obligations of duty. They may properly be explained particularly by
men of science as one of the symptoms of development in the day in
which they were done. It is well for those who harshly criticise the
relations of the Church to science to remember that in our own
country, about two centuries ago, among the most enlightened and
religious people of the time, Quakers were grievously persecuted, and
witches hanged, all in the most dutiful and God-fearing way. In
considering these relations of science to our faith, the matter should
be dealt with in a philosophical way, and with a sense of the
differences between our own and earlier ages.

To the student of the relations between Christianity and science it
must appear doubtful whether the criticism or the other consequences
which the men of science had to meet from the Church was harmful to
their work. The early naturalists, like the Greeks whom they followed,
were greatly given to speculations concerning the processes of Nature,
which, though interesting, were unprofitable. They also showed a
curious tendency to mingle their scientific speculations with ancient
and base superstitions. They were often given to the absurdity
commonly known as the "black art," or witchcraft, and held to the
preposterous notions of the astrologists. Even the immortal astronomer
Kepler, who lived in the sixteenth century, was a professional
astrologer, and still held to the notion that the stars determined the
destiny of men. Many other of the famous inquirers in those years
which ushered in modern science believed in witchcraft. Thus for a
time natural learning was in a way associated with ancient and
pernicious beliefs which the Church was seeking to overthrow. One
result of the clerical opposition to the advancement of science was
that its votaries were driven to prove every step which led to their
conclusions. They were forced to abandon the loose speculation of