HAVING heard of a promise, or threat, to "expose" Adventism in Humboldt County, we suppose it must be fulfilled by a correspondent in the Christian Advocate, writing from Ferndale, who uses the following language:— "We have among us, for the time being, a 'present truth,' as they term it. Now what is a 'present truth'? Is not truth whether past or present, or indeed future, the same. Truth is simply truth, and that is all that can be made of it." We are not surprised that an individual should occasionally be found whose prejudices were so strong that he would utter such an absurdity as is found in the above quotation. But we are surprised that an intelligent editor would give publicity to it. Is there, or is there not, such a thing as present truth? In 2 Peter 1:12 are the following words: "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them and be established307in the present truth." We dissent from the idea of the Ferndale writer because it is both unreasonable and unscriptural. With his comment Peter's words have no meaning. It was present truth in Noah's time that the world was to be destroyed by a flood, and as such it was his duty to preach it and to prepare for it. Were we to proceed upon the false principle that "truth whether past, or present, or future, is the same," and preach to this generation as Noah did to his, we should preach an untruth. Once it was a vital point to confess that Moses was a leader appointed of God. Num. 16. They who rejected him were slain; they who accepted him were saved. But in the days of Christ they were rejected of God who strenuously plead for Moses as a divinely-appointed leader and teacher. Why? Because another test was before them. The fulfilment of the prophecies had brought in another "present truth." Jonah could only do the will of God by preaching that "yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed." If the same things are to be preached in all ages because truth past, present, or future is always the same, then we should expect to hear our Methodist ministers preaching the destruction of Nineveh in forty days! Why do they not do it? Why do they ignore this message which God so plainly commanded his prophet to preach? Were the word of God not progressive in its development, were there no prophecies to be fulfilled, there would be no such distinction as past, present, or future truth. But they who ignore the fact of such development and of the fulfillment of prophecy, and the distinction of truths growing out of it, have very limited views of the Bible, and really lose the force of a large amount of its teachings. The prophet Joel shows that when "the day of the Lord is near" an alarm is to be sounded. And Peter says that in the last days people will scoff at the doctrine of the Lord's coming. And Jesus says that the slothful servant who says—in his heart—"My Lord delayeth his coming," will have his portion with the hypocrites. He says also that it will be as it was in the days of Noah; it will come as a thief on those who do not watch, who do not give heed to the signs which show when he is near, even at the doors. But some men count it a mark of wisdom to despise every effort to understand the "sure word of prophecy." As their fathers did so do they, prophecy or no prophecy. Such was the position of the Jews also, and the reason of their fall. "If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." Rom. 11:21.