Page:Randolph, Paschal Beverly; Eulis! the history of love.djvu/188

Rh There are limitless regions of unexplored thought toward which that fast-increasing multitude, who think as I do, push; nor do we, as do many of the supernalists,—though not all,—confine ourselves to the mere outside, i. e. soul-facts of the universe. We believe a few things as do they, but not all that they do, for which they rate us soundly. They rejoice in the physical demonstration of the reappearing dead, but are not quite sure always that the manifesting powers are really their departed ones, for they have not, as have we, the means of establishing identities through an unmistakable agency alluded to elsewhere. Vast numbers of, but not all, the Spiritualists concern themselves mainly about raps, tips, quarreling, scandal, mutual vituperation, backbiting, libel, misrepresentation, "Social Freedom"—things of earth; while we occupy ourselves in actual research and inquiry into what happens to man after his flight over the river of death to that mystic state alluded to; to Narwana and Nihility; or to the upper spaces of the blue Empyrean. At and across the borders of death-land, we strike hands with all the Spiritualists, and there part company with some of them, because we seek to know more; they are content to drink fourth-class mental vinegar, acrid as gall, flavored hell-aciduously, and call it wine; while we quaff the waters of life on the very brink of the mighty River.

Just so far do we go with the cold, hard, dry, materialistic, uncheering Darwinism—a system which lands us in the grave, there to stay until we turn to grass, trees, beans, pineapples, or bananas—according to the locality where death overtakes and trips us up; but at that point we separate from Darwin completely,—because the system ignores Soul altogether. We are not wholly content with the modern spiritual doctrines, seeing that they fail to fill the great bill—of human want; and because it is all head and no heart; has no warmth, fervor, ardor, religion, about it; not because it fails to make men better, but solely because it affirms and accepts the development theory as opposed to the genesic account of man's origin, yet fails to tell us how, when, where, or by what agencies immortality became a fixed fact. It accepts the dogma, but gives no valid or adequate reason why. It originates no thought, but