Your ShelfYour Projects

The State of the Dead

3%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 19, 1867

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 29, No. 11.

Read the full edition

The State of the Dead

By M. E. CORNELL

form of God, and yet be of a far different nature. In Boston stands a statue of Benjamin Franklin—a metallic image; but Franklin was flesh and bones. But there was a class on the earth a long time ago, who were just such fools as above referred to. They are described in Rom. i, 22, 23: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
M. A man may die, and yet the essential part still be active. The soul does not necessarily die with the body. A fork handle may be broken, but the fork tines are still perfect.
Reply. This illustration is fatal to your position. The use of the fork is to pitch hay; but when the handle is broken off, the tines are useless until they are again inserted in the handle. So with man. The object of his organism, soul and body, is to develop thought and render him capable of serving God. But when he dies, his soul is as inactive as the fork tines are useless when out of the handle. In the very day that the handle is broken off, the tines become useless. In like manner David speaks of man’s death.” “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Psa. cxli, 4.
M. It is a dreadful thing to attempt to change human opinions, or to revolutionize society.
Reply. If society is wrong, it ought to be revolutionized. And what are human opinions more than traditions of men, unless they are founded upon the word of God? If a society or church is founded on the rock, it will surely stand the test of God’s word. No effort of feeble man can prevail against it.
M. To deny the immortality of the soul, is to deny the fundamental doctrine of Christianity.
Reply. Who can believe that a fundamental doctrine of Christianity would not be so much as once named in the Bible? The word soul occurs in the Bible about 1700 times, but it is never once called immortal. Are we left to guess out the fundamentals of Christianity?!
M. That which spirit operates on must be spirit. The Spirit strives with man; he must therefore have an intelligent spirit. And “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Reply. This is a false premise, and the conclusion must therefore be false. We read that God “shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit,” &c., Rom. viii, 11. It is certain, therefore, that spirit can operate upon matter in the most powerful manner.
M. Who are these who have turned the world upside down, that have come hither also? Have they been to college? Have they written dictionaries? Are they not ignorant men?
Reply. If we have, like the disciples of old, earned the reputation of turning the world over, it may be because we preach the same gospel. We thank Mr. Melligan for the compliment. But these men are unlearned and ignorant! This may all be so, and yet we may have the truth. See Acts iv, 13: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1 Cor. i, 20.
M. The ancient worthies became, after death, the spirits of just men made perfect.
Reply. A little too fast. The apostle, Heb. xi, 40, remarks, “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” Paul positively denies that those worthies are yet made perfect. Who knows best?
In the second discourse, on the Sabbath question, there was but little more than the usual inferences and assumptions, so often refuted and exposed in the Review, and in our books. I aim to give only that which is, in the manner of statement, peculiar to Mr. Melligan.
M. I do not wonder that men who have not mind enough to comprehend the glories of Heaven, will still persist in celebrating the creation of this earth, as if it was to be their final Heaven.
Reply. If we had “immortal minds,” we might better comprehend the glories of Heaven; but, as it is, we confess that we cannot grasp it all, for we are assured that it hath not “entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” Whatever things are prepared for those who love God, there is abundant proof will be enjoyed to all eternity on the earth made new. But we hope to have strength of mind enough to continue to celebrate the old creation, until the new one is brought in, and even then not to set up a memorial of it, unless God shall plainly reveal it as our duty thus to do.
M. God has sent judgments on those who would not regard the Christian Sabbath. The great fire in New York city, a few years since, came because they had just repealed the Sunday law. Also a great fire in Pittsburg, because of Sabbath profanation at one of its principal hotels.
Reply. If we had no better argument in favor of the Bible Sabbath than this, we might offer an abundance of such proof. Last winter we obtained a hall in the city of Portland, Maine, and gave the people opportunity to hear the Bible testimony for the true Sabbath; but the masses rejected it, and the great fire followed. Now shall we conclude that that great fire was a judgment upon that city because they would not receive the light of truth? No; we would blush with shame at the thought of using such an inference. We have never yet been so hard pushed for evidence.
M. I would not assume too much, but will say as did Michael when contending with the Devil, “The Lord rebuke all who hold such views.”
Reply. What amazing condescension! How could a man so learned come right down on a level with the Archangel, and be satisfied with the same authority? If we had come as near denying the right of Christ to come in person and raise the dead as did Mr. Melligan, we might almost conclude that perhaps he was delegated with authority to rebuke as above; but, as it is, we repel it as almost a blasphemous assumption.
M. Those who are looking for Christ to come in person, are doomed to a great disappointment. His state is now fixed in Heaven. His body is not adapted to the earth. And if he were on earth, it is not likely that many could ever see him.
Reply. How does Mr. M. know all this? No such thing is revealed in the Bible, but the opposite. “This same Jesus shall so come in like manner,” &c. “His feet shall stand at that day upon the mount of Olives.” “He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.”
M. It is better that Christ should not come again in person. He himself teaches that the disciples were better off with the Comforter than to have his personal presence.
Reply. It is true that Jesus could not send the Comforter except he went away, but that was not the real object of his going away. See John xiv, 2, 3: “I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” The Comforter was sent to fill the place of Christ, and that the church might the better bear his absence till he should come again.
M. The kingdoms of this world will become Christ’s, and he will reign here in the person of his saints before 1868. A rational Christianity will be established.
Reply. This is what Spiritualists teach, only they say Christ has already come spiritually. Moral suasion will not convert the world, so they intend to compel the adoption of orthodoxy by law. This will make the image of the beast.
M. E. CORNELL.
Memphis, Mich., Feb. 1, 1867.