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.
Now you understand what I mean by what is called the external
communication. Suppose the Spirits make a communication, they make it
in words. These words only address your consciousness through your
understanding, and you make them mean according to your understanding
of them. If the Spirit makes a communication by pantomime, it still
appeals to your understanding, and depends upon your translation to
give it significance. There may be error in the communication and in
yourself, so that the error will be double. It is in this way that very
many errors which have been charged upon the Spiritual world, after
all, have their origin in the mistranslation and the misunderstanding
of those who hear the communication. The teachings of Jesus, I
think, are straightforward enough, if you will come to the plane of
understanding to which they were addressed. Being spiritual, they
can not be truly represented by natural ideas and language. For that
reason he was obliged to teach by the use of parables, figures, and
similes; and when he had done the best he could, the disciples, being
educated in the natural plane, interpreted his language naturally, and,
consequently, misapplied what he said. This is the fault to the present
day. The truths he sought to communicate were peculiarly spiritual,
and natural language could only represent them when used figuratively;
hence he made choice of such similes or parables as would convey his
meaning approximately, yet not without liability of material error.
Hence he declared to his disciples, with whom he had been so long
familiar, that they did not understand him, and could not, until the
Spirit of truth should come to lead them into the truth of what he had
taught. Language could not convey the truth, else it would undoubtedly
have been so given. He knew how to describe the things of the Spiritual
world so far as they could be described, for the Spirit had been poured
out upon him without measure; but natural language could not portray
the truths, scenery, and events of the Spirit-world.
The only perfect mode of communication is the interior method, or
communication by inspiration. As a means of becoming wise, it becomes
necessary for us to seek by some means to come into interior communion
with the Spirit-world and Divine Being, since we can not by outward
means arrive absolutely at the truth. If we will know that truth which
is required to build us up into eternal life, we must ascertain what
conditions are necessary to be observed to bring us into interior
communion with the Spirit, so that without outward sign they can flow
directly into our consciousness, and be written upon the thought or
heart, as was said, “I will put my law into their understandings, and
I will write it upon their affections.” Thus truth must come to us
without any recourse to Bibles or any other standard whatever. It so
happens that the means by which we are to attain to interior communion
are open to all. It is possible for every person to come into _rapport_
with the interior spheres. According to one’s ruling love or desire
will be his affinity or communion with the spheres of the Spirit-world.
If that be high, his communion will be high. If low, his communion will
be low.
I will illustrate what I mean by interior communication. Suppose
that some of you have a pain in the head. After your best attempts
to describe it to me by natural language, I might not get of it a
correct idea. But by putting myself in a negative condition to you, I
could receive the pain myself, and be able to understand its character
precisely. You thus communicate through the nervous medium interiorly.
Many persons in public assemblies are liable to receive headaches of
others by coming into _rapport_ with them.
In each there is that which corresponds to all the media in the outward
universe. There is a material earth, and I possess a material body.
There is electricity, and I have electricity in my system. There is
magnetism, and I have magnetism. There is a life-principle expanding
all over the world, and I am in communication with that vital medium,
and through it exert a vital influence upon others, and they upon me.
This process of healing by mesmerizing is only coming into _rapport_,
so that the vital forces of the healthy person enter in and strengthen
the vital forces of the weak. Then there is a nerve-media existing
around and in the individual, through which the pains of others
are communicated to him. Pain in another causes an action in this
nerve-medium which communicates the pain to me; just as my voice causes
a vibration of the physical atmosphere, which action is communicated
to your organs of hearing. The sounds I produce have certain meanings
attached to them. If you understand them precisely as I do, you get a
perfect communication. But any description in natural language of a
pain would be inadequate. But when I receive it myself, I have in every
respect an adequate idea of it. Very often, standing near individuals,
I have told them what difficulties they were laboring under by
experiencing them in myself. It is in this manner that clairvoyants
frequently tell what ails their patient.
If I go on and describe your pains, there is nothing astonishing in
it. I am simply in _rapport_ with your nerve-medium. I am sometimes
wondered at for this, but I might be a fool and yet do it. There is no
wisdom involved in such a power; and it is erroneous to suppose, as
some do, that because clairvoyants can tell them what ails them, they
can tell them how to cure it. These powers belong to very different
classes, but they may be united in the same individual, and he may
be competent to discover disease and to prescribe its remedy. I refer
to this simply to correct the false impression that clairvoyance is a
wondrous power. It is one of the simplest powers in nature. It is one
of the powers that may be made use of to bless; but if not properly
understood, it may be made use of to curse. What is true in regard to
this nervous medium is true also of thought. You often witness cases
of this kind in mesmeric and magnetic experiments, when the subject
and operator being brought into _rapport_, whatever one thinks the
other thinks—what one wills the other wills. The idea is transmitted
perfectly.
There is what is called thought-reading. This is governed by the
same law precisely as that of which I have been speaking. One mind
communicates its motion to the other by means of a medium, just as I
communicate to your organs of hearing the vibrations of my organs of
speech, through the medium of the atmosphere. When I have a thought
which is an active condition of the mind, which may be denominated
mental action, it is transmitted to the Spirit-medium or Spiritual
atmosphere, and undulates through that until it strikes upon that
receptive mind where the same motion is communicated, and the same
thought produced, and the thought is impressed upon the consciousness.
The one receiving it perceives it precisely as its communicator. Such
a communication does not depend upon the Understanding simply for its
perfection. This is what we call interior communication. According to
the elevation of our Spiritual sphere in the sphere of truth or love,
as we approach the infinite and absolute, will be the perfection of
this method of communication. If we are very low, it corresponds very
much to the external mode. But as we raise, it becomes more interior
and refined, until finally, being unfolded to the plane of the absolute
in our consciousness, perceptions, and affections, we shall come into
direct _rapport_ with the infinite, and receive communications directly
from the Divine—not by any outward sign or symbol, but by the inflowing
of the Divine thought and affection. This is the way and the only way
that Spiritual truths can be communicated. The reason that Jesus of
Nazareth did not communicate sufficient truth to the world to enlighten
it, was simply because the world was not prepared to receive it. He
said that he had many things to communicate, but they could not bear
them. He also said that the man coming after him, living the life he
had lived, should do greater things, because there would be a higher
and wider plane. The world was too low, too animal, to receive his
doctrine. For that reason he was obliged to go away, saying to his
disciples that they did not understand him, and it was necessary that
the Spirit of truth should come and illumine their understandings
before they could understand him.
If I wish to understand Spiritual truth, no man or medium can be a
medium for me, and I can not be a medium for you. Jesus of Nazareth can
not be a medium for one of you, nor can God himself. Every individual
who would understand the truths of the Spiritual world must be his or
her own medium. God must write his law upon your understanding, and
put it in your affections. If you want to become mediums for interior
communications, you must become absolutely true in every thought,
feeling, and affection—become absolutely pure in every desire and
aspiration of your souls—become absolutely just in all your relations
of life, so that morning, noon, and night you shall be inquiring and
thirsting after righteousness. Such an individual will not need any
outward signs to convey truth to him. But the person disposed to live
in the outward world, to live in the enjoyment of his appetites and
lustful affections, will require representations, if he ever believes
in Spirits. He has to be addressed as a physical or sensuous being. If
he ever believes in a future life, the Spirits have got to come and rap
him over his head. These outward manifestations are designed to say to
the sordid atheist, to the materialist, to the religious worldling,
“You have a soul.” It is for this reason that there is speaking
with tongues, and that all the wonderful works are wrought in your
midst. That is what makes Mr. Davenport’s circles necessary for the
vast majority of the citizens of New York. They are not sufficiently
developed to understand Spiritual truth. These manifestations are
necessary. They are not calculated to make you wise, but they can
startle you, and prompt you to investigate; and they can give you
such direction as will prepare you to enter into a higher and holier
investigation of your relation to the world and to the Divine Father.
It makes little difference whether they lie or tell the truth, provided
they satisfy you that you have souls. If they were always to tell you
the truth, you would be too dependent upon them. You have intellectual
faculties—exercise them, and you will never find yourself in a
position where you can not find all the light you need. A great many
people who believe that Spirits do communicate, can hardly go to dinner
without the consent of the Spirits. They make babes of themselves, and
afterward become fools. If the Spirits tell me to do a thing which my
judgment says I should not do, I tell them, “I won’t. I will do the
best I know how; and I would rather trust myself than you.” I always
get along a great deal better in this way than I would by getting
Spirits to rap according to my expectations. They are not designed
to become our governors. Sensible Spirits do not ask any such thing.
There are ninnies in the Spiritual world as in this, who will be glad
to become governors, if they can get dupes enough. The object of this
external communication is to give outward evidence. The Corinthians had
terrible times. Some people coming in said they were drunkards. Some
said they were mad. Some spoke in tongues. Paul reproved them for this
kind of talk. He told them that it was well to speak with tongues, but
he would endeavor to make some use of it, and would rather speak five
words with the understanding than ten thousand in tongues. The tongues
are for a sign to those who are not believers. The man or woman that is
not established in the faith that Spirits can communicate, needs these
outward manifestations; but when established, it is all time thrown
away to be chasing after these communications. Persons had better be
in their closets, throwing their aspirations for a higher and holier
life, and pray until, by their earnest aspirations, they call angels
of the brightest spheres to come and be with them. They would find
themselves getting along much better, and would give to Spiritualism
a very different character from what it now bears in the wide world.
I talk plain. I am in earnest. We have had nonsense and folly enough.
It is time we become rational, learn the use of our faculties, and use
them aright.
Everything has its true mission. Let, then, every thing be done
decently and in order. If Spiritualism is that which is to redeem the
world, we shall find it out by finding whether it makes us better; and
if it will not make the world better, we want nothing more of it. We
need no more raps than will save humanity. We need all we can get for
that purpose. If Spiritualism takes that direction, it is a God-send to
the world; and in whatever sphere the Spirit can work, let it work. I
bid it God-speed. But I say to all, that if Spiritualism, in its faith
and effects, does not tend to make you wiser, better, purer, and holier
men and women, it is good for nothing. That Spiritualism which will not
redeem you and me will not be sufficient to redeem the world. Therefore
let our faith be shown by our works—be exhibited by the influence it
shall exert upon our lives and characters in making us purer, better
men and women—just men and women.