The Fleming H. Revell Company publish, among other things, a tract called “Immortality,” and others by D. M. Canright. At the beginning of the tract it is said, “The author of this tract was an Adventist twenty-eight years.” Now, in the name of truth and common sense, what has this to do with the question of “Immortality,” or the Sabbath question, or what Adventists believe? The mere length of time a man has been connected with truth or error determines absolutely nothing. There are scores of abler men than the above who were for years members of Protestant churches, now in the Catholic Church. They have become perverts to error. Are they better qualified to show the errors of Protestantism? Lucifer was, for we know not how long, one of the nearest angels to the throne of God. Is he therefore better qualified to show the “mistakes” of heaven? Does his apostasy make him the more credible? Are we to accept his word when he says that he tried heaven for so long, and it was a failure for him? One of these tracts declares: “The author of this tract was a prominent writer and preacher of Adventism for twenty-five years, hence he knows of what he affirms.” Similarly every apostate from Christianity to Spiritualism can declare; so also every pervert from Protestantism to Romanism. We have known men who were perfectly sane for a long period of years, and during that time well-qualified to speak upon questions they understood. But they became mentally unbalanced, with faculties deranged. They felt themselves in this latter condition better qualified than in the former; but were they? Paul counted all his years in Judaism loss; Mr. Canright seems to count all his years in Adventism (which he declares to be error) gains. The lesson is this: Whether Mr. Canright is in error or not, is not the question. Whether Adventists are in error or not, is not the question. Mr. Canright’s twenty-five years in truth or error can not settle it one way or another. The great question is a personal one to each soul, What is truth, what is saving truth, according to God’s Word? Is the first day or seventh day the Sabbath of the Lord? Has man immortality of himself, or is it the gift of God, “who only hath immortality”? Is the man who keeps the law “under the law,” or the man “under the law” who transgresses it? Are we to take the Word of God, or Mr. Canright’s superficial sophistry, unsupported argument, and persistent misrepresentation? To those who have known Mr. Canright, labored for him, prayed for him, his course is not strange. His declaration when he left his former associations that he was going out to save souls, is yet unfulfilled. He is shorn of the power for good. But it does seem strange that a reputable, undenominational publishing house of evangelical literature should lend its influence to such means. What Mr. Canright seeks to make gains, his publishers will sometime find to be losses. So let our correspondents worry not; men can do nothing against the truth.