Copied from the Review.
By Uriah Smith
We notice that the article of Bro. E. Miller, Jr. on the Sabbath, which was published a few weeks since in the Review, with the reply by Bro. Cottrell, is copied in the Harbinger, for September 24th, 1853, accompanied by the following note:— “We have repeatedly published that if the advocates of the Jewish Sabbath would present one plain declaration from the Bible that christians are required to keep that day, we would believe. By the equivocating course the conductors of the Review have taken in the matter, by asking us to produce the same kind of evidence on other subjects, they have tacitly acknowledged that the Bible does not furnish one plain declaration that it is the duty of christians, or any body under the Gospel dispensation to keep the Jewish or Seventh Day Sabbath. We have considered their evasive offset to our unanswerable request unworthy101of notice. Bro. E. Miller jr., however, has given the following able article in reply to their quibbles. It may subserve the cause of truth, and we therefore copy it from the Review of September 13.” We would remind the editor of that paper, that he not only did not give the reply, but never even informed his readers that it was replied to. Common honesty would require that he should have done one or the other. Does he not perceive, however, that he has betrayed himself? His own remark that it is copied from the Review, and the fact that no note or comment from the Review is given, is enough to suggest to any mind, that something is omitted. Here then he has failed to conceal his equivocating, underhanded course. Either through want of foresight, or carelessness, he has only put on a disguise that all can see through. Who of his readers will not perceive that an article of that nature found in the columns of the Review, would be reviewed. It has been reviewed, and, we think, fairly; and if the Harbinger, thinks the reply inadequate to meet the arguments of the article, why did he not give it to his readers, that they might see the weakness of our defense; but if in any way fearful of the effect which it might have in favor of our position, it would be natural for him to withhold it. The only reason therefore that can be assigned for his not laying the reply before his readers, is, that he durst not do it.