ents to state, in concise terms, their r objections to, ot arguments against, Mr • Fdrlong's address, giving proofs, texts, J &c. : when, I have little doubt, that gen« i tleuien will give them .every satisfaction i in reply; and the discussion may lead to L something profitable, -^1 am, <fee-, . Communication No. 2. i