Armstrong's Book Again.
By Editor
“The Signs of the Times seems to think that we ought not to advertise a book or say a word in its favor unless we can endorse everything in it. We may as well say at once that we never supposed that any of our readers would think that we intended by any criticism of a book to say that it was faultless. The Times thinks we ought to follow it through all of its wandering among the ‘beasts’ and the ‘horses’ and the ‘plagues’ and the ‘vials.’”—Cal. Christian Advocate. Oh, no. We have not asked the Advocate to try to harmonize every misstatement and inconsistency in the Methodist publications on the Sunday question. We are not so hard-hearted as that! But when the whole argument of a publication rests upon the affirmation that the Sabbath given at Sinai was a local and temporary institution, and the writer claims to have demonstrated it by a criticism on the Hebrew, and we prove that what he calls a demonstration rests upon an inexcusable and willful misrepresentation of the Hebrew text, and a perversion of the Hebrew grammar, then we have insisted, and yet insist, that the Advocate should show a modicum of Christian consistency by trying to show that our indictment of the book is an error, or else cease to recommend it. And we repeat that if its course in that case is a fair specimen of Methodist religious morality, then it is full time that by some means there be put “a check on Methodism!” It is too late for the Advocate to try to cover this issue. It has gone before too many readers for that.