UC-NRLF 
 
 In 3L 
 
 & S6 
 
 $B MS 3M^ 
 
 CO 
 
 vO 
 CO 
 
 :o 
 
m MEMDU.IAJA 
 George Davidson 
 
T he Ag reemeni/^^ 
 
 Between Science and Religion 
 
 By O RX. A N D O J . [.§ M I T H 
 
 Author of "ETERNALISM," "BALANCE," Etc. 
 
 ** Nature is more simple than our conception 
 thereof J we begin with very complicated theories, 
 and end with the most simple." — Du Prel. 
 
 **The plainest truths are those precisely upon 
 which man hits last of all. " — Ludivig Feuerbach. 
 
 **It nettles men to find that truth should be 
 so simple." — Goethe. 
 
 New York: C 
 
 F A R R E L L , Publisher 
 
Copyright, 1906, by Orlando J. Smith 
 
 
 Qjic^i 
 
 ■CV^CM f^/ ■(..(S-C'^^AmAJL^ 
 
 ;4=^i^5^'7^ 
 
 One copy of this pamphlet will be mailed postpaid fbr Ten Cents, or for 
 Sixpence in English money. C. P. FARRELL, Publisher^ 117 East 
 Twenty-first Street, New York City 
 

 THE AGREEMENT 
 
 Between Science and Religion 
 
 WE ARE DEEPLY interested in the govern- 
 ments, local, state and national, under 
 which we live, in their laws and regula- 
 tions, in the protection and other advantages which they 
 give to us, and in the duties which they exact from us. 
 To a larger degree we are interested in the government 
 of the universe to which we are subject without conscious 
 choice of our own. If we do not like the community in 
 which we live, we may remove to another, and we may 
 get definite information concerning that other before 
 making the removal. We may go east, west, north or 
 south; to Canada, to Europe or to the antipodes. But 
 the government of the universe does not grant to us the 
 privilege of removal or expatriation, for there is no other 
 imiverse to go to. Even if we suffer annihilation in 
 death, we go nowhere, not elsewhere. Our fathers, as 
 far back as history or fancy can carry us, were subjects 
 of this universe, and governed by precisely the same 
 natural laws that govern us, as our descendants will be, 
 and as the life in the remotest planets must be, forever. 
 We may alter or improve our man-made laws and sys- 
 tems of government. We may exercise the right of pro- 
 test or of revolution. Thrones have yielded, time-hon- 
 
 jv^28?969 
 
ored systems have fallen, in response to human demands. 
 But we cannot change or amend the government of the 
 universe. Often we raise our puny arms in protest 
 against pain, bereavement or misfortune, but we make 
 no impression upon the cosmic order. We have pro- 
 duced no army strong enough, no conqueror great enou^ 
 to change in the slightest degree a law of Nature. 
 
 We hunger to comprehend the government of the uni- 
 verse, to know whether its ways are really just or unjust, 
 what our relations are to it, and what ground we have for 
 hope or fear from this stern, mysterious and unchanging 
 power which enfolds us. 
 
 Ever^eligious cult, from the lowest to the highest, 
 has had one central motive — the explanation of the 
 government of the universe. Science, in its higher reach- 
 es, seeks to solve precisely the same problem. Religion 
 would explain the relations of the individual soul to the 
 government of the universe. Science would explain the 
 relations of all truth to the supreme adjustment. Itshall 
 be my task to inquire concerning the results of these two 
 'investigations — one religious and the other scientific^^of 
 the government of the universe, and to ascertain whether 
 —there exists any agreement between them. 
 
 [a] 
 
The Foundation of Science 
 
 WHAT progress has been made by science in 
 ^tE e'explanation 6i (He gqyef nnient of thc^' 
 univi^e? ' ' 
 
 The science of logic has a fundamental postula te — 
 
 the uniformity of Nature^.i nrhe uniformity of the course 
 of Nature," says John Stuart. M ill. "wiU. appear as the 
 ultimate major premise of all in ductions. " (System of 
 Logic, 202.) He means by this that all reasoning is based 
 upon the postulate that the processes of Nature are 
 changeless — that they will be as they have been, that two 
 and two will make four, that gravitation will suffer no 
 impairpient, that the same cause will produce the same 
 effect — and that the processes of Nature are har- 
 monious, no process being in conflict with any other. 
 
 That the processes of Nature are changeless is a com- 
 plete statement, and it has the dignity and majesty which 
 we would associate with the supreme adjustment. That 
 the processes of Nature are in harmony, not in conflict, 
 is also an inspiring statement, though it leaves much to 
 be explained. We would know the grounds of this agree- 
 ment, the key to this supreme harmony. 
 
 Uniformity means of one form. What is Nature's 
 one form, or process, or law, or principle, upon which 
 her harmonies rest ? What is this underlying fact ? 
 
 [3] 
 
The logicians define this underlying fact in the term 
 "invariable sequence.'* Of the meaning of "invariable 
 sequence" Mr. Mill says: "Invariability of succession 
 b found by observation to obtain between every fact in 
 Nature and some other fact which has preceded it. . . . 
 The invariable antecedent is termed the cause; the in- 
 variable consequent, the effect." (System of Logic, 213.) 
 
 The key to the uniformity of Nature b found by the 
 logicians in invariable sequence, and invariable sequence 
 means that the processes of Nature are generative; that 
 the cause begets the effect; that the effect is true to its 
 cause — that the apple is true to its flower, the flower 
 to its tree, the tree to its seed. Invariable sequence 
 is not a thing unknown to us. It is the familiar 
 principle thai consequences are true to their antecedents. 
 
 I purpose to trace briefly the working of this prin- 
 ciple of invariable consequences in different fields of 
 experience, beginning with the simplest human affaurs. 
 
 In Common Experience 
 
 One has consequences in view when he strikes a match, 
 sharpens a pencil, sets a pot to boil, mends a fence. 
 Shall I change my coat? take another cup of coffee? 
 walk or ride ? Each question will be decided in accord- 
 ance with my estimate of the results. We plant a seed, 
 a rosebush, an orchard, with the expectation that they 
 will pay us back. We study a lesson, patch the roof and 
 build roads with the same expectation. 
 
 [4] 
 
Regret is usually a reminder of a neglect or misjudg- 
 ment of consequences, while repentance and reformation 
 indicate a waking up concerning consequences. Our 
 interest, curiosity, anxieties, fears, hopes and ambitions 
 are concentrated upon consequences. We seek advice 
 when we are doubtful about consequences. Precepts 
 and examples elucidate consequences. We work and 
 rest, eat and drink, scheme and plan, spend and save, 
 for consequences. We indulge or sacrifice ourselves 
 for consequences. Caesar expended a million lives for 
 earthly glory; St. Simeon Stylites scourged himself for 
 eternal gain. 
 
 That mind is the strongest which has the clearest 
 judgment of consequences. The fools are those who are 
 ignorant of consequences. The child must be guarded 
 because it knows little of consequences. What we know 
 of narcotics, stimulants, antidotes, hygiene, surgery, 
 chemistry, agriculture, mechanics, commerce, culture, 
 we know through the observation of consequences. The 
 best razor, plough, school, sanitary system, plan of social 
 betterment, is that which produces the best results. 
 The shrewdest maxims of trade are built upon the obser- 
 vation of consequences. The science of political economy 
 aims to distinguish and mark the good and evil results 
 of different systems of land tenure, taxation, trade and 
 finance. The science of government would determine 
 what political system is best for a people. And so on 
 through the whole of human experience, knowledge 
 
 [5] 
 
seeks to distinguish that which has the best results from 
 that which has inferior or evil results. 
 
 In Reasoning 
 
 Logic builds fundamentally, as we have already ob- 
 served, upon the principle that consequences are true to 
 their antecedents. Reasoning builds primarily also, 
 and in all its details, from the simplest deductions of 
 common sense to the most subtle abstractions, upon the 
 same principle. 
 
 Reasoning a priori is from cause to effect; a posteriori 
 from effect to cause. The syllogism is a form by which 
 one may advance from antecedent premises to a conse- 
 quence. Conclusions, corollaries, deductions, judgments, 
 inferences, discoveries and estimates are consequences 
 — each following from an antecedent or antecedents. 
 
 Inductive reasoning is an advance from antecedent 
 facts to a conclusion; deductive reasoning is from a gen- 
 eral principle, established from observation of its anteced- 
 ents or consequences, to a conclusion. When anteced- 
 ents or consequences are unknown, we fall back on 
 analogy, the substitution of something similar with 
 known antecedents or consequences. For example, the 
 people of the United States, embarking upon a colonial 
 policy in which they have had no previous experience, 
 must seek knowledge in the consequences of the colonial 
 expansion of England, Spain, France and other countries. 
 
 In analysis we seek to comprehend a whole by investi- 
 
 [6] 
 
gating its component parts. If water contains matter 
 with injurious consequences, we know that it is bad; 
 if it contains matter with no harmful or disagreeable 
 consequences, we know that it is good. 
 
 Even in reasoning through sight or hearing, we must 
 depend upon antecedents or consequences. I observe 
 a number of strangers who sit opposite to me in a car. 
 I know, through antecedent experience, that they are 
 men. I judge that one is old, because he has gray hair 
 and wrinkles, the consequences of age. Another, because 
 his hands show the consequences of toil, I judge to be a 
 laborer. Another wears glasses, the consequences of 
 defective vision ; another shows the consequences of drink, 
 another of worry, and so on. One speaks, and his voice 
 shows the consequences of education and culture; the 
 voice of another shows the consequences of ignorance. 
 
 If I ride through the country in a district unknown to 
 me, the sights will tell me much about the people. The 
 condition of the fields and buildings on one place will in- 
 form me that the farmer is tidy and industrious, and on 
 another place they will tell a different story. The condi- 
 tion of a farmer's horse will give some idea of the farmer's 
 character. Other signs will inform me where thrift abides, 
 where poverty, where self-respect, where slovenliness. 
 
 Facts, theories, ideas, principles, have antecedents and 
 consequences as distinct as tangible things. We judge 
 the value of a machine, a field, a cow, a pig, by what it 
 will produce; a picture, a scene, a play, a spectacle, a 
 
 [7] 
 
poem, a song, a book, a thought, by what it gives back 
 to us; a creed, a plan, a policy, a system, a philosophy, 
 by what we believe its consequences are or will be. 
 
 We estimate a nation by its history, its antecedent 
 record. The calculation of future events is based on ante- 
 cedent knowledge. We must judge what will be by what 
 has been. We search alike for good seeds and evil germs 
 that we may propagate the one, and destroy the other. 
 
 To comprehend an unknown seed, we plant it and ob- 
 serve its consequences. To comprehend an unexplained 
 crime, we search for its antecedents. The process of 
 reasoning, even of the most abstract reasoning, is the same. 
 The farmer and the seafaring man, the statesman and 
 the laborer, the philosopher and the detective, use one 
 and the same process of reasoning — the testing of anteced- 
 ents by consequences or of consequences by antecedents. 
 We are unable to think of antecedents and consequences 
 as being other than invariable — of peaches as growing on 
 apple trees, or of acorns that produce potatoes. 
 
 In Ethics 
 
 Beneath the many conflicting schools of morals there 
 is a fundamental agreement — that the acts of man must 
 be judged by their consequences. Aristotle*s theory 
 of "the mean,'* the avoidance of excess, teaches that 
 moderation will produce the best consequences; the 
 cynics hold that plain living will give exemption from fear, 
 anxiety and disappointment; the hedonists, and to some 
 
 C8] 
 
extent the epicureans, commend the acts which produce 
 pleasure; the stoics hold that the acts unmoved by pas- 
 sion, grief or fear will produce the better manhood; the 
 utilitarians, that those acts are best that produce the 
 greatest good for the greatest number. Mandeville and 
 Helvetius, who approve of the acts based on self-interest, 
 hold that the consequences of selfishness are best for the 
 individual. The philosophers who hold that morals are 
 a product of human association mean thereby that man 
 has discovered through experience what is most advan- 
 tageous for society and for the individual. Theology 
 teaches that the greatest vurtue consists in submission to 
 the will of God, eternal happiness being the conse- 
 quence of submission, and eternal pain the consequence 
 of rebellion. 
 
 There appears to be no theory of morals that is not the 
 result of the observation of the consequences, or of specu- 
 lation concerning the consequences, of human action. 
 How do we know that truth is better than falsehood? 
 Because we are better pleased with ourselves when we 
 speak truthfully than when we lie; because truth is essen- 
 tial to understanding; because we despise lying in others; 
 because lying leads to confusion, uncertainty, enmity, 
 and to other evil consequences. And so also we have 
 formed a judgment of loyalty and treachery, kindness and 
 cruelty, sincerity and hypocrisy, by their consequences. 
 
 We know that certain actions are right and others 
 wrong, as we know that bread is good and straw bad for 
 
 [9] 
 
food; that cleanliness is better than filthiness; that the 
 way to walk is forward, not backward; that mirth is 
 pleasanter than grief. 
 
 As the value of a machine is shown in its working, and 
 the value of a tree by its fruit, so is the good or evil in our 
 actions determined by their consequences. 
 
 In Mathematics 
 
 In arithmetic the antecedent two plus two equals the 
 consequence jour; the antecedent nine minus seven equals 
 the consequence two. We may traverse the whole course 
 from the simplest calculation in arithmetic to the most 
 intricate problem in mathematical physics or the theory 
 of functions, and we shall find in each and all the same 
 invariable relation between antecedent and consequence. 
 
 The perfect balance between antecedent and conse- 
 quence is the vital part in all mathematical reckoning, 
 and is expressed or understood in the fundamental axioms 
 and principles of the science. 
 
 In Physics 
 
 We live in a world in which, if science and philosophy 
 do not err, there is ceaseless motion ever)nvhere, and per- 
 fect rest nowhere. There is motion in the heart of the 
 granite mountain, in the minutest portions of the human 
 body; motion great and insignificant, perceptible and im- 
 perceptible, disastrous and beneficent. The earth moves 
 in its ceaseless journey around the sun at the rate of eight- 
 
 [lO] 
 
een miles a second, one thousand and eighty miles a 
 minute — as if one should fly from New York to Yonkers 
 in one second, to Albany in ten seconds, to BufiFalo in 
 thirty seconds, to Chicago in one minute, to San Fran- 
 cisco in three minutes — one thousand times faster than 
 an express train, fifty times the speed of a rifle bullet. 
 We are disturbed often by our own little projects, inven- 
 tions and affairs, but we are not fearful that the bulky 
 earth will come to harm in its mad course, nor would we 
 know that it moves at such speed, or that it moves at all, 
 if the astronomers had not demonstrated the fact. We 
 are convinced that the astronomers have discovered 
 regularity and precision in the movements of the 
 heavenly bodies, that their forecasts of these movements 
 are trustworthy, and that Nature, in the large, in her 
 greater and grander manifestations, is ruled by order. 
 
 What is the key to this precision and regularity? 
 Newton, in his third law of motion, gives an explanation 
 of the phenomena of universal motion which is accepted 
 as the fundamental postulate of physics : * * To everv action 
 there is an equal and opposite reaction." 
 
 "If fire doth heate water, the water reacteth againe 
 . . . upon the fire, and cooleth it," says Sir K. Digby 
 (A. D. 1644). The knapsack exacts from the soldier 
 who carries it an expenditure of force equal to its weight. 
 Let me strike a stone wall with a gloved fist, and it will 
 give back a gloved blow in response. The wall will be 
 gloved, even as my fist is gloved, at the point of contact. 
 
,/ 
 
 j Let me strike hard with bare knuckles, and I shall be 
 j convinced that Nature gives even to senseless things 
 
 y( some powers of resistance, of defense, even of resent- 
 / ment. If I should be thrown upon the stone wall by 
 
 / accident, still the wall will return the blow with equal 
 force. Nature^s ways are exact— strain for strain, blow 
 
 \ for blow. 
 
 "Without the axiom that action and reaction are equal 
 and opposite, astronomy could not make its exact predic- 
 tions," says Herbert Spencer (First Principles, 193). 
 As astronomy discerns the balance between action and 
 reaction — that consequences are true to their antecedents 
 — in the remotest regions accessible to human vision, 
 and in the most tremendous phenomena, so chemistry 
 discovers the same accurate adjustment among the 
 smallest particles of matter of which we have any knowl- 
 edge. This is illustrated by the universal practice of 
 chemists in writing down every chemical interaction as 
 an equation : so much of this plus so much of that equals 
 the result. 
 
 A reaction is the consequence of an action, an eflfect 
 is the consequence of a cause, a result is the consequence 
 of an antecedent. It is evident that the words reaction^ 
 ejjecty result and consequence express different manifesta- 
 tions of one law, usually called the Law of Causality, 
 though it would be, I believe, more correctly named the 
 Law of Balance, meaning thereby that an antecedent 
 and its consequence are equivalent, reciprocal or com- 
 
 !i2j 
 
pensatory to each other — that one balances the other, 
 that consequences are true to their antecedents. 
 
 Returning to the fact that there is ceaseless motion 
 everywhere, and perfect rest nowhere, we perceive that 
 this ceaseless motion is regulated by equivalence, 
 reciprocity or compensation between antecedents and 
 consequences. Throughout the universe reaction unceas- 
 ingly balances action, effect unceasingly balances cause, 
 consequence unceasingly balances antecedent. And this 
 state of balance explains perfectly the precision and 
 order in the processes of Nature. 
 
 The Harmony in Truth 
 
 The simplest truth is in harmony with all other truth. 
 Any truth concerning the system of Nature must agree 
 with, and through its relations include, all truth con- 
 cerning the system of Nature. 
 
 Modem science recognizes that Kepler's three laws 
 of planetary motion are covered by Newton *s laws of 
 motion — that planetary motion is governed by precisely 
 the same laws as all other motion. It is true also that 
 Newton's three laws of motion are included in a single 
 fundamental principle. His first law covers the fact 
 that the motion of a body cannot be accelerated or 
 changed in course "except so far as it may be compelled 
 by force" to do so; that is, it will change only as it is 
 compelled by cause to do so. His second law — "change 
 of motion is proportional to force applied, and takes 
 
 [13] 
 
place in the direction of the straight line in which the 
 force acts*' — means that the consequence of a force 
 applied must correspond accurately with its antecedent. 
 His third law — "To every action there is an equal and 
 opposite reaction" — ^means that the consequence of an 
 action is equal to its antecedent. Each of Newton's 
 three laws of motion is included definitely by its own 
 terms in the principle that consequences are true to their 
 antecedents. 
 
 The Theory of Evolution 
 
 Evolution, as expounded by Darwin, deals funda- 
 mentally with the theory of "Natural Selection," which 
 is defined as follows by the Century Dictionary: 
 
 "The fact of the survival of the fittest in the struggle for exist- 
 ence — which means that those animals and plants which are best 
 adapted, or have the greatest adaptability, to the conditions of 
 their environment do survive other organisms which are less 
 adapted, or less capable of being adapted, to such conditions." 
 
 The word environment, used in connection with the 
 theory of evolution, is defined by the Century as "The 
 sum of the agencies and influences which affect an 
 organism from without." That is, it is the sum of the 
 causes which affect an organism from without. 
 
 The organism is the product of two groups of influ- 
 ences — the one group, environment, from without; the 
 other, inherited nature and other conditions, from within. 
 The organism is the exact sum of these antecedent causes. 
 In whatever state the organism survives, it is the conse- 
 
 [14] 
 
quence of these causes. If the organism perishes, its 
 death is the resuh of one or more of these antecedents. 
 
 Ever)rthing — a seed, a fish, a man, a government, 
 a race, a civilization — is the exact product, the complete 
 sum, of all the antecedents that have produced or influ- 
 enced it. The theory of evolution is a statement of the 
 working, in one very important line of inquiry, of the 
 principle that consequences are true to their antecedents. 
 
 Other Important Modern Theories 
 
 What relation do the modern theories — ^modern in 
 their general acceptance, not in their origin — of the con- 
 servation of energy, of the indestructibility of matter 
 and of the ceaselessness of motion, bear to the principle 
 that consequences are true to their antecedents? 
 
 The axiom of the conservation of energy is expressed 
 as follows: "When one form of energy disappears, its 
 exact equivalent in another form takes its place." The 
 axiom of the indestructibility of matter may be expressed 
 in the same terms : " When one form of matter disappears, 
 its exact equivalent in another form takes its place." 
 It is plain that the theory of the conservation of energy 
 and the theory of the indestructibility of matter are not 
 two theories; they constitute one theory — that force 
 and matter are indestructible — the meaning of which is 
 tliat in the transformation of force or matter there is no 
 loss, no waste; that the consequence is equivalent to the 
 antecedent. 
 
 [15] 
 
The theory that motion is ceaseless means that there 
 is no halt or break in the transformations of Nature, 
 that the relation between cause and effect will have no 
 end, that the time will never come when an antecedent 
 will have no consequence. 
 
 Are Natural Processes Compensatory? 
 
 Can we say that the equivalents which return cease- 
 lessly in motion and transformation are compensatory? 
 Yes; the return of an exact equivalent is exact compensa- 
 tion. Heat is the compensation for the fuel that produces 
 it; electricity is the compensation for the energy that is 
 transformed into it; one molecule of water is the com- 
 pensation for two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of 
 oxygen. A definite amount of matter or force pays for 
 exactly the same amount in another form. That which 
 disappears and that which succeeds are mutually com- 
 pensatory. Fuel pays for heat, and heat pays for fuel. 
 The account balances perfectly. ^Nature has no profit 
 and loss account, no bad debts, no failures'Tii' compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 The assumption that anything can exist in the physical 
 world without exact compensation appeals to the scorn 
 alike of science and of common sense. Our patent office 
 in Washington refuses to consider devices to produce 
 perpetual motion because effect without cause, power 
 
 without compensation, is impossible. 
 
 ..-^-..^.-...-.^-.._..„,^.__ ^^^^ 
 
The Fundamental Law 
 
 Tracing the axiom of the uniformity of Nature to its 
 foundation, we have observed that the principle that 
 consequences are true to their antecedents is the funda- 
 mental postulate of reasoning. We have observed also 
 that precisely the same principle — that consequences are 
 true to their antecedents — is the fundamental postulate 
 of ethics, of mathematics, of physics, and also of the 
 theory of evolution. We have observed also that the 
 same principle appears invariably as the test of truth in 
 human experience, alike in the simplest affairs and in 
 the higher reaches of knowledge. 
 
 We have observed also that the theory of the indestruc- 
 tibility of force and matter is an extension of the princi- 
 ple that consequences are true to their antecedents to 
 this extent — that consequences are compensatory. We 
 have observed that the theory of the ceaselessness of 
 motion is also an extension of the same principle to this 
 effect — that the unvarying relation between antecedent 
 and consequence is ceaseless and eternal. 
 
 The conclusion from these observations is plain : that 
 the universe is governed by one law — that consequences 
 are true to their antecedents; that consequences are cease- 
 less and compensatory. This is, I believe, the supreme 
 law of Nature, single and fundamental, in which all other 
 explanations of the system of Nature and all truth con- 
 verge and have their center. 
 
 [i7i 
 
II 
 
 The Foundation of Religion 
 
 OF THE antiquity and universality of religion no 
 one can speak with more authority than 
 Edward B. Tylor, who ranks perhaps as the 
 foremost investigator of primitive beliefs. In con- 
 sidering the theory that there must be tribes so low 
 as to be destitute of religious faith, he says: 
 
 "Though the theoretical niche is ready and convenient, the 
 actual statue to fill it is not forthcoming. The case is in some 
 degree similar to that of the tribes asserted to exist without lan- 
 guage or without the use of fire; nothing in the nature of things 
 seems to forbid the possibility of such existence, but as a matter 
 of fact the tribes are not found. Thus the assertion that rude non- 
 religious tribes have been known in actual existence, though in 
 theory possible, and perhaps in fact true, does not at present rest 
 on that sufficient proof which, for an exceptional state of things, 
 we are entitled to demand." — Primitive Culture, i. 418. 
 
 Concerning the harmonies in religious beliefs, Tylor 
 
 also says : 
 
 "No reUgion of mankind lies in utter isolation from the rest, 
 and the thoughts and principles of modern Christianity are 
 attached to intellectual clues which run back through far pre- 
 Christian ages to the very origin of human civilization, perhaps 
 even of human existence." — Primitive Culture, i. 421. 
 
 Herbert Spencer says : 
 
 "Of religion, then, we must always remember that amid its 
 many errors and corruptions it has asserted and diffused a supreme 
 verity. From the first, the recognition of this supreme verity, 
 in however imperfect a manner, has been its vital element; and its 
 
 [i8] 
 
various defects, once extreme, but gradually diminishing, have 
 been so many failures to recognize in full that which it recognized 
 in part. The truly religious element of religion has always been 
 good; that which has proved untenable in doctrine and vicious in 
 practice has been its irreligious element; and from this it has ever 
 been undergoing purification." — First Principles, 104. 
 
 What pro gress has been made by re li f;ion in tl^e ex - 
 planation of the government of th e univer se ? 
 
 If we would answer this question, we must first inquire 
 concerning the actual meaning of the great fact which 
 we call religion — of universal religion, of all religion, 
 and not of one branch of faith. What seed produced, what 
 cause explains, this widespread and enduring growth ? 
 Where shall we find the "supreme verity" to which 
 Spencer refers, and the harmony of which Tylor speaks ? 
 
 It would be useless to search for a ground of agreement 
 in all of the thought of the world concerning religion, 
 for the thinking on the subject has been volimiinous and 
 endless, good and bad, sane and insane. Nor should 
 we expect to find an essential harmony in all religious 
 organizations, great and small, temporary and permanent, 
 powerful and insignificant. It is conceivable that a sect 
 claiming to be religious is really irreligious. 
 
 We should seek for the essential meaning of religion 
 in the broad principle or principles which have been 
 accepted by great masses of men in places and times wide 
 apart; in the permanent manifestations of religious 
 sentiment, and in the instinctive, spontaneous or un- 
 taught beliefs common to primitive men which survive 
 
 [19] 
 
X 
 
 in more highly developed form among the enlightened. 
 And we should seek for it finally in the harmony of belief 
 in the great religious organizations now in existence; 
 for they must contain, in the natural order of growth, 
 that which is worthy of survival in the religious faith that 
 has preceded them. 
 
 The Belief That the Soul Is Accountable for 
 Its Actions 
 
 "I entertain a good hope," says Socrates, "that some- 
 thing awaits those who die, and that, as was said long 
 since, it will be far better for the good than the evil." 
 The belief in a judgment after death is very old. Man 
 has been so impressed usually by his accountability 
 for his sins — by "the dread of something after death" — 
 that he has sought means of escape from it as he would 
 from wild beasts, from flood or from fire. What is the 
 inner significance of this conviction? 
 
 The knowledge of primitive man begins, as all knowl- 
 edge begins and continues, with consequences. He dis- 
 covers that water quenches thirst, game is found under 
 certain conditions, a cave gives shelter, friction brings 
 fire, the sun yields heat and light, some plants are poison- 
 ous, frost withers, lightning kills. 
 
 The first lesson learned by the infant is the lesson of 
 consequences. The mother is the source of food, pro- 
 tection and tenderness. Later the child learns that 
 through effort it can walk; that some things are hurtful 
 
 [20] 
 
and others helpful; some bitter, some sweet; some hot, 
 some cold; some heavy, some light. It discovers that 
 some actions are beneficial and may be safely repeated; 
 that others are injurious and should be avoided. The 
 beneficial it recognizes as good, the harmful as evil. 
 Before it can speak its first word it comprehends that 
 certain causes produce certain effects — that consequences 
 are true to their antecedents. 
 
 I believe that the sense of accountability was in the 
 nature of things the first religious sentiment in the mind 
 of man; that it was based originally and still rests upon 
 cause and effect, which are apparent to the dull as well 
 as to the enlightened; that the lower men perceived that 
 the fruits of certain acts and things were good and of 
 others bad, and that this perception led inevitably, in the 
 infancy of thought, to the recognition of a definite relation 
 between cause and effect. 
 
 Man's belief in his accountability — that is, in cause and 
 effect — is fundamental. It begins with his first rational 
 consideration of his relations to the external world and 
 to the order of Nature, which he will later deify. Natiure 
 has two imperative commands which primitive man hears 
 constantly— "Thou shalt" and **Thou shalt not." His 
 sense of dependence in the presence of superhuman 
 forces, some being terrifying and others beneficent, impels 
 him to believe that he is responsible to some power which 
 administers rewards and penalties, determines conse- 
 quences. As his mind grows, the horizon of his account- 
 
ability extends until it passes beyond the confines of this 
 life, and he anticipates that, in the after-life, it will be 
 "far better for the good than the evil." 
 
 The theory of **a standard of duty prescribed by some- 
 thing loftier than immediate advantage," as Brinton 
 expresses it, which was recognized dimly by the lower 
 tribes, has been accepted by the later forms of faith. 
 There is no religious organization of age or substance 
 now in existence that does not teach the complete sub- 
 jection and responsibility of the individual to some 
 superhuman power or powers. 
 
 The doctrine that the soul is accountable for its actions 
 is bedded in the foundations of religion, entering com- 
 pletely into the life here and into the life hereafter. It 
 explains worship and propitiation; it lies at the base of all 
 religious theories of reward and retribution, of a day 
 of judgment, of salvation and damnation, of heaven and 
 hell. 
 
 The Belief That the Soul Survives the Death 
 of the Body 
 
 Tylor claims (Primitive Cuhure, i. 424) "as a minimum 
 definition of religion, the belief in spiritual beings," 
 which appears (p. 425) "among all low races with whom 
 we have attained to thoroughly intimate relations." He 
 defines "the belief in spiritual beings" (p. 427) as includ- 
 ing in its full development "the belief in souls and in a 
 future state" 
 
This belief, he says (p. 426), is "the groundwork of the 
 philosophy of religion, from that of savages up to that of 
 civilized man;'* and constitutes (p. 427) "an ancient 
 and world-wide philosophy." 
 
 Grant Allen says: 
 
 " Religion, however, has one element within it still older, more 
 fundamental, and more persistent than any mere belief in a God 
 or gods — nay, even than the custom of supplicating and appeasing 
 ghosts or gods by gifts and observances. That element is the 
 conception of the life of the dead. On the primitive belief in such 
 a life all religion ultimately bases itself." — The Evolution of the 
 Idea of God, 42. 
 
 Brinton says: 
 
 "I shall tell you of religions so crude as to have no temples or 
 altars, no rites or prayers; but I can tell you of none that does not 
 teach the belief of the intercommunion of the spiritual powers 
 and man." — Religions of Primitive Peoples, 50. 
 
 D'Alviella says: 
 
 "The discoveries of the last five-and-twenty years, especially 
 in the caves of France and Belgium, have established conclusively 
 that as early as the mammoth age man practiced funeral rites, 
 believed in a future life, and possessed fetiches and "perhaps even 
 idols." — Hibbert Lectures, 15. 
 
 Huxley says : 
 
 " There are savages without God in any proper sense of the word, 
 but there are none -without ghosts." — Lay Sermons and Addresses, 
 163. 
 
 Herbert Spencer says that the conception of the soul's 
 survival of physical death, 
 
 " along with the multiplying and complicating ideas arising from 
 it, we find everywhere — alike in the arctic regions and the tropics; 
 
 [«3] 
 
in the forests of North America and in the deserts of Arabia; in 
 the valleys of the Himalayas and in African jungles; on the flanks 
 of the Andes and in the Polynesian islands. It is exhibited with 
 equal clearness by races so remote in type from one another that 
 competent judges think they must have diverged before the existing 
 distribution of land and sea was established — among straight 
 haired, curly haired, woolly haired races; among white, tawny, 
 copper colored, black. And we find it among peoples who have 
 made no advances in civilization as well as among the semi- 
 dvilized and the civilized." — Sociology, ii. 689. 
 
 Recognition of the survival of the soul is lacking in no 
 important religious cult of which we have accurate knowl- 
 edge, save the ancient Hebrews, who believed that all 
 souls went at death to a vague and sepulchral hereafter 
 which could not be called life. The modern Hebrews 
 repudiate the materialism of early Judaism. For more 
 than six hundred years the Jewish church has accepted 
 the doctrine of "the resurrection of the dead" in the 
 creed of Maimonides. 
 
 In the same way the Chinese have repudiated Con- 
 fucius. While the thought of Confucius is materialistic, 
 the Chinese religions are profoundly spiritualistic. Not 
 even Confucius, the adored and venerated philoso- 
 pher of the Chinese, nor the writers of the Old Testament, 
 could wean their followers permanently from the belief 
 in a future life. 
 
 The religion that is universal or lasting — as distin- 
 guished from beliefs which are temporary, isolated, or 
 based on speculation or authority — tolerates no limita- 
 tion upon the after-life of man. Here and there some 
 
 [24] 
 
teacher or prophet has proclaimed that only women, 
 or the married, or the great or the good, or even that no 
 one, will survive death, but such theories have left no 
 permanent impression upon the religious convictions of 
 mankind. The great religious organizations now in 
 existence hold that all mankind will survive death. 
 
 The Belief in a Supreme Power of Adjustment 
 
 So far as our definite knowledge extends, the belief in 
 superhuman influences or powers is universal, accepted 
 alike by the savage and the philosopher; by the deist, 
 pantheist and atheist, as well as by the theist. The 
 agnostics, even, do not deny the existence of a something 
 higher up, beyond us; they believe that it exists, and that 
 it is unknowable. 
 
 It is sometimes said that Buddhism is a godless religion, 
 and this assertion has been used as a foundation for the 
 assimiption that a belief in God is not fundamental in 
 religion. It may be that Buddhism recognizes no 
 supreme being,, but it is not true that Buddhism acknowl- 
 edges no supreme* power of adjustment. No religion 
 recognizes more completely than Buddhism the eternal 
 forces of reward and retribution, as is illustrated in 
 Karma, the law of just consequences. 
 
 Primitive man had a low or dull conception of the over- 
 ruling power. Sometimes he located it in a pebble or 
 great rock; in a hill or mountain; in the dawn, sun, 
 moon or stars; in a mummy or an idol; in his own an- 
 
cestor; even in animals, fishes or reptiles. In whatever 
 form he recognized it, however, it was to him a power 
 of adjustment, to which he acknowledged subjection. 
 
 The primitive interpretations of the supreme power 
 improved with man's growth in culture. The lower 
 conceptions gave way to something better, and these to 
 something still better — fetichism to idolatry, idolatry to 
 polytheism, polytheism to monotheism. 
 
 In contrast with the narrow views of primitive men, 
 the enlightened sects have attributed the most sublime 
 qualities to the supreme order or ruler. A divine power 
 is recognized in Varuna, the chief deity of the early 
 Aryans; in Brahma, the absolute of the Hindoos; in 
 Jehovah, the almighty of the Hebrews and Christians; 
 in Odin, the all-father of the Norsemen ; in Zeus, the high- 
 est deity of the Greeks; in Jupiter, the chief god oi the 
 Romans; in Allah, the one God of the Mohammedans. 
 The strongest words expressive of beneficence and omnip- 
 otence are applied habitually to God — the providence, 
 the divine, the infinite, the eternal, the all-powerful, the 
 all-present, the all-holy, the immutable, the most high, 
 the ruler of heaven and earth, the king of kings, the light 
 of the world, the sun of righteousness. Always he is the 
 God who rewards the good and punishes the evil; the 
 God who administers compensation — the supreme power 
 cj adjustment. 
 
 (a6} 
 
Ill 
 
 The Agreement 
 
 L 
 
 WE HAVE, th enpthfee fxindamental rel igious 
 "beliefs: " ' 
 
 "TTTkat the soid is accountable for its 
 actions. 
 2. That the sotd survives the death of the body, 
 J. In a supremo pvivif uf adjuslmenti 
 The belief that the soid is accountable for Ms.-o^tions 
 
 irtfie Tecug i ilrt on that the law of invariable consequences 
 applies to the individual soul, that the good shall fare 
 better than the evil, that men shall reap as they sow. 
 
 The belief that' the soul survives the death of the body 
 is the recognition that accountability does not end with 
 the death of 1tKe"t)0dy; that the wrongs which are not 
 righted here must be righted elsewhere; that the good 
 which is not rewarded here must be rewarded hereafter; 
 that there can be no break in the processes of accountabil- 
 ity. As science assmnes that cause and effect, action and 
 reaction, motion and transformation, are ceaseless in the 
 physical world, so religion assumes that cause and effect, 
 actions and consequences, are ceaseless In' tTe'souToTtKe 
 individual. The religious doctrine of ceaseless moral 
 accountability is identical with the scientific doctrine of 
 ceaseless cause and effect. As science postulates that 
 _..->— [27] 
 
matter and force are indest ructible^soj e|igiQn postuiatgr^^ 
 ie human soul is indestruclible. 
 
 The belief in a supreme power of adjustment is the 
 necessary corollary of the two preceding beliefs. The 
 doctrines that the actions of the individual will be 
 balanced by their results, and that this process does not 
 cease with death, include the recognition of a power, 
 supreme and eternal, that administers rewards and 
 penalties, determines consequences. 
 
 Combined, read from one into the other, what is the 
 message conveyed by these three fundamental religious 
 beliefs ? Are they in harmony or in conflict ? is the mes- 
 sage discordant, or feeble, or subtle, or unworthy of the 
 great fact which we call religion? or is it harmonious, 
 simple and clear, a noble interpretation of divine truth ? 
 This is the message of the fundamental religious beliefs : 
 That man is subject ceaselessly to the law of invariable 
 and compensatory consequences, to a supreme power of 
 adjustment. 
 
 This interpretation of the meaning of religion is not the 
 interpretation of one sect or church, of one time or place; 
 it is the interpretation of all sects and churches that can 
 be classed as religious, and of all times and places in 
 which religion has been manifest. It is not the product 
 of speculation or inspuration; it is the product of all 
 hmnan experience bearing upon the subject of religion. 
 The meaning of religion is found in its own history. 
 Religion contains within itself its own story, as the rocks 
 
 (28 I 
 
contain within themselves their own story. The message 
 of religion is not vague, subtle or unworthy; it is plain, 
 easy to comprehend; it is lofty and good. Mankind's 
 recognition of religion as something holy, sacred and 
 divine is fully justified by the interpretation of religion 
 revealed by the history of religion — that man is subject 
 ceaselessly to the law of invariable and compensatory 
 consequences. 
 
 We have observed the harmony in the sc ientific explana- 
 tions of~ the-system-of - Nature=^th'at each explanation 
 points accurately to aThigher and single explanation. 
 And we now observe tKe saine"1iaa'ffi6nym funda- 
 mental conceptions of religion, which point unerringly 
 to the same explanation, single and supreme, reached by 
 science. 
 
 Religion, dealing with the relations of the individual 
 soul to the government of the universe, rests with the 
 recognition of eternal justice — that human action is cease- 
 less and compensatory. Science, dealing with matter 
 and force, holds that physical action is ceaseless and com- 
 pensatory. Advancing into the realm of mathematics, 
 logic and ethics, science also proclaims that the per- 
 fect balance between antecedent and consequence, or 
 cause and effect, is fundamental in all. 
 
 The scientific conception of physical action is this: 
 // is ceaseless and compensatory. 
 
 The religious conception of human action is this: 
 // is ceaseless and compensatory. 
 
 [39] 
 
These two conceptions are identical. Both are inter- 
 pretations of one law — the law of invariable consequences, 
 of ceaseless compensation. 
 
 The two conceptions are not identical by chance or 
 accident. The uniformity of Nature demands that they 
 shall be identical. 
 
 We have no difficulty in thinking of physical conse- 
 quences as invariable. All experience shows that they 
 are invariable. Extending this one law of invariable 
 consequences into the realm of the soul, we perceive that 
 the one law establishes the religious theory of moral 
 accountability, and the rightness of the cosmic order. 
 I cannot doubt that this one law is that which religious 
 thought has sought to comprehend in all stages of culture, 
 and with increasing success as men have grown in knowl- 
 /^dge. The very same law which is recognized by science 
 as fundamental in the physical world, establishes perfect 
 justice, infinite and eternal, when extended into the world 
 of souls. Applied to matter and force, this one law 
 explains the marvelous order in the material universe; 
 applied to the individual, it becomes the noblest philosophy 
 that the human mind can grasp. For it explains the 
 dark problem of evil, and it vindicates the justice of God. 
 
 Shall we say that this one law operates only in the 
 physical world ? Then we deny the uniformity of Na- 
 ture. Shall we say that we must not claim compensation 
 for the soul because we cannot follow the soul and trace 
 out its complete compensations ? That is not the method 
 
 t3o] 
 
of science. Newton does not say that gravitation exists 
 only so far as one can see or observe it. He affirms that 
 gravitation is universal. Modern science affirms also that 
 gravitation and all other laws and processes of Nature are 
 universal. The science of astronomy has advanced only 
 through the postulation that the very same laws of gravita- 
 tion and of cause and effect operate in the remotest parts 
 of the universe as they operate here — that these laws are 
 there because they are here. Scie^itifie-tninds-^re hoktl 
 and courageous in affirming the uniformity of Nature. 
 Religious minds may find inspiration aixd good example 
 -in this lofty courage, in this sublime faith, of science. 
 Religious men may take then: stand also, firmly and im- 
 pr^gnably, upon the uniformity of Nature. As scientific 
 men affirm that the law is the same here, there and every- 
 where, and that distance or time or transformation cannot 
 change the law, so religious men may affirm that the law 
 of compensation is there beyond the grave because it is 
 here, that distance or time or death cannot change the 
 law. 
 
 Religion and science are in agreement, not in conflict. 
 They have never been in real conflict. The appearance 
 of conflict has been due to the misunderstanding and 
 misinterpretation of both religion and science through 
 the ages in which men have been groping and toiling 
 upward from darkness to light. 
 
 The scientific explanations of Nature have advanced 
 constantly in breadth — into the uniform, the boundless, 
 
 [31] 
 
the universal, the changeless, the ceaseless, the deathless. 
 Upon these broad grounds religion and science meet — 
 on the ground of life, not death; of persistence, not anni- 
 hilation; of right, not wrong; on the ground of the uni- 
 formity of Nature : that the consequences of human action 
 are as definite as the consequences of chemical action; 
 that the law of compensation which operates in the realm 
 of physics acts with the same unfailing certainty, and 
 with the same eternal ceaselessness, upon the soul of man. 
 
 Criticism of the foregoing matter is invited by the author, 
 whose address is 45 Park Place, New York. 
 
 [3O 
 
ETERNALISM: 
 
 A THEORT OF INFINITE JUSTICE 
 By ORLANDO J. SMITH 
 
 Professor N. S. Shaler: "This view [of the eternal nature 
 of the individual soul] is maintained in this remarkable book 
 with a rare skill in presentation. Within the limits of the 
 writing the task could hardly have been more effectively or 
 more logically accomplished. , . . 
 
 "Men have gone far with natural science and philosophy 
 with the hope that they might find an answer to the grave 
 question as to their place in the realm. Here is a man who 
 has read much and widely, who, for all his learning, trusts to 
 his instincts for guidance; for while the book has evidently 
 been a matter of most elaborate preparation ... it remains 
 singularly original and individual." 
 
 Price ^1.25 net; postage 13 cents. 
 
 BALANCE: 
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL VERITT 
 
 By ORLANDO J. SMITH 
 
 Samuel A. Elliot, PresH American Unitarian Ass^n: 
 "One gets the impression of a scholar and writer who is no 
 vague dreamer, but a man of affairs, who is secure in his 
 footing and certain of touch. . . . There is no dodging of 
 issues, no incoherency of statement, no special pleading, no 
 philosophical vocabulary. ... He puts, as it were, a 
 candle within the ordinary things of scientific verification and 
 makes them glow as with celestial light." 
 
 Price $1.25 net ; postage 1 3 cents. 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN 6- CO. Publishers, BOSTON 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 MTURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subjea to immediate recaa 
 
 i^tm'ewm 
 
 
 l«a^6tOA 
 
 Ri-CO UU 
 
 APR 1 8 w 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 LD 21A-50to-4,'60 
 (A9562sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
GAYLAMOUNT 
 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 -^ 
 Manufactured by 
 eAYLORDBROS^ «. 
 Syracuse, N^ 
 Slocltton, r 
 
 fi^.2S7v{;i) 
 
 5C 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY 
 
I?