effects in these inferiour Bodies For that influence which is apparant in the Moone and Sunne may bee gathered in other Planets This is granted concerning such Bodies as are subiect to their Vertue But here to cut off their long idle discourses to bring our disputation to a short issue the question is Whether the Stars are naturall causes of those euents which the Astrologers presume to foretell For these men meddle onely with mens actions If Astrologie stayed it selfe in this to foretell the naturall Humours or their effects which shall be in such Plants and Bodies as are somewhat gouerned by Planets it might seeme to haue some likelihood But with this they meddle little or nothing their curiosity is about mens Fortunes Now the Principles by which the Astrologer commeth to his conclusion are no naturall Principles but Sorcery For curious men wandring after the knowledge of hid and vnknowne things seeke the cloake and pretence of an Art and haue called it Astrologie which they seeke to bring within the bounds of Naturall Philosophy when as their Principles haue no Affinity with naturall causes but with those illusions which Sathan inuenteth to deceiue and draw away simple and vnstable Soules into an admiration of curious and impious sleights and vanities Let Philosophers iudge of these Principles That a Sextile and Trine Aspect are fortunate but a Quadrate vnfortunate That the first House signifieth the life and body of him that is borne the second his riches the third Brethren the fourth Parents the fist Children the sixt sicknesse the seauenth Marriage the eighth Death the ninth Religion and God the tenth Rule and Dignities the eleuenth the good Spirit the twelfth the euill Spirit That in each of these the three Lords of the Triplicities haue their seuerall Vertues and significations As in the first House the first Lord of the Triplicity must shew the Life and nature of him that is borne The second Lord of the Triplicity the force and strength of his Body The third his oldage and with such conceits you must-runne through the rest That in whose House Mercury is found to occupy the dignities of Mars Aries then ascending it will dispose him to Contention Are these and such like naturall Principles Or are they meanes subordinate betweene a naturall cause and a naturall effect The way to bring any thing to the knowledge of a man is either by probable Sillogisme or by demonstation or by faith Now these things stand not by demonstration themselues doe not challenge that neither can they stand by Logicall deduction For what absurdity or improbability would follow if a man deny any of these things Nay what absurdity were it withoutreason to yeeld to any It remaineth then if any man know these things hee must know them by faith but not by that faith which God taught his Church therefore by that faith which the Diuell teacheth CAP. II. That the Conclusions of Astrologers cannot by naturall Reason be drawne from their Principles THat these things may the more clearely appeare wee will shew that those men who haue farthest pierced and with greatest Learning and Iudgement searched through all the poynts of Naturall Philosophy haue reiected these vanities and branded them with the Title of Magicall Superstitions and Sorceries excluding them from all parts of naturall knowledge and good Learning But of this in his due place Heere let vs follow this poynt in hand a little further Wee may better vnderstand the meaning of these men by their owne examples For in their Disputations they are neuer willing to come to the point but they mince the question and like men oppressed with feares which Iudgement followeth the maintainers of an euill cause they seeme to looke euery way for helpe and thus forsooth they come warily to the matter The starres incline the humour the humour inclineth the body the body inclineth the minde through all these inclinations the starres come at last to worke vpon the Soule But the force of the Starres is spent in many inclinations before it come to the Soule that they dare not say it worketh directly vpon the minde no not vpon the body but onely vpon the humour for so the Knight saith This being brought either to a Mathematicall demonstration or to a probable Sillogisme would proue a feeble consequence and yet in disputation they are affraid to proceed any further here they sticke But if you looke vpon their examples wherein they set the glory of their Art you shall finde another matter For in the examples of their Predictions they foretell the deaths of Princes vpon such a day the fortunes of Kings the ruines of Kingdomes the ouerthrow of Armies Compare their Principles with their Conclusions and there is matter to wonder at the absurdity or to laugh at the folly For from these Principles the Starres incline onely the humor the humor only inclineth the body the body onely inclineth the minde this Conclusion will hardly be gotten that therefore the Starres incline the minde But they proceed from these inclinations to Predictions of the greatest Euents which euents whether they can be concluded by naturall Reason let vs consider And because this Gentleman might happily deny the examples brought by others as not proceeding from naturall causes therefore to preuent all his exceptions I will insist onely in those examples which himselfe bringeth wherin he glorieth much Paulus tertius warned his Sonne long before of the very day of his death Pag. 81. Picus being foretold by three Astrologers that hee should not liue aboue the age of thirty three yeares confirmed the Prediction Pag. 193. Gauricus warned Henry 2. French King not to run at Tilt in the 41. yeare of his Age for that the Starres did then threaten a wound in his head Pag. 194. The Bishop of Vienna by Astrology assured Don Fredericke then seruing the Duke of Bourgundy that he should be King of Naples Ibid. The same Bishop of Vienna did foretell the two ouerthrowes of Charles Duke of Bourgundy Ibid. These examples he rangeth with the forewarnings of Spurinae to Caesar of Publius Nigidius and Theagenes concerning Augustus of Scribonius and Thrasillus touching Tiberius of Ptolomy and Seleucus to Otho of Ascletarian to Domitian Pag. 193. Now if this Knight or any other man of Learning can shew vs that these euents were naturall euents of the Stars or that the Starres were naturall causes of these things and that by Astrology these things may beeforeseene as in their naturall causes then will wee honour Astrologie But how will they conclude It will not serue to say the Starres moued the humour the humour moued the Body the body affecteth the minde therefore King Henry 2. shall haue a wound in his head in the 41. yeare of his Age. Neither will it serue to say at his Birth the Lord of the ascendant did behold Saturne the greater misfortune and Mars the lesse misfortune with quadrat Aspect or Opposition or the Lord of the
in the one learning sometimes in the other we are perswaded that you doe heerein as men shifting and not vsing plaine dealing not being able soundly to speake to the point you confound your selfe by confounding things which are in themselues distinguished This confusion in speech is a signe of feare confusion in your cause For if Indiciary Astrology bee a part of the Mathematickes as you would haue it then the subiect thereof is certaine true no way subiect to error as is the subiect of the Mathematickes But because you dare not say that it handleth such a subiect therefore you reserue this hole to hide your selfe in that it handleth naturall causes and euents But no part of the Mathematickes handleth naturall causes and euents which are neuer separated from the matter wherein there is mutability but the Mathematicall considerations are abstract from the mutability of naturall matter And the Mathematician frameth thence such conceits as whether we regard the manner of knowledge or the subiect are no way subiect to error or mutability and in this respect deserue onely the name of Sciences because no humane knowledge can bee so certaine as this knowledge is If therefore this bee a part of the Mathematickes it is not contained within the bounds of Naturall Philosophy if it bee within those bounds it is no part of the Mathematickes If this were a true Art or if the Professors thereof were plaine dealers they would not thus collude betweene these startingholes of Mathematickes naturall Philosophy Now Sir we whom you account vnlearned opinion-Masters grauelled with the difficulties of the mysteries of this deepe Art maintaining a senslesse scruple and as you say monsters of opinions in denying Astrologie intreat your Worship with your great learning to edisie vs in this point heere in the entrance and to certifie vs to what part of learning you will referre Iudiciary Astrologie You tell vs a tale that Aristotle calleth it Scientiam mediam betweene the Mathematickes and Naturall Philosophy To proue this you cite Aristotle Li. 2. Cap. 2. Physic. and your reason is because the Principles thereof are purely and meerely Mathematicall which in the practise are applyed to sensible matter as the Physicall subiect thereof Sir you dreamed so for this is no better then a dreame to tell vs of an Art that hath Principles purely Mathematicall a subiect Physicall As for Aristotle it seemeth you cared not whether hee said so or no it was enough to bring his name For Aristotle doth not say it is Scientia media betweene those two as you father vpon him but disputing quo Mathematicus à naturali Philosopho differat doth consider that which wee now call Astronomy as a part of Mathematickes and not of Naturall Philosophy neither doth he leaue it hanging in the middest betweene them but giueth it directly to the Mathematickes If the Knight here shall catch at a word to helpe himselfe it is but a poore helpe For the Learned know well that the vse of words receiue great change in diuers Ages In some Age Astrologia and Astronomia were the same especially in those old times when no man did euer dreame that they who then were called Chaldei should at any time bee called Astrologi or that Art Astrologia For they were called Astrologers long after Aristotle his time who are now called Astronomers Now Aristotle who litle wist God wot how the vse of names should runne after his time vseth the word Astrologia as then it was vsed for that which wee now for distinctions sake call Astronomy for saith he Astrologia est in ijs rebus de quibus Mathematicus considerat which words if they had beene written in those times when the Chaldei were called Astrologi and Mathematici they might haue serued the Knights purpose but being written in Aristotle his time to turne them to this purpose is either palpable ignorance or wilful collusion wittingly wrangling to no purpose For who is so ignorant that knoweth not that Mathematicus in Aristotle his time did not signifie a Chaldean as afterward it did but onely a Professor of those Arts which then were called Mathematicae whereof that which now is called Astrologie was not thought to be any Then where hee saith that Aristotle maketh it Scientiam mediam between the Mathematickes and Naturall Philosophy hee is found many wayes faulty For Astrologia in Aristotle his opinion and the Knights meaning is not the same thing Further Astrologia in Aristotle his meaning is not Scientia media but a part of the Mathematickes and Aristotle doth not once say that the naturall Philosopher medleth with it For he vnderstood then by that word that which wee call Astronomy Much lesse doth Aristotle admit the Knights reason that it should therefore be Scientia media because the Principles thereof are purely Mathematicall which in the practise are applyed to sensible matter as the Physicall subiect thereof which words without vnderstanding the Knight often repeateth Those bee the Knights dreames not Aristotle his reasons Then still wee vrge for an Answer to what part of learning you will referre your Astrologie You thinke perhaps you haue said enough if you referre it in some respect to the Mathematickes and in some respect to Naturall Philosophy but we will not leaue you so Wee say in no respect it can be referred to either of them Not to the Mathematickes because it considereth not things certaine and infallible which the Mathematickes doe It will not helpe you to say it considereth the Starres and the Starres in some respect are the subiect of the Mathematickes For it were a foolish and vnlearned speech to say because the naturall Philosopher considereth a Body as in a place and the Mathematickes consider a body as with his dimensions that therefore naturall Philosophie should bee referred to the Mathematicks so vnlearned and vnreasonable is the assertion that saith because the Astrologer considereth the Starres as causes of inferiour euents and the Mathematickes consider the starres so farre as toucheth their bodies or motion that therefore Astrologie should be a part of Mathematickes Now if wee driue this your pretended Art from these two parts of Learning it will neuer finde any resting place in any other part of good learning And therefore wheresoeuer it is found it will bee taken for a Rogue that hath no certaine abiding place as it hath beene taken for the same by the learned in former times and for the same whipped by them First then Astrology is no part of the Mathematicks because it proceedeth not by demonstration from certaine and knowne Principles And euen they who would haue it a part of Naturall Philosophy acknowledge so much Now let vs examine whether it be contained within the bounds of Naturall Philosophy If they tell vs that the Starres are causes remote and Subordinate of inferiour effects they come not to the point For that is not heere in question whether the Starres bee causes of some
can you not as well conceiue that Mars and the rest of the Starres on which the qualities of these inferiour things depend maâ—… exercise their qualities and do the like in our Constitutions Thus you thinke you haue spoken soundly to the point Awake Sir Knight and defend your Cause You haue with great confidence incountred with a man of great Learning you haue vndertaken to satisfie the Learned Wee are come to a maine point whereat others haue stucke Whether these be naturall Causes or comprehended by naturall Reason You tell vs a tale of Spices and hot Simples and intreat vs to conceiue the like of Mars his operation Sir here remember that you are come to that difficulty wherewith you say others were grauelled you goe smoothly through thus Because Spice and hot Simples increase choller why can wee not as well conceiue that Mars may stirre and incline an Humour How doe you compare Effects together The one from a knowne Cause the other from an vnknowne The one a thing in Nature the other onely in Conceit And if wee yeeld you the Conclusion which you confesse by this manner of writing you cannot proue what haue you gotten The question is not of an Elementary humour but of the particular Euent that vpon such a day in such a part of his body by such meanes befell Henry 2. French King for in one Example for breuities sake wee insist When the question is of such a particular Euent whether there bee any naturall Cause thereof in the Starres Who can beare this idle answere that the Starres may moue a humour as Spice doth And who will grant you this Comparison betwixt Simples that goe into the Body and worke immediately vpon it and the Starres that are so remote These things you begge and when you haue them granted you can neuer frame a Conclusion from these Principles to such a particular Euent as that is whereof wee speake CHAP. IIII. The Conclusions of Astrologers depend vpon other Principles then them selues are willing to publish NOw Sir seeing you cannot satisfie vs in this point wee will try if happily we can satisfie you Philosophy and the light of Nature haue led men thus farre that when the Astrologer telleth a true Euent by the Starres they could say that the Starres were not the true Cause of that Euent But the Astrologer rageth and saith the Euents are true therefore there is some true Cause Heere the Naturall Philosopher leaueth him For he seeth that the Starres were not the true Cause of that Euent but what was the true Cause hee knoweth not And because hee findeth none in Nature therefore hee casteth it vpon Chance and Fortune thus farre the light of Nature leadeth Let vs come now to a greater Light that may lead vs where this faileth that is the light of Gods Word And as wee tooke one of the Knights Examples examining it by the light of Nature so let vs take it againe and examine it by the Word of God To insist still in the same Example That Henry 2. French King should receiue a sore wound in his head in such a yeare of his Age this Euent proued true Wee now seeke the Cause and means how the Astrologer might come to this knowledge You say hee saw it in the Starres but that is the thing in question Wee say that hee might come to the knowledge thereof by some vnlawfull meanes and yet vse the pretence of the Starres to colour the vnlawfulnesse of the meanes If a Chaldean had been asked in the flourishing estate of Iob what should haue beene Iobs Fortune You say by the Starres he might foretell his fortune which wee deny But when the Diuell had gotten leaue to vexe Iob if after that time and before his troubles the Chaldean had been asked of Iobs fortunes then wee see a meanes how he might haue come to the knowledge thereof as Saint Augustine saith Illudentibus eos praeuaricatoribus Angelis And hee might vse the Starres as Signes not framed by God to that end as also the flying of Birds was not but by Sorcery framing Signes thence as the same St. Augustine doth wisely admonish Nam iste opiniones quibusdam rerum signis humana praesumptione institutis ad eadem illa quasi cum doemonibus pacta conuenta referendae sunt So that in Diuinity this question might with no great difficulty bee decided For wee may say that the cause why the Astrologer sometimes speaketh true is not because hee seeth it in the Starres as in naturall causes of that Euent which thing you repeate often but neuer proue but because either by plaine compact or else by a secret illusion of Sathan hee commeth to the knowledge thereof which illusion may bee so great that the Astrologer may beleeue that hee readeth it in the Starres Albeit before that God hath opened his will by some meanes neither the Diuell nor the Astrologer is able to foretell it as may appeare in the example of Iob. If here you returne as often you say that the Starres cannot foreshew the actions of the regenerate and therefore that the Chaldean could not answer in the actions of Iob I thinke it would much trouble you to bring a good or probable reason why the Starres should not as well foretell the actions of the regenerate as that particular Euent of Henry 2. Did the Astrologer tro yee first consult whether that King was regenerate or no Will you haue vs to thinke that such things are incident to the study of Astrologie If it were so then should the knowledge of the Astrologer goe farre beyond the knowledge of the best Diuines and wee must repayre to the Astrologer to know who are regenerate in the Church and who are not But go which way you will Nunquam bodie effugies wee will followe you euen in this and we wil bring your Astrologer to such a King who was as vnregenerate as euer was Henry 2. French King Let the deathes of Henry 2. and Achab King of Israel be compared together Doe you thinke that any Astrologer could haue told Achab that he should either bee slaine or hurt with an Arrow at Ramoth Gilead at such a certaine time It is impossible to proue and absurd to thinke that any Chaldean could haue foretold this by the Starres because it was a secret which God kept in his secret Counsell vntill it pleased him to reueale it 2. Chron. 18. 19. Now after that God had once reuealed his will herein that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gilead and to that end giuen him ouer to the permission and meanes which Sathan deuised as we read in the same place verse 21. then may wee well vnderstand how a Chaldean hauing by some meanes warning thereof from Sathan might foretell the death of Achab the place the time as the Astrologer did in Henry 2. if happily hee did so and as they do in all such Euents For what can you finde vnlike in the deathes of these
their wisedome haue professed the former then this latter sorcery of Astrology If they will speak to these points and acquit Astrology then they say somewhat But must warne the Knight or any other that hee will be pleased not to take for granted the contradictory of these positions and so runne along in a flourishing discourse but these be the things that you must proue Now Sir to proue these things will much trouble you First you will rake vp the Arabian dunghill but that will not serue your turne For I graut the Arabians did honor this profession but wee speake here of the ancient times wherein good learning stood amongst the Heathen Neither will it serue you to reckon vp Adam Seth Mahaleel Iared Henoch Zoroastes Methusaleth Lamech Noah Sem Arphaxad Abraham Isaac Iacob Albion Ioseph Homer Hesiod c. And to tell vs that these were Astrologers Take Zoroastes from that company and then wee yeeld him to you he is the Father of your Art You challenge him you shall haue him But then let the world know what a goodly Father this profession hath CHAP. VIII That the operations of the Celestiall bodies do not helpe the Astrologers in their predictions COncerning the operation of the Celestiall bodies vpon these inferior by influence there is an influence granted but not this which the Astrologers haue by their imagination without profe deuised First this position is taken amongst the learned for certaine that the celestiall bodies do signifie nothing which they do not also effect that which they effect is produced by them as by naturall causes And therfore the things which God doth by himselfe cannot be foreseene in the Stars but such things proceed from supernaturall causes And things supernaturall cannot be demonstrated by a naturall agent Neither can those things be foretold by the Starres which are of fortuitall euents for such things haue no naturall cause such are all things which are directed by mans will that is in a word all mens actions to foretell these things as from naturall causes is vayne to seeke and impossible to find For of things that rest in mans will a naturall cause is not to be sought the things being voluntary which things cannot be foretold but by reuelation It remaines then that predictions naturall are of such things as haue naturall causes The things therefore that may be certainely foretold by the Starres as hauing their naturall causes are all such things as belong to the Theory of Astronomy as that the Sunne moueth swifter then Saturne or when is an opposition or coniunction when an Eclipse will be These things may be certainely foretold forasmuch as they depend vpon naturall principles there be other things of that kinde which are vsually though erroneously foretold by Astrologers hauing indeed naturall causes but not so euidently knowne to Astrologers the cause is for albeit these things belong to nature yet they haue not determinate causes and so regulated to one Euent as those that are in the Theory And therefore their error is in these things vsually seene such things are the predictions of raine of faire weather of wet times dry For that there are times of wet and siccitic it is true true also that these things depend vpon the ordinary course of nature and of such things as are vnder the gouernment of the superior bodies yet are they not so determinate nor so ineuitable nor so euident to the Astrologer as are those of the Theory For in the one the Astrologer erreth not in the other hee erreth commonly Of this kind are all Meteors which proceed of naturall causes but not determinate and ineuitable so that the Astrologer cannot iudge of these by such certitude as of the things belonging to the Theory After this manner the corruption of the Aire is also of naturall superior causes commonly whence come sicknes dearth and such like as also the contrary followeth plenty and healthfulnes These are of certaine causes but not so certainely knowne that they may allwayes certainely be foretould True it is that these things sometimes come not by naturall causes and in a naturall course altogether but God doth send them at his pleasure either for the punishment of some people or for their deliuerance as it seemeth best to him When God doth so send them then are they further out of the knowledge of the Astrologer so that in these things the knowledge of the Astrologer is partly nothing at all partly little worth being taken at the best For in matters of this kind that Astrologers haue either small or no knowledge may be collected from their common errors in this kinde as also from some places of the holy Scripture where Astrologers are found ignorant in these things A question may be moued whether those seauen yeares of plenty and seauen yeares of scarsitie foretold by Ioseph in the interpretation of Pharaoh his dream were of naturall causes or sent by God without respect of naturall causes This is certaine that the foretelling of them was not by naturall knowledge but by reuelation for all the Astrologers of Aegypt could not fore-tell them but Ioseph did by reuelation from God And yet the Astrologers were acquainted with the encreasing of Nilus whose measurable rising was the ordinary cause of plenty and fertility in that country the inordinate rising thereof either in too great abundance or in too greate defect was both a signe also a cause of scarsity The measurs of the rising of Nilus was precisely kept by the Priests of Egypt and vpon the sight of the rising of the Riuer they could know the fertility or sterility of the yeare folowing But this was no part of Astrology it belonged rather to Geometry and some report that the vse of Geometry was first found out by that means Then vpon the measure of the rising of that riuer they that obserued it could fore-tell the plenty or dearth which should be in that country but I neuer read that any Astrologer did fore-tell the iust measure of the rising of that riuer before hand The Knight that is better read in them may helpe vs in this For that the rising of Nilus did some way depēd vpon the heauens it wil not I suppose be denyed because whatsoeuer was the immediate cause of the rising thereof that did depend vpon the superior bodies if any thing depend vpon them So then the Astrologers knowledge cometh very short when as he knoweth not nor is able to fore tell the euent of those thinges that are confessed to depend vpon the superior heauenly bodies Now if this knowledge be so short and vncertaine in things which depend vpon the superior bodies it must needs be far shorter or nothing at all in such things that depend not of them Another kinde of things foretold by Astrologers is of such things as haue partly a cause of nature partly of mans will and operation To vndertake to foretell in such things cannot be without superstition For
albeit they challenge a cunning to foretell in things which hold a naturall course and subiect to the powers of the Heauens yet in things that are free as mansactions are nature hath no casualty but mans will They can challenge no skill in such things because these things are not gouerned by a naturall dependance from the Heauens but from other Causes of another nature As if an Astrologer should foretell that such a man shall bee sicke at such a time this iudgement is vaine and superstitious It is true that a Physitian may iudge of a mans health or sicknesse but not by Astrology but by the disposition of his body This thing depends vpon some natural Cause wherof notwithstanding the Astrologer can haue no knowledge by the Starres For in the order of actions if diuers Causes bee ordered to one Effect the Effect followeth the Cause deficient as may appeare in the actions of reason For if a dialecticall Syllogisme bee made of one true Proposition and another false the Conclusion is false vnlesse by accident And if it bee of one Proposition necessary and another contingent the Conclusion is contingent So is it in naturall operations if one Cause be naturall and another free the Effect is rather to bee said free then naturall And if one Cause bee contingent the other necessary the Effect is contingent Of such things there can bee no iudgement but as of things free and contingent An other kinde of things inquired by Astrologers is in those things which depend meerly of contingence in which things the connexion of the Cause and the Euent is a thing not knowne in which respect these things are said not to haue a naturall Cause because the connexion of such a Cause to such an Euent is not knowne in nature In such things to make Predictions is vtterly vaine and superstitious For as things haue their being so haue they their signification if then there be contingence in their being it must needs bee in their signification So that it is impossible to finde certaine signes or significations of things which are themselues contingent And yet in such things the Knight doth make especiall choyce to place Astrologie So it is in things that are meerely free For ouer a mans freedome the Positions of heauen haue no power And it is a most foolish thing for a man to seeke that without him whose cause is altogether within himselfe The Astrologers from such vncertaine grounds haue deuised foure wayes to seeke the Euents of things 1. By Reuolutions 2. By Natiuities 3. By Questions 4. By Elections In these things they are so vncertaine that some professing Astrologie are notwithstanding weary of the absurdities which they see in some of these and therefore disclaime them as the Knight doth some of these Yet such is the folly of others that they haue added a fift way to these former which they say is by Intentions If a man once giue way to vnnaturall grounds his minde can neuer be free from superstitious and absurd conceits which are impediments to faith and good manners and in the end make ship-wracke thereof CHAP. IX That Astrologie is an Instrument to Magicke FOr the better satisfaction of the Reader and clearing the truth Let vs here examine whether Astrologie hath any other vse then to bee an Instrument to Magicke Wee say there is no other vse thereof because wee finde that such Philosophers as did rest only vpon naturall Reason could finde no reason in Astrology And further because if any haue maintained Astrologie they haue beene such as were Magitians This question I rather moue because I am not ignorant how some learned men haue stumbled at this stone For albeit wee finde none that haue proued Astrologie to bee a part of Philosophy yet some haue thought that Magicke is a part of Philosophy And though that can helpe them little yet wee would not leaue the Astrologers that hole to hide themselues in Iohannes Baptista Porta hath written a Booke intituled Magia naturalis implying in the Title that some Magicke may bee a part of naturall Philosophy But in deliuering naturall Magicke as hee calleth it hee deliuereth diuers things which Philosophy reacheth not to but are done by the ministery of vncleane Spirits As of Elections to bee written in certaine stones whereby those stones are supposed to bee animated and to receiue an especiall grace from Heauen Et hoc saith hee fundamentum radicem statuunt omnium Lib. 4. Cap. 25. Coelius Rhodig a man of better name for Learning diuideth Magiam in infamem naturalem Lib. 3. Cap. 42. From him we adde another testimony for the honour of Astrologie Iam Magiae clauis commemoratur Astrologia Vnto this opinion of Coelius Iansenius seemeth to yeeld Com. in Concord Cap. 9. Perhaps not marking that Coelius hath that commendation of Magicke and euen those very words out of Cornelius Agrippa To fortifie their opinions because they are ashamed of Agrippa whose words they bring they send vs to Plato 1. Alcibiad who there saith That the Kings Sonnes of Persia were instructed therein If these things were true they make nothing for Astrologie But we take it by their fauour that these men though otherwise learned and iudicious yet herein were ouerseene For whereas they bring nothing for the confirmation of their opinion but the authority of Plato if any such thing bee found in Plato then wee yeeld that they might haue some reason for their opinion But in Plato wee finde the contrary for hee speaking of the Institution of the Kings Sonnes of Persia in Magicke describeth that Magicke which they learned thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which words Plato telleth vs that the Magicke which the Sonnes of the Persian Kings learned was that which Zoroastes the Sonne of Horomasus taught and it is saith Plato the worship of the Gods Now if there bee no other naturall Magicke but that which can bee proued out of this place of Plato then assuredly naturall Magicke will neuer be proued For this Magicke Plato will not haue to consist in naturall knowledge but in the worship of their Gods which worship because it was Idolatry therefore from hence may be proued that Idolatry is a part of Magicke but nothing else from hence Then by this it appeareth it is not Naturall but Diabolicall Now these men resting vpon Plato his testimony can in this point stand vp no longer that staffe failing them whereon they leaned And howsoeuer it may bee suffered in an Heathen to giue an honourable testimony to Magicke as being a seruice that pleased their Gods yet is it not likewise tollerable in Christians to approue Magicke from the same reasons This hath deceiued diuers who looking more vnto a shew of Learning then into the study of the truth haue beene too easily carried away and deceiued by them that told them of a naturall Magicke These be but the opinions of men of latter times who were heerein deceiued by Agrippa