T. M. PREBLE ON THE TRUE SABBATH.
By James White
In the “History of the Sabbath,” pp. 387-8, is the following: “The attention of Adventists was called to the Sabbath question by an essay on the subject from T. M. Preble, dated Feb. 13, 1845. After showing the claims of the Bible Sabbath, and the fact that it was changed to Sunday by the great apostasy, he remarks: “Thus we see Dan. vii, 25 fulfilled, the little horn changing ‘times and laws.’ Therefore it appears to me that all who keep the first day for the Sabbath, are Pope’s Sunday keepers, and God’s Sabbath breakers.” Many have felt a strong desire to see the article of Eld. Preble; and we this week take pleasure in gratifying them by publishing it entire. We copy as we have it in a small 12-page tract, giving title page, preface, &c., that all may see just what it was that first awakened interest among Adventists on this interesting subject. Whatever the influences may have been to draw Eld. Preble away from the truth he once taught, whatever the motive that actuated him to turn away from the light which once he prized so highly, we shall ever accord to him a due measure of respect and sympathy as being, under Providence, the instrument of opening the eyes of some to the precious light of the commandment of God. And we cannot—our charity will not suffer us to—place the low estimate on his former experience that himself places on it in his more recent writings against the Sabbath. Therein he says: “The Lord forgive me the error of my head which led me to fall ‘from grace’ in thus going back so far as to try for three years to be ‘justified by the deeds of the law,’ by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath.” We think he wrote the above without due consideration, and has done himself injustice thereby. We cannot believe that any one will fall from the grace of a compassionate God by a mere error of the head; a result so serious is only arrived at by the way of a governing error of the heart. And this we do not believe was the case with Eld. Preble. Those acquainted with him at that time witnessed to the Christian spirit breathed in his writings and shown forth in his labors; and they can but deeply regret that with a change of views he has so far suffered another spirit to control him as to manifest harsh and bitter feelings against those who adhere to the truth he once loved. Again, we think Eld. Preble was either greatly mistaken in himself, or has spoken very inconsiderately, in saying that he was trying for three years to be “justified by the deeds of the law.” He who seeks justification by his own works is seeking to establish his own righteousness instead of the righteousness of God. This is the character of the Pharisee, and such we do not think Eld. Preble was. The law is not made void through faith, Rom. iii, 31, and if the keeping of the Sabbath be a duty to God, as Eld. Preble now holds and teaches, we cannot see that it is more self-righteous to keep the day that God commanded than to keep a day never commanded. The former is obedience—the highest form of devotion; the latter is will-worship—a thing of self-righteousness only, and never acceptable to God. Col. ii, 18; Isa. i, 12; Matt. xv, 9. Our readers will not be surprised that his article was defective in some respects as an argument; we should rather be surprised that it was so free from defects, considering the time at, and circumstances under, which it was written. And let us unite in heartfelt thanksgiving to God that some who first became interested by means of this little tract have more thoroughly studied the word of God, and still rejoice in the still-increasing light of ‘the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.’ Rev. xiv, 12.