quad for the lemma: cause_n
snippets containing the quad
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)
Astrologomania: the madnesse of astrologers. Or An examination of Sir Christopher Heydons booke, intituled A defence of iudiciarie astrologie. Written neere vpon twenty yeares ago, by G.C. And by permission of the author set forth for the vse of such as might happily be misled by the Knights booke. Published by T.V. B. of D.
Carleton, George, 1559-1628.; Vicars, Thomas, d. 1638.
STC 4630; ESTC S107657
wee seeke by what meanes the Astrologer came by that knowledge There are but two wayes to know the truth hereof By the light of Nature or by the word of God The Naturall men that haue beene guided by the light of Nature could neuer finde out the Affection of the Starres to such an Euent they could not vnderstand why the Starres should either cause it or incline it or signifie it more then the flying of a Bird and as many as wise and learned haue held the flying of Birds or the entrailes of Beasts to bee Causes or signes of such Euents Then it would trouble you to giue a good naturall Reason for your supernaturall superstitions wee reiect otherwise wee should receiue Aruspicine as well as Astrologie we look I say for one good reason from you why you should not iudge of Astrologie as you do of Augury One great Maister of this Profession Corn. Agrippa Lib. 1. Cap. 53. perceiuing such affinity betweene Astrologie and Augary both depending vpon Principles so like affected to the Conclusion seeketh likewise to confirme that Diuination which is from Augury and Auspicie The best learned in Naturall Philosophy and the best learned in Magicke haue adiudged these things like And because wee striue to doe this seruice to the truth wee must examine and follow you into these blind corners wherevnto you flye you must be holden vp to some particular Euent For the question is not whether the Starres signifie any thing but whether they cause or incline or signifie such a particular Euent as that of Henry 2. the time of his death or danger the wound in his head or any such as your other examples imply If they shew such particular Euents then all your Answeres of a generall inclination of the humour only but not of the actions of men which you euery where lay downe as grounds are in truth brought in by you but as cloakes to couer some secret to try whether in the mist of these clouds you can escape from such Arguments as presse you This is the very point that troubled Cicero and other Philosophers for when they came to this point they were at a stand and could proceed no further not through dulnesse of wit as you impute but because they following the matteras farre as the light of Nature did direct them would goe no further then naturall Reason could warrant It is agreed vpon betweene Cicero and his Aduersary in that disputation de Diuinatione that no naturall Reason can be giuen Cur Ã dextris coruus a sinistra cornix faciat ratum cur Stella Iouis aut Veneris coniuncta cum Luna ad ortus puerorum salutaris sit Saturni Martisuecontraria He ioyneth these together as alwayes his manner is the flying of Birds and Aspect of Starres because toward a particular Euent there is iust like affection in both these Causes And whereas the common reply of Astrologers is sometimes their Predictions fall out true may wee not answer them in Cicero his words Ipsa varietas fortunam esse causam non naturam docet Si tua Conclusio vera est nonne intelligis eadem vti posse Aruspicies fulgatores interpretes ostentorum Augures sorti legos quorum generum nullum est ex quo non aliquid sicut Praedictum sit euaseret Now if Augury Aruspicine and all such Sorceries are iustly condemned as not standing with Christianity yea euen by naturall men as not standing with Nature though their Predictions were sometimes true what reason hath any man to maintaine Astrology and condemne these Or to thinke that the truth of a Prediction should Priuiledge Astrologie more then these Neither is it any reasonable or tollerable Answere to tell vs of the truth of a Prediction when wee see the Cause And yet this Gentleman confesseth Pag. 195. I for my part saith hee doe freely confesse that there is no one thing that hath made me so confident in the validity of this Art as that which I haue seene to fall out true If no one thing haue made you so confident herein then you haue freely told vs that in your owne iudgement you doe not so much esteeme of your long Discourses of the naturall Causes that the Starres are naturall Causes of such Effects these bee not the things that moue you most but you are most of all moued by the Euents Yet the wise and learned are not carried to such a confidence vpon the sight of the Euents but vpon the knowledge of the Cause and Reason And therefore Cicero and before him as hee witnesseth Eudoxus a Platonicke whom hee and others much esteeme for Learning and Panaetius whom hee accounteth the worthiest of the Stoicks and diuers likewise after him men of great Learning in Philosophy did reiect this Art for that these Causes are not Naturall albeit some Euents fell out true For if the question bee of a thing determinable by the light of Nature that Rule of Cicero holdeth alwayes It is a foule shame for a Philosopher to speake any thing without a naturall Reason And if this bee a sufficient warrant to make a man confident in the validity of an Art because he seeth Predictions to fall out true then must this Gentleman be very confident in Witchcraft because hee seeth that all that which was foretold to Saul by Witchcraft 1. Sam. 29. fell out true And shall the truth of that Prediction make a man so confident in the validity of that Art They who are gouerned by the Spirit of God and seeke knowledge according to Godlinesse may not bee confident vpon the truth of Euents And seeing by this example wee see euidently that God in his iust iudgement against the wicked King Saul did suffer Sathan thus to deceiue and illude Saul euen by foretelling him a true Euent because by vnlawfull means he sought the knowledge of things to come They that would iudge the like of the like things must needs thinke that God in the like sort suffereth the Diuell to deceiue and illude Astrologers by suffering them to foretell true things sometimes that curious men that will not containe themselues within lawfull knowledge may bee deceiued and drawne into a great confidence of the validity of this Art Heerein Gods Iudgement is fearefull but iust against such as seeke the knowledge of things to come by vnwarranted meanes Now this Gentleman writing for Astrologie after so many Ages and comming to that very point which so much troubled Cicero and the rest and caused them vtterly to abandon the Art because by the light of Nature they saw no way to goe through this difficulty He comming I say to the same point is to be obserued well how he in his imagination goeth through where they all stucke For hee vseth no other means to informe vs in the Mistery but this Pag. 99. If Spice and other hot Simples are of force to stirre and alter our humours by their specificall qualities why
the whole Controuersie pronounceth sentence against Astrologie Iudiciary Ennius apud Cic. Lib. 2. de Diuinat Non habeo denique Marsurn Augurem Non vicanos Aruspices non de circo Astrologos Non Isiacos coniectores non interpretes somnium Non enim sunt ij aut Scientia aut Arte diuini Sed superstitiosi vates impudentesque harioli Aut inertes aut insani aut quibus egestas imperat Qui sibi semitam non sapiunt alteri monstrant viam Quibus diuitias pollicentur ab ijs drachmam ipsi petunt De hisdiuitijs sibi deducant drachmam reddant caetera CHAP. I. Wherein the Grounds which the Knight taketh without proofe and vpon which hee buildeth his Booke are called in question M R Chambers a man for his Life and Learning worthily honoured of all that knew him by his learned Labours known fââ¦r and neere hath written against Iudiciary Astrologie as many of the best learned before him haue done Wherein hauing done no lesse then a Christian learned man ought to doe hee had reason to looke for another reward of his Labours then hee found For in stead of thankes and commendation for his learned Labours so well placed hee is roughly entertained by Sir Christopher Heydon Knight a man that hath taken much paines to hold vp a Cause which cannot bee holden vp by mans strength For albeit the illusions of Iudiciary Astrologie haue long beene maintained by the pollicies of Sathan yet when the light shineth vpon it it will neuer be able to stand And in truth in the hearts and Consciences of the godly in the Church or of the wise and learned without the Church was neuer yet thought able to stand Now after so many men my comming into this cause can adde nothing vnto it What can I bring hereto which hath not been brought by the Learned long since Yet that the same truth may be confirmed by the mouthes of many witnesses and that others may not bee abused by the Knights Booke and that himselfe also may haue occasion to consider the whole matter afresh I will examine this matter once more and open to the Knight the weakenes vnsound foundations of his vnprofitable Labours Wherin I leaue not onely the intemperancie of words with which hee hath so much enlarged his Booke but euen so much as the cause will suffer the multitude of words For the pleasure that some ââ¦ke in long writing neither can I allow in iudgement nor for my businesse practise I purpose to examine the grounds that the Knight hath brought or any other may bring for Astrologie wherein the Reader may know who they bee that stand against Astrology and who for it I shall also open to what part of knowledge Astrologie is referred that is to speake shortly to Magicke One principall ground vpon which he much resteth is that Astrologie is a part of naturall Pholosophy for thus hee writeth Pag. 18. concerning Natiuities and Predictions I confesse that Astrologers containing themselues within the bounds of Naturall Philosophy and reason doe take vpon them so much as lawfully they may c. And this is the common Answere almost to euery obiection Pag. 19. No man I thinke of indifferency or common sense will censure the Astrologer who iudgeth no farther of future effects then as they are contained and reuealed in the starres and second and remote causes to busie himselfe farther in Gods vnknowne Secrets Pag. 29. Astrologie professeth onely to foresee naturall mutations accidents Pag. 30. To place confidence in Starres as in diuine causes and powers is one thing and to esteeme them but as subordinate and second causes in Nature is another Pag. 36. The question betweene vs is whether the Starres be signes or second causes of naturall mutations or euents and whether the study thereof be vnlawfull It were too much trouble to recite euery place where hee repeateth thus much It is in a manner all hee saith take away this Answer and ye take away all from him Now Sir wee charge you for abusing your Reader in writing so long a Booke and throughout the whole Booke neuer once making offer to proue the thing in question For you confesse the question betweene you and vs is whether the Starres be second causes of naturall mutations which I admit to be part of the question but not all But by your owne grant if this bee the question then a man of your learning vnderstanding should haue spoken somewhat for the proofe of the question Could you finde in your heart to write so large a Booke and yet not once proue the question vpon proofe whereof all your Booke must rest And thought you Sir that men of iudgement would take these things at your hands It is an easie matter I perceiue to write Bookes if this liberty were granted were it not better with modesty to hold your peace then to be called to such a reckoning I say your Booke is idle and to no purpose as long as that is not proued which your selfe maketh the question betweene vs. But least this might seeme to be rather an imperfection in the man then in the cause it selfe For my meaning is not to take any aduantage of selected ouersights or slippes as he seemeth to feare Let vs consider this thing a little farther Then let this be the first question which you confesse is the question betweene vs whether the Starres as they are the subiect of Astrology be naturall causes remote or subordinate of such euents Or which is all one and deliuered likewise by himselfe whether the Astrologers in their Predictions containe themselues within the bounds of naturall Philosophy You hold the affirmatiue through al your Book though neuer prouing it whensoeuer you finde your selfe thrust to the wall and held hard then you runne continually to this help as the halting man to the horse and without this poore shift so often repeated you are not able to goe one foote forward First then let vs reason this point wee deny that the Starres are naturall causes of those euents which the Astrologers presume to foretell by them or that heerein the Astrologer containes himselfe within the bounds of naturall Philosophy That the truth may the better appeare in this point first wee moue this question To what part of learning Astrologie belongeth Wee looke for your Answere you tell vs it is a part of the Mathematickes And that Astrologie which you say is the same with Astronomy hath two parts the one speculatiue the other practicall which you call Iudiciary Astrologie pag. 2. I omit the escapes of this vnwarranted diuision We examine now to what part of Learning this Iudiciary Astrology is referred You tell vs sometimes it is a part of the Mathematickes sometimes you say it is a part of Naturall Philosophy These things are so diuers that you cannot bring them to any accord For the Mathematickes are distinguished from Naturall Philosophy so farre as when you set Astrologie sometime
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 Ã 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
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
eight House with a Trine or Sextile Aspect And the greater or lesse fortunes as Iupiter and Venus were cadent and not found in their Angles therefore hee shall die at such a time such a death For who will yeeld vnto you that these be naturall causes of that effect There is a dependence and coherence betweene the cause and the effect in naturall things in this none Before you can conclude you must coniure a man to beleeue these superstitious Sorceries which Satnan hath perswaded the Astrologer to beleeue The naturall man receiueth them not naturall reason doth not comprehend them For take any of these examples if you will the Example of Henry 2. to insist in one and tell vs by what meanes the Astrologer could see the wound in the head what humour did the Starres incline to this Or how was it possible by naturall meanes that in the Starres he should see the 41. yeare of Age The humour stirred by the Starres might haue carried him to many other courses to other kindes of death Wee would know by what naturall Reason the tilting was foreseene the yeare the stroake of the head And why are you so fearfull as to mince the matter as alwayes you doe when you reason of the causes The Starres are onely as you say causes of humours not of actions they haue no force directly ouer the will Here is a particular action that proceedeth from the will if this could bee seene in the Starres then what reason can be brought why the Starres doe not directly worke in the will I deny not but that Gauricus might foresee this and warne the King thereof but the question is by what knowledge hee did it whether by naturall knowledge or by other means For here is a particular euent and you know that one of your Maisters in his Centiloquie hath this position Fieri nequit vt qui tantum sciens est particulares rerum form as pronunciet soli autem numine afflati praedicunt particularia This testimony of one that was so great a Maister in your Art telleth vs thus much That if Gauricus in a particular Euent did make a true Prediction then hee was not therein tantum sciens But besides his skill in the Art he had another helpe namely the familiarity of some spirit Because particular euents saith he cannot bee foretold but by the help of a spirit In the narration of Paulus Tertius who warned his Son Aloisius of the day of his death the Knight doth not deale fairely and Knight-like For hee minceth the Narration and leaueth out a part of it which if it had beene fully declared would plainly open that though the Starres are there pretended yet that prediction was done by Necromancy or by Familiarity with a Spirit For Iohn Sleidan from whom the Knight hath taken that narration saith plainly that Paulus 3. was for certainty hââ¦ld not an Astrologer onely but also a Necromancer His words are these Sub hoc tempus Aloisio scribit Paulus tertius pater vt decima Septembris die sibi caueat Astra enim ei praenunciare cladem aliquam insignem Erat enim Paulus 3. Pontifex non Astrologiae modo sed Necromantiae sicut pro certo affirmatur admodum studiosus When Astrologie and the blacke Art are ioyned together then may some Predictions bee told But the Knight should produce examples of Astrological Predictions without the help of that Art which we say caÌnot be done because one best knowne in both Arts hath plainly told vs a Prediction of a particular Euent cannot bee made but by the helpe of a Spirit Now Sir if this bee the Art you glory so much in if the company of vncleane Spirits bee your naturall Principles and naturall causes this Philosophy wee intreate you to keepe to your selfe and not to reach it to others In the meane time wee haue the confession of one who was a principall man in the Profession of Astrology whereby as by a rule of that Art we iudge of all your former examples wherein you glory so much For they are of all particular euents and therfore if they were foretold your Maister hath opened to vs the means it was not by naturall but diabolicall meanes Thomas Aquinas saith as much Si quis consideratione Astrorum vtatur adprecognoscendos futuros casuales vel fortuitos euentus aut etiam ad cognoscendum per certitudinem futura opera hominum procedit hoc ex falsa vana opinione sic operatio daemones sese immiscet quare erit diuinatio superstitiosa illicita If it were not for these tricks who could not be an Astrologer The Knight saith that they who speake against Astrology are such as being grauelled with the difficulty of the Art before they were halfe thorough to excuse their owne dulnesse and lacke of industry haue broken into choller against it Let wise men iudge whether without the Church Eudoxus Panaetius Cicero Varro Plinie within the Church Origen Austin Ambrose Hierom with the rest of the Fathers In later times Picus Caluin Chambers Perkins and for Learning and Piety the honour of this Age King Iames. I referre it I say to the iudgement of all that are wise and learned whether all these who haue expressly written against Astrology were grauelled with the difficulty of this deepe Art or whether Sir Christopher Heydon bee able to pierce farther into learning then these could this wee leaue to iudgement my meaning is not to detract from the Knights Learning But I know such and could name them sauing that I will not touch the name of any man in that sort who through a blockish incapacity being iudged by their proofe in the Vniuersity vnapt for all good learning haue proued men of name and reputation in this sottish profession Shall I thinke that these wits can goe farther in the apprehension of any part of good Learning then others especially then they who I haue named before Will any man thinke that these men whose wits were exercised in all the parts of good Learning were grauelled with these difficulties when halfe-witted men goe thorough No no there is another thing in it For these men proceeding as farre as by the warrant of naturall Reason they could goe and finding in the end that by naturall Reason they could not come to the Conclusion of such Predictions but that they must leaue naturall Reason admit vnnaturall Principles proceeding from the illusion of Satan in the end to haue familiarity with Spirits This indeed grauelled them and will grauell the greatest wits in the world that seeke knowledge by lawfull meanes and no other CHAP. III. The Conclusions of Astrologers are not from Naturall Principles and are not to bee iustisied for truth in a Prediction HEere then either the Astologers must informe vs in the mysteries of their Art by better reason or bee contented to bee informed in the mystery of Truth When a Prediction Astrologicall falleth out true
two Kings Was not the death of Henry 2. as well directed by Gods Prouidence as the death of Achab Was not Achabs death as much seene in the Starres as Henries And if it be blasphemy to say that either the Diuell or any Astrologer could foretell Achabs death before such time as God had reuealed it is it any lesse to pronounce the same of Henry 2. But hee telleth vs that if Mr. Chambers or any other know any Astrologer that vseth the familiarity of euill Spirits those hee will not defend or excuse But wee say that no Astrologer can make a Prediction of such particular Euents wherein himselfe giueth instance but by the familiarity of an vncleane Spirit And yet vnlesse wee driue them to confesse it hee will still shift vs off with this Answere that hee knoweth none that doth it What shall wee doe heere Must we not beleeue it till we heare the Astrologers themselues confesse it It is plaine enough by that which wee haue already proued because to know a particular future Euent is beyond the compasse of Nature beyond the Reason of naturall men therefore if a man attaine to this knowledge it is not by naturall meanes Yet the Knight laboureth to proue this to be naturall from contingence But how is this proued forsooth First that there are some things contingent For thus hee saith Pag. 210. The Astrologer inquireth not whether hee shall dye or no yet the time when the place where how and by what kinde of death or by whom to dye is contingent and not necessary and in that respect subiect to Astrologie Thus farre the Knight You tell vs that Astrologicall Predictions are not in things necessary but contingent When necessary and contingent are opposed one against the other Necessary importeth alwayes the dependance betweene a naturall Cause and his Effect Contingent is a fortuitall Effect whereof there is no naturall Cause apparant Haue you not thus confirmed to vs that the Starres are not naturall Causes of such Effects Surely if you can make any sense of your words it must bee to exclude Predictions from naturall Effects For no contingent Effect hath any apparant naturall Cause apparant I meane to the naturall man Here it must bee obserued that Astrologers haue bid Nature farewell and haue betaken themselues and the hope of their cause to fortune and chance therein their Trade standeth by their owne confession Now that the thing which consisteth in fortune and chance is out of the compasse of naturall Causes it is apparant because no Philosopher to this day did euer acknowledge the Cause of a fortuitall Effect to bee naturall but because they know no naturall Cause thereof therefore they call it Fortune Now they called Chance and Fortune a Cause accidentall which cannot bee reduced to a naturall Cause but may bee reduced to some other Cause namely to Gods Prouidence Aristotle admitting that Chance and Fortune may be reduced to some Cause doth not expresse how But Hippocrates doth for hee teacheth Lib. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Fortunam medicam a Dijs esse Where hee saith also Medicos quando cum fide Artem adhibuerint reliqua fortunae committere And expressing the same in other words hee saith Medici Dijs locum dant So that the Philosophers that would reduce it to a cause can reduce it to no other then the prouidence of God And it is chance only in respect of mans knowledge and purpose otherwise there is no chance at all Now saith the Astrologer all Astrologicall Predictions are of such things which are in Chance then it followeth that they are not naturall neither to bee reduced to a naturall Cause but only to Gods prouidence By this Astrology must bee reduced not to Philosophy but to Diuinity if it bee an explication of such Euents as belong to Gods prouidence Then must you tell vs no more of naturall Causes but teach vs these things out of Gods word Now where you take paines Pag. 227 to proue that there is contingence in Nature which when M. Chambers hath taken away you say if hee shall dare to defend his Assertion you will not feare likewise to affirme that with contingence he takes away the Prescience of God or otherwise induceth fatall necessity You striue not against M. Chambers but you speake at random like a rauing man you know not what For hee that taketh away contingence in Nature or that which men call Fortune doth not take away Gods prescience but rather confirmeth it For in regard of Gods prescience there is nothing contingent In this point you trouble your selfe more then M. Chambers doth trouble you For to proue contingence in Naeture you tell vs of contingent Propositions in Logick Pag. 227. you take exception against this Proposition of M. Chambers If Predictions bee true they are of necessity the consequence you say is not onely false but draweth with it impieties and absurdities It is false you say because in Logicke euery true Proposition is not necessary it may be contingent To proue it impious and absurd you say would require a longer Disputation and therefore you will not enter into it Wee returne that M. Chambers his Proposition is neither false nor impious as you are pleased to terme it For admitting your Principles that Astrologicall Predictions are no other then the foretelling of naturall Effects from the knowledge of their naturall Causes then wee say it is a most true Proposition If their Predictions bee true they are necessary for true and necessary is all one in nature Tell vs not here of contingent Propositions in Logicke for what Logicke or Philosophy taught you so to proceed in Disputation from a contingent Euent in Nature to a contingent Proposition in Logicke These differ toto coelo Then wee yeeld that a Proposition may be true and yet not necessarily true but contingently but euery Effect that is a true Effect of a naturall Cause followeth his Cause non contingenter sed necessario by a naturall necessity not by hap hazard For if it bee a true and naturall Effect of the fire to heate then it heareth non contingenter sed necessario So if it bee the true and naturall Effect of the Starres to worke such a particular Euent as you speake of then it must bee necessary For you cannot shew vs any naturall Effect depending on a naturall Cause which dependeth thereon contingently Then that which M. Chambers saith is true you haue nothing against it But mark good Reader how the Knight disputing of contingence openeth his meaning For he perceiuing belike that if hee should attribute these Predictions wholly to contingence hee must needs thrust them out of naturall Causes is much troubled wrestling with himselfe and interferring hee cannot tell what to make of the matter which he hath begun For to make vs vnderstand how these Predictions may bee true though not necessary he telleth vs Pag. 283. It is not simply necessary that the fire should heate the water yet if
it bee applyed in due manner vpon supposition it must needs heate So hee saith presupposing that the matter or subiect whereof the Astrologer speaketh be conuenient and well disposed that which they conclude by the Position of Heauen will come to passe Before you can conclude any thing you must haue liberty granted to coyne a new Philosophy For how many errors are contained in these words Consider your wordes First whereas you would shew in these words the difference betweene absolute necessity and that which is called ex hypothesi It seemeth you were neuer carefull to vnderstand what is absolute and what vpon supposition And whereas you call it necessity vpon condition when the fire heateth or burneth this is not necessity vpon condition but it is necessity secundum consuetum naturae ordinem naturall necessity That the fire should heate or burne matter applyed to it is not necessary vpon condition For that which is necessary vpon condition doth infallibly follow the condition being admitted therefore is called necessitas infallibilitatis but fire doth not infallibly heate or burne the matter applyed for it is hindred by a Miracle if a Miracle cease then it heateth necessarily but this necessity is naturall necessity and not necessity vpon condition Consider yet another error in those words and in Philosophy not tollerable Hauing taught that Astrologicall Predictions are of things not necessary but contingent to proue this you giue instance in the fire whose effect is to heate yet it heateth you say not simply necessarily but vpon condition whereby you inferre that the Starres worke vpon that which you take to bee their Subiect as the fire worketh vpon his Subiect Then it must needs follow that either in the worke of the Starres there is naturall necessity or in the worke of the fire vpon an apt subiect there is