TRUTH vs. SPIRITUALISM by D. T. Bourdeau

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 8, 1861

TRUTH vs. SPIRITUALISM.

By D. T. Bourdeau

BRO. SMITH: Never were we more convinced that we have the truth, and that Spiritualism is the great delusion by which the enemy opposes the truth in these last days, than we were the evening of the 9th inst., while reviewing a series of lectures that Mr. Potter, a Spiritualist from Massachusetts, gave in this place a few days since. The truth seemed precious to us, and while we had feelings of pity and compassion for those who opposed the truth, we felt thankful that the Lord had preserved us from the delusion of Satan, and that we could rejoice in the light of God's word. Mr. Potter was present, and tried to resist the truth, and show that the Bible was darkness instead of light; but he merely denied and affirmed without proving, and tried to make the people laugh by using droll expressions. Since reviewing his lectures we have heard that he had

said he would make the people laugh if he did not do anything else. He perfectly disgusted himself in the eyes of those who had any respect for God and his word, and who preferred sound reason to bare assertions.

Though it is painful and unpleasant for us to dwell on the blasphemous views of Spiritualists, yet we will notice the main ideas that Mr. Potter advanced in his lectures.

He said that Spiritualism had no Bible, no theory; that the Bible was a human production; that it was absurd to say we could purchase the infallible word of God for thirty-three cents; that Constantine decided what books should be introduced in the Bible; that the God of the Bible was unjust and partial, because he would punish some and leave others unpunished; because he made a difference between an infidel and a Christian; between one that prays seven times a day, and one that does not pray at all.

In reply we affirmed that the Bible was worthy of our confidence, and proved its human and divine authority by testimonies from heathen and ecclesiastical writers, and by arguments from prophecy. Mr. P. accused us of being partial in our quotations from history; and we challenged him to produce testimonies that would counteract the testimonies we had presented, and to back up his assertion in regard to Constantine by a plain fact from history. But he made no reply. We also affirmed that the God of the Bible was not unjust and partial, and remarked somewhat as follows: A certain parent has two sons. One is obedient and faithful; the other is disobedient and unfaithful. Reason, justice and impartiality would require this parent to punish one of his sons, and have the other unpunished, and thus make a difference between them. Now the God of the Bible punishes the wicked and leaves the righteous unpunished, or gives them life. He makes a difference between those that obey him, and those that obey him not. Therefore the God of the Bible is just and impartial in the administration of his government—in the vindication of the justice of his law. The justice of God's law appears in the punishment of the sinner, as well as in the reward of the just.

Again, a parent that would make no difference between a child that obeys him, and one that obeys him not, would be called unjust and partial. Now the God of Mr. Potter is a God that makes no difference between those that obey him and those that obey him not. Therefore the God of Mr. Potter is a partial and unjust God. We have not such a God as this. The God of the Bible "is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him;" and he will not leave the wicked unpunished. Acts x, 34, 35; Prov. xi, 21; xvi, 5. A theory that makes no difference between a wicked man and a righteous man, virtually destroys the law of God, and the penalty that guards that law.

Mr. P. "The Bible does not agree with the science of geology. Hugh Miller teaches in his Old Red Sandstone that the earth is more than 6000 years old."

Answer. A true science is based on immutable and unchangeable principles. Geology is the science of the structure and materials of the earth; and the principles on which it is based have led to remarkable discoveries. But geology as a science is only in its infancy; and we should be careful not to confound the opinions and speculations of geologists, with the science of geology, just as we should be careful not to confound the opinions and speculations of men on the Bible, with the teachings of the Bible. The Bible will explain itself if men will let it; and no true science (when rightly understood) will clash with the Bible. But if it is a fact that "Hugh Miller teaches in his Old Red Sandstone that the earth is more than 6000 years old," it is also a fact that Hugh Miller teaches in his Footprints, p. 313, that "there are no calculations more doubtful than those of the geologist," and that geology "furnishes us with no clue by which to unravel the unapproachable mysteries of creation." Hear him further: "These mysteries belong to the wondrous Creator, and to him only. We attempt to theorize upon them, and to reduce them to law, and all nature rises up against us in our presumptuous rebellion. A stray splinter of cone-bearing wood, a fish's skull or tooth, the vertebra of a reptile, the humerus of a bird, the jaw of a quadruped—all, any of these things, weak and insignificant as they may seem, become in such a quarrel too strong for us and for our theory. The puny fragment in the grasp of truth forms as irresistible a weapon as the dry bone did in that of Samson of old, and our slaughtered sophisms lie piled up heaps upon heaps before it." This is a testimony from Mr. P.'s favorite author, which infidels would do well to ponder. We have nothing to say against the genuine science of geology; but we do enter our solemn protest against that science falsely so-called, which makes the word of God of none effect.

Mr. P. "God did not write the same words on the last tables of stone that he wrote on the first."

Ans. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest." "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 1; Deut. x, 1–4.

Mr. P. "God is unjust. He sent a lying spirit to persuade Ahab to go up to Ramoth-gilead that he might fall in battle." 1 Kings xxii.

Ans. Ahab was a very wicked king. He caused Israel to depart from the Lord; and of him the Bible says, "Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him." 1 Kings xvi, 30. God had faithfully warned him by his servants, and had given him time to reform; but he continued to do those things that were displeasing to the Lord. Finally the Lord suffered him to follow his own way, gave him over to the control of a lying spirit, and decided that he should fall in battle at Ramoth-gilead. Surely God has a right to punish the disobedient and impenitent; and we have in the case of Ahab a striking illustration of God's justice and long-suffering.

Mr. P. "Spiritualism is governed by nature. Nature acts just as it did 6000 years ago. Christ agrees with nature; and Christ speaks of the things that are, and not of the things that will be in the future. A Methodist or a Baptist is right if he agrees with nature."

Here Mr. P. professes to give the foundation of Spiritualism. Nature is the criterion by which he judges persons and things; and he asserts that a Methodist or a Baptist is right if he agrees with nature. But according to his own statement, "Christ agrees with nature." Hence a Methodist or a Baptist is right if he agrees with Christ. This is all we claim. But what does Mr. P. make Christ teach? He says, "Christ talks of the things that are, and not of the things that will be in the future." Is this statement correct? Let the question be answered by those who know what Christ taught. Mr. P. must have known that Christ spoke of the future; for in his last lecture, while trying to create laughter in regard to the teachings of Christ and Paul on the subject of marriage, he remarked as follows: "Christ taught that they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world neither marry nor are given in marriage. Christ spoke of the future. He never spoke of the present." He continues:

"Christ says to the woman taken in adultery, Neither do I condemn thee. John viii. Christ did not condemn her. But the churches condemn and exclude such. Why don't they agree with Christ?"

Christ did not decide that this woman should be stoned according to the expectation of the Jews; neither did he uphold her in her sin. Sin is the transgression of that law of which the seventh commandment is a part; and Christ said to the woman, "Go and sin no more." Christ was without sin; and he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill. He said to the young man who wanted to know what good thing he should do that he might have eternal life, "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." Matt. xix.

Mr. P. "Men answer to the purpose for which they were made. The Universalist is a philanthropist, a charitable man. The Methodist sends men to hell. One has large benevolence; the other has small benevolence. A man that has no benevolence cannot be a Universalist. These facts grow out of nature—out of the physical development in man. Again, one man is a Christian and prays seven times a day; another is a pirate, and slays his fellow-men. Are these men organized alike? No. There is no devil. Men are growing wiser."

Ans. It cannot be made to appear consistent that "men answer to the purpose for which they were made," when they have bad dispositions, and do those things which are evil, and repugnant to reason and humanity. The benevolent and wise Creator made man upright, and pronounced him good; and the happiness of God's intelligent creatures consists in their being good; and certainly men should not be called good when their dispositions and actions are evil. Mr. P. says, "These facts grow out of nature." What facts? Why, the fact that Universalists are charitable and benevolent, and that Methodists have small benevolence and send men to hell, and the fact that a Christian prays seven times a day, and that a pirate slays his fellow-men. But nature is the rule by which Mr. P. judges persons and things; and of course nature must be right. Then Universalists, Methodists, Christians and pirates are right; and Mr. P. has proved Spiritualism! We see that Mr. P. labors under a difficulty; and he will labor under a serious difficulty as long as he does not admit that an enemy has marred the works of God.

Mr. P. "We must have facts precede assumption. There is no fact in nature that proves a future punishment."

Ans. The God of nature, who "declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand" [Isa. xlvi, 10], has spoken to men by his prophets, and his word has had its fulfillment. This same God teaches in his word that the sinner shall be punished; that those who break his law, which grows out of immutable relations that men sustain to God and to their fellow-men, shall suffer its penalty—shall die the second death, and we believe it. God speaks in prophecy concerning signs that were to be the precursors of his coming wrath; and we have signs around us, in the heavens above, in the earth below, among men and in nature, that answer to God's word in prophecy, and proclaim with awful certainty that the day of God's wrath hasteth greatly. See the "Signs of the Times," published at the Review and Herald Office.

Mr. P. "We say that the soul of man is immortal, because the spirits of our departed friends communicate to us, and say they are immortal."

Ans. Spiritualists admit that the spirits do not always tell the truth, and that "there are mean, low, dirty imps of darkness that tell falsehoods." (This is the testimony of a famous Spiritualist who attended these lectures.) Now if this is so, how can we rely on their testimony? If there are mean, low, dirty, lying imps, is there not danger of being deceived? May not these spirits be the seducing spirits of which Paul speaks? 1 Tim. iv. May they not have learned their lesson in regard to the nature of man from the father of lies, who said in the beginning, "Ye shall not surely die?"

Mr. P. "We read in Mark xvi, These signs shall follow them that believe. They were to believe the gospel. Gospel means good news. Do these signs follow the churches? They follow Spiritualists if they follow any. This age has its gospels and revelations."

Ans. The fact that signs and wonders follow Spiritualists does not prove that Spiritualists are right. The magicians of Egypt had remarkable signs, and did wonders, till their folly was made manifest by the power of God which wrought through Moses and Aaron. Ex. vii; 2 Tim. iii, 8, 9. And Elymas, the sorcerer, "an enemy of all righteousness, a child of the Devil," resisted the truth in the days of Paul; and his folly was also exposed. Acts xiii, 6-11. The Scriptures speak of lying wonders [2 Thess. ii, 9], and of spirits of devils working miracles. Rev. xvi, 14. But we need not be deceived. We have a rule by which we can try the spirits. Says Isaiah, "When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. viii, 19, 20.

We read in Mark xvi, "These signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils." Does this sign follow Spiritualists? No. They are very careful to say as little as they can about devils. This is the first sign of which Christ speaks; and this sign was very prominent in the primitive church. Christ commenced his work by breaking the power the Devil held over the suffering, and by casting out devils. He had a controversy with the Devil and wicked spirits during his entire ministry; and his disciples could say, "Even the devils are subject unto us through thy name." Luke x, 17.

Mr. P. says, "This age has its gospels and revelations." Granted. But do these gospels and revelations agree with the law and the testimony? Does the gospel that Mr. P. brings agree with the gospel that Christ and the apostles taught? It does not. It speaks against the Bible and against the God of the Bible, and makes no difference between a wicked man and a good man. It destroys all distinctions of right and wrong, says there is no Devil, and denies the doctrine of a future punishment. This gospel is very different from the gospel which Paul preached; and truly God's blessing cannot rest on those who teach it. Says Paul, "Though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal. i, 8.

Query. Was it customary for holy men of old to whom the Lord gave revelations for the people, to stand before a congregation and lecture one or two hours in vision with their eyes closed?

D. T. BOURDEAU.