fear of the new devil as of the old one--and his name may be summed up
as FEAR, in both cases.

Theosophists have discussed the matter of Karma very thoroughly, and
their leading authorities have written much about it, its various
interpretations showing in the shades of opinion among the writers.
Generally speaking, however, it may be said that they have bridged over
the chasm between the "natural law" idea and that of "the moral law,"
with its rewards and punishments, by an interpretation which places one
foot on each conception, holding that there is truth in each. Of course,
justice requires the reference of that student to the Theosophical
writings themselves, for a detailed understanding of their views, but we
feel that a brief summary of their general interpretation would be in
order at this place.

One of their leading authorities states that the Law of Karma is
automatic in action, and that there is no possible escape from it. He
likewise holds that Absolute Justice is manifested in its operations,
the idea of mercy or wrath being absent from it; and that, consequently,
every debt must be paid in full, to the last penny, and that there is no
vicarious atonement or exceptions made in answer to supplications to a
higher source. But he particularly states that this action of the law
must not be confused with ordinary reward and punishment for "good deed
or bad," but that the law acts just as does any other law of Nature,
just as if we put our hand in the fire we shall be burned as a natural
consequence, and not as a punishment. In his statement of this view he
says: "We hold that sorrow and suffering flow from sin just precisely in
that way, under the direct working of natural law. It may be said,
perhaps, that, obviously, the good man does not always reap his reward
of good results, nor does the wicked man always suffer. Not always
immediately; not always within our ken; but assuredly, eventually and
inexorably." The writer then goes on to define his conception of Good
and Evil. He says: "We shall see more clearly that this must be so if
we define exactly what we mean by good and evil. Our religious brothers
would tell us that that was good which was in accordance with God's
will, and that that was evil which was in opposition to it. The
scientific man would say that that was good which helped evolution, and
whatever hindered it was evil. Those two men are in reality saying
exactly the same thing; for God's will