In speaking of the Divine Being as nearly as possible in external language, I would say that He is a personality, but not an individuality. Individuality is finite necessarily; therefore all the ideas originating from such an individuality are finite; hence if you attempt to portray the Infinite in your imagination, you make him finite, and just so sure as you attempt to make that finite image or idea represent the Infinite, that moment you involve yourself in inextricable confusion. You make an individual of God and make him finite. By personality, which is quite another thing, I refer to this principle of consciousness. That being only has attained personality where the subject arises and the object terminates within himself. That being is a personality alone who possesses self-existence and self-sufficiency. Now I standing before you am liable to influences outside of myself. An act arising from such influences is not strictly mine, not depending entirely upon me for its existence. If you influence me, and my act be a good one, you are entitled to part of the credit; if it be bad, you are chargeable with part of the censure. You can see that under this law of motive, which belongs to the first and second spheres of mind, no action depending upon outward condition is perfect, not being self-sufficient or self-existent. It belongs to the individuality; but when the act is of such a character that it can not receive outward influence arising from a sort of divine spontaneity, it is self-existent and self-sufficient, and the person capable of such an act may be said to be a personality; that is, he is becoming independent—attaining to a self-sufficiency and self-existence. An individual is neither. It is only that which receives. Hence man, who is said to be begotten the child of God, has another’s self-sufficiency. All that he has he has received. Said Jesus, speaking from the natural plane, “I can of my own self do nothing. As I hear I judge. It is not I that doeth the work, but the Father that dwelleth in me that doeth the work.” So you will understand what I mean when I say that man as a separate individual has a finite being, but in his connection with the Divine Being he becomes a personality, not of his own, but as a personality in God. The universal and eternal personality of God is in him. This is the relation we sustain as finite beings to the Infinite.
I expect not to convey my idea in a very clear manner. I can only point in the direction, and say investigate in that direction and you will find the infinite. I can only give a negative description of the infinite by saying what it is not, and ask you to pursue the positive in your inmost consciousness; and after a little while you will see some glimmering of the instinct infinite. Then all your doubts about the infinite will cease. You will then be able to perceive, although not able to describe, how it is that there is an infinite Father whose love and wisdom is over all his works.
CHAPTER VI.
MEDIUMSHIP.
My subject of discourse this evening is that of mediumship. There are two classes of mediumship, and only two: that which is external, that which reaches the consciousness through the region of thought; and the internal, that which reaches it directly in the affections. The most imperfect as a means of communication is what is known as the external, its imperfection being due to the fact of its having to employ in its communication certain signs or symbols, which signs or symbols each individual must translate by his own standard—by his own understanding. Its perfection as a means of communication depends, first, upon the perfection of the communicator; secondly, upon the perfection of the understanding of the individual to whom the communication is made. If the communication pertain to those things belonging to the common plane of the understanding, and the individual communicating and the one to whom the communication is made understand alike the symbols used, the method of communication is comparatively perfect. I am obliged to make use of certain natural words which are signs of ideas. If you understand these words precisely as I do, I will succeed in conveying my ideas. But if the slightest difference exist between us in the use of words, a perfect communication can not take place. You understand how this is. Nothing is more common in an audience like this than for different individuals to understand the speaker differently, though each individual heard the same words. But different conclusions are attained because each interprets by his own standard.
We can not be perfect in our external methods of communication any further than we each occupy the same plane in our communication, and understand alike the symbols used. If I were describing simple natural things, and describing them by natural qualities, there would be no difficulty, perhaps, in conveying a definite idea. I may not fail in describing objects by using such terms as “red, white, round, square, angular,” because these terms are commonly well understood. So in regard to all the natural qualities of objects with which we are familiar. We have the correct elements out of which to construct a correct idea. Therefore, while I am communicating on the natural plane where we all possess the same consciousness, external language answers very well as a means of communication.
But suppose I attempt to go into a more interior truth—that which does not address each one’s consciousness through the sense. I am obliged, however, to make use of external language; but as the interior truth is more interior than the natural plane, I must employ that language figuratively—must speak by parables, similes, and allegories. But the moment we begin to use language in that manner we are very liable to be misunderstood. The individual inclined to understand all things on the natural plane will very likely fail to get the spiritual idea which is figuratively conveyed. A truth expressed in figurative language, the figure being a natural one, will be understood by the one who takes it literally in one way, while he who takes it in a spiritual sense will get a different idea. So whenever we attempt to teach by parables, there is a very great liability of diversity of understandings. I refer to this to show that in communicating by external language, we are very liable to be misunderstood, unless we confine our subjects to the natural plane, and describe natural things by such properties as are common to all, and are accurate in putting them together, when we may succeed tolerably well. But if we omit any of these essential particulars, there will be almost as great a diversity of opinions as there are diversity of minds to hear the communications.
Many persons have thought that if they become mediums, and could see disembodied Spirits in the Spiritual world, and see how they are associated together there, they would become wise. As a mere observation of the vegetable kingdom serves simply to acquaint one with its various forms, but not with its uses, so a view of the Spiritual world might acquaint one with the fact that Spirits existed, of their employments, etc.; but the real interior truth, which is necessary to enter into you and make you wise, can not be acquired in this way.
The idea that we can get perfect communication externally, when we are imperfect ourselves, is altogether a fallacious idea. We depend upon our understandings for the meanings of communications addressed to us; and just so far as you are developed to understand perfectly, you may get a perfect impression. But just so far as it is above your comprehension, you are liable to misunderstand, and charge the fault upon your communicator. The proposition is simply this: You and I can not understand infallibly what is truth, unless we are infallible ourselves in the determination of truth. That which, of itself, is fallible and liable to err, can not determine the quality of infallibility; and whenever an individual affirms, upon some authority, the truth of any thing which, by his acknowledgment, lies beyond the plane of his intellectual development, he asserts something unphilosophical and false. That is only truth which, in our minds, corresponds to the actuality. It matters not who speaks, even though it be God; just so long as you must depend upon your understanding to interpret the meaning of what is said, you are liable to get a falsehood instead of truth. The question of truth depends as much upon you as the communicator. There has been a great deal of discussion about the infallibility of the Koran, of the Shasters, of the Vedas, of the Bible, and of the Book of Mormon. It has all proceeded upon an erroneous idea. Although the book may contain infallible truth, yet since you have to depend upon your understanding to interpret the language employed, you may fail to get the truth. You need to be infallible before you can affirm that you have the truth. You hand me the Bible, perhaps, saying that it is the Word of God, that it was given by inspiration of God, and that every word it contains is true, infallibly true. Very well. Do you wish me to receive the entire book of paper, ink, and calf-skin, to take the book and read it, and believe what it says? I must receive it as I understand it, and faith, therefore, corresponds to my understanding of the book. Is my faith in the book, or my understanding of the book? When a man affirms the infallibility of the Bible, he affirms the infallibility of his understanding. It appears that your faith can not be in the Bible, whatever it may teach. Your faith is only in your understanding of the Bible; and if your understanding happens to correspond exactly with the truth, you then have the truth. But if your understanding happens to be erroneous, your faith is in a falsehood. You affirm, then, that God teaches that which He does not teach; and you make your falsehood God’s truth.
I want to make this plain, for here the law of outward communication is abundantly manifest. Look the world over and see how many different sects there are in Christendom: Baptists, Universalists, Presbyterians—I could not begin to name them all over to-night. They all take the same book and learn from the same source; and yet they come to very different conclusions. You may take any one doctrine which you may think the Bible teaches—and I will immediately find you a denomination who will deny it. One says that it teaches universal salvation, and another affirms that it teaches almost as universal damnation. Each man translates it by his own understanding; and each affirms that he has infallible truth. If they would just take this simple proposition, that that which is fallible can not determine the quality of infallibility—that upon these subjects the human mind is fallible, and therefore can not determine what is the absolute meaning of the communications—they would learn the source of all their errors. Men may be ever so honest, they will differ as a consequence of their constitutional differences. A man whose intellectual faculties are strongly developed, who will reason and demonstrate every thing rationally, will be a Presbyterian. Hence the expression “long-faced Presbyterian.” It is very common for them to be long-faced. They are very actual, never have much feeling, and sit perfectly quiet. The minister must do all the talking, and the singers must do all the singing. The round, full-faced, emotional kind of man will not be a Presbyterian. You could not force him to be, because he judges by a different standard. He would be a Methodist. He would judge by the standard of feeling, and must have a great deal of noise; and a meeting is not worth a fig to him unless he can have a dozen round him shouting “Glory!” The Presbyterian, all reason, says God is omnipotent and omniscient; therefore He foreknew what should come to pass, and that, therefore, God foreordains whatever comes to pass. This is one of his cardinal doctrines. The Methodists says: “If that be true, man is not a free agent; but I feel that he is.” He decides from feeling; the Presbyterian from thought. They can not read the same book and come to the same conclusion. There is a constitutional difference between the two. If they are to determine upon truth by outward communication they can not arrive at it. The man who feels pretty savage is ready to accept the doctrine of damnation. He feels that certain persons ought to be punished, and he thinks God will punish them. Here is another man who is all sympathy and love. He can not see how one man should, under any circumstances, want to injure another man, and he comes to the conclusion that all men are going to be saved. He thinks that if God is as good as he is, and he is sure He is, He will contrive some way to save all. That man will preach the doctrine of universal salvation.
So true is it, that phrenological differences point out different religious beliefs, that in almost any congregation you can sort out the Presbyterians from the Methodists, etc. This is a truth that God, nature, experience—every thing teaches. What is the use of quarreling about it, as long as we know that individuals hearing a discourse come to different conclusions. They do, they must, they will, and they can not help it. Until they come to a more interior plane they can never have one faith, one Lord, one baptism.