An Apology | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 21, 1874

An Apology.

BEING of the opinion that Eld. J. N. Andrews has now finished his review of my book entitled, “The First-Day Sabbath,” if I can be allowed the privilege, I wish to have the following statements published in the columns of the REVIEW.

That Eld. Andrews has found some mistakes in my book, is true; and I very much regret that such errors were committed. I thank Eld. A., however, for pointing them out, as it will give me an opportunity to correct them if I publish another edition.

But I cannot plead guilty to the charge of having designedly perverted the language of any author from which I quoted; no, not so much as in one word, letter, comma, or quotation mark.

Those who have read my book, know that a great many quotations are made from different authors. The exact way that those errors occurred in quoting from Sylvester Bliss, Daniel Whitby, or others, I cannot tell. But during the time I was writing the book, we had a great deal of sickness in our family; and finally my wife died during that time. And wishing to publish the work as soon as possible, I employed two good copyists, which copied about one hundred pages of the book. Now, whether I, or my copyists, made the mistakes, and they were overlooked in the reading of the copy; or whether the errors were committed when the MS. was cut down, by my consent, after it went into the hands of the compositors, I cannot tell.

All things considered, it is a wonder to me that no more mistakes were committed.

But this one thing I do know, that, all the errors which were found in my work by Eld. Andrews, which appeared like garbling, or misrepresenting authors, were purely accidental.

I deem it just to myself, and also to the readers of the REVIEW, to make the above statements; and it will greatly oblige me, if this communication can be published in the same paper where Eld. Andrews’ criticisms appeared.

T. M. PREBLE.

Hyde Park, Mass., July 4, 1874.

REMARKS: When Eld. Preble’s book first appeared, I judged after a careful examination of it that there was no occasion for a reply to it from myself. But as my continued silence gave opportunity for some to reproach the Sabbath cause, I decided to give it a careful answer in all its arguments, and in all its charges. I began with his Biblical argument, intending to close with his charges. But when I had nearly finished this part of his book, the death of my dear wife caused me to suspend for a season all attempts to write. When I was able to resume writing, providential circumstances clearly indicated that I should give my time and strength to the completion of the new edition of the History of the Sabbath. But just as soon as I had completed that labor, I took up Eld. Preble’s charges against the veracity of the first edition of my History. I wrote a series of articles for the REVIEW in which I stated and answered every accusation against that work. This series was published in the REVIEW till all but the last three of the articles had been given. But as the REVIEW was then going to 10,000 new subscribers on trial, and as it was thought of great importance to get into that volume a full statement of our doctrinal views, it was decided by those whose judgment I highly respect that no more space could be allowed to my articles of this series, because, though important to myself personally, they were of no special importance to the mass of the readers of the REVIEW. The three articles which conclude the series do, however, lie in the Office of publication and can be given hereafter if occasion justifies.

One of the charges there noticed I will here state, as it has been deemed a decisive proof of dishonesty on my part. It is that in quoting from D’Aubigné respecting Carlstadt, a semicolon is found where D’Aubigné used a period. But the entire manuscript of my first edition of the History of the Sabbath was carefully preserved, and is now in my library at Lancaster, Mass. That manuscript has the period and not the semicolon, and it is open to inspection from Eld. P. or any of his friends, to judge whether it has ever been tampered with. The truth is, it was simply a typographical error which in some way escaped the eye of the proof reader. I have no love for controversy and no personal ill will toward Eld. Preble. The reader will find a concise statement of the points to which Eld. Preble refers in the REVIEW for Dec. 9, 1873.

J. N. ANDREWS.

Rochester, N. Y., July 9, 1874.