Having addressed the subjoined letter to the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the standing committee resolved that the
subject did not fall sufficiently within the objects of the Association
to allow even of its being read to the meeting. In the instance of my
letter to the Episcopal clergy, it was stated that its acknowledgment
by them was not expected; and after this impression was verified, I
admitted that, in their not replying, the interest of the church was
best consulted. In the present case I admit that the harmony of the
Association was perhaps best consulted in not recognising that the
objects of the Association involved the duty of allowing certain facts
to be stated before it, which are at war with the received doctrines of
science, no less than with those of revelation.
During the Dark Ages, the so-called word of God (but really the words
of ignorant propagandists) had taken such hold of the proper domain of
science, that it was heresy to assert the rotundity of this planet,
or that the sun did not revolve about it diurnally. But at this time
science has established itself upon the domain claimed for religious
truth, so that between the positive science of the atheist Comte and
the dogmatic opinions of the orthodox savan, there is no room for the
germ of Spiritualism to shoot up.
It seems to me that, in due courtesy and liberality, the standing
committee might have had my letter read to the meeting, and have let
the members judge whether it should be acknowledged. But I place it
on record in this volume, and leave the propriety of their having
neglected to acknowledge it to be estimated hereafter in this world, as
it has already been in the world of spirits, as respects its influence
on the estimation of the parties.
I am aware, however, that every man in society is more or less a
_peon_, and that there is no small analogy between the situation of
many holding worldly pre-eminence and that of the poor apothecary
of Shakspeare. Conscience and reason are ever under the control of
expediency. Those who live in society must be governed by the hearts
and heads of others as well as their own: unless they are quite sure
that the cause of truth will suffer by their silence, they should not
speak to give others umbrage. I always considered it my duty not to do
any thing which would injure the institution of which I was a member
for nearly thirty years. Doubtless, the sachems of the Association did
what they thought best, as probably I should have done, had I been
situated as they were, and holding their opinions.
In the letter as actually sent to the Association, I introduced the
arguments founded on Dr. Bell’s observations, (111, 287, 864,) also the
facts and reasoning submitted in the Supplemental Preface. I shall, of
course, leave the reader to recur to those passages, and introduce here
only the other portions of my letter: