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 à 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 fâ—…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 â—…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 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
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 h◅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 cānot 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 contingence You impute to M. Chambers errors ignorance impiety absurdity forwriting that which agreeth with good Learning and will be iustified But are you Sir or any man in the world by disputation able to iustifie these things That the Starres worke vpon their Subiect as the fire vpon his yet that the Starres worke contingently or that the fire worketh contingently Or that a thing contingent is necessary Or that an Effect which is granted to be contingent is an Effect of a knowne naturall Cause These things neither your selfe nor any for you can make agreeable to Philosophy These are the nets wherein you haue wil fully intangled your selfe and your Astrologie cannot helpe you out Keepe the distinction of things that in themselues are distinct distinguish naturall necessity from absolute because the one may bee hindred the other cannot then distinguish it from necessity vpon coaction and from necessity vpon condition place naturall necessity in things that are according to the ordinary course of Nature distinguish all necessity from contingence that is of things Philosophicall speake like a Philosopher and then shall you neuer be able to answer these things whereunto the iniquity of your cause hath drawne you but by plaine confessing of your error Now least you might thinke that this was rather your euill lucke then any fault in the Cause and Art of Astrology wee will admit for your pleasure all these errors vnsaid againe And if you can take better aduice defend the Cause as you will you shall be brought about to the same absurdities againe For your Predictions are either of things necessary or contingent answer what you will you are caught If of things necessary then holding as you doe the Starres naturall Causes of such Effects this necessity must bee according to the ordinary Course of Nature the bond whereof is not broken but by Miracle then your Predictions cannot be hindred but by Miracle But you see they are hindred ordinarily and without Miracles and it is a greater Miracle to see them fall out true then to see them proue false which your selfe perceiuing dare not affirme to be of things necessary but of contingents onely But now when you say they are of things contingent you exclude them from the ordinary Course of Nature For those Effects that are produced according to the ordinary Course of Nature are not contingent but alwayes necessary by Naturall necessity Thus say what you will your Predictions fall to the ground Yet if words will hold them vp they want no helpe For hauing brought your selfe into a great perplexity concerning Contingents you goe through as though you would see no danger and you tell vs that Astrologers doe not meddle at all with rare Contingents or such as haue an indifferent respect to the Opposites which may happen one way or another Pag. 283. It is as if you should say Astrologicall Predictions are in things contingent not necessary and yet Astrologers meddle not at all with things contingent but onely with things necessary For you call that a rare Contingent which hath an indifferent respect to the Opposites Now the truth is there are no other Contingents but onely such For all Contingence is in respect of mans Will and purpose which hath his naturall freedome and liberty where some things fall out besides the purpose and Counsell of man there and there onely Contingence hath place This is alwaies in such Actions as in respect of the liberty of the Will haue an indifferent respect to the Opposites If you say true then they meddle with no Contingents But see good Reader when a man is once ouer the shooes how hee runneth through thicke and thinne This hee saith to perswade if he could haue a Reader that would beleeue him that their Predictions are not in such Contingents as these but in another soâ—…t of Contingents which hee dreameth to bee such as when the fire burneth this hee calleth Contingence But this is so hot and heauy that it would burne his fingers that maintaineth it it needeth no Refutation Moreouer whereas M. Chambers prouing that there can be no Predictions being of future particular Euents for that purpose alledgeth a sentence of Aristotle that of future Euents there is no certaine knowledge or things that are so to happen can neither bee said true nor false Thus Aristotle expresseth a thing contingent like a naturall man the Knight sore troubled with this sentence at last giueth that Answer which bruiseth Astrologie in pieces His Answer is Pag. 282. To affirme that there is no truth of future Euents contingent because it appeareth not to vs is erroneous for all things are present to God and all axiomes or affirmations of future Accidents appeare to him as they are either true or false Neither is it alone knowne to him but farther to such to whom hee shall vouchsafe to reueale it or otherwise to them that are able to discerne Euents in their determinate Causes Thus farre the Knight Were it not better vtterly to renounce the defence of Astrology then thus to defend it The question is whether future particular Euents can bee foretold
grant him albe it Ficinus is ashamed of the Profession But wee-must beleeue the Knight that-hee was an Astrologer yet that hee did presage by Astrologie therein wee cannot beleeue him vnlesse hee will exclude Astrologie from all Learning and call it an Instinct For Ficinus is resolute that their Predictions cannot be knowne by Learning but only by Instinct Now what he meaneth by instinct let the Learned iudge whether an Instinct of the Spirit of God or of another Spirit Againe whereas Ficinus a man of such Learning and skill in Astrologie by your owne confession telleth vs that men without Art and Learning proceed further in Predictions then men of greatest wit and Learning let it bee remembred that which you so much glory in that Picus Chambers and such like were grauelled with these difficulties before they could get halfe way through but your selfe with some others passe through pleasantly Ficinus telleth vs plainly that which otherwise wee haue obserued That they who passe so farre as to presage things to come doe it not by wit and Learning but they are either inertes or minus in Artibus exercitati Then if learned men come not to the knowledge of Predictions it is not because they want any parts of wit and Learning but because they are wise and learned For if they had lesse parts of wit and Learning then by the iudgement of Ficinus they could also know that which you say you know This witnes hath spoken well for you Another witnesse speaking to the same purpose is he that wrote the Centiloquie Who writeth thus Abs te a scientia fieri enim nequit vt qui tantum sciens est particulares rerum formas pronunciet soli autem numine afflati praedicunt particularia He saith if thou wilt learne this knowledge thou must learne it partly by thy selfe partly by Science and skill by Science in things vniuersall by thy selfe in things particular Which things by Learning thou canst not foretell but by the helpe of a Diuell Against this witnesse hee taketh no exception neither can hee for it is the confession of an Astrologer Onely hee expoundeth his words thus Particulares rerum formas that is saith he either the essentiall forme of a thing or the Platonicall Idaea Then this must bee the sence Hee that hath knowledge onely and not the helpe of a Demon cannot foretell the essentiall â—…orme or Platonicall Idaea But what is this for Predictions He is there giuing Precepts for Predictions of particular Euents saith that the thing cannot bee done without the helpe of a Daemon And himselfe declareth what hee meaneth by particulares formas in speaking of Predictions concerning paâ—…ticular Euents Soli numine afflati praedicunt particularia But saith the Knight hee sheweth in diuers Aphorismes of the Treatise that the Astrologer dealeth with many particular Euents therefore his meaning cannot bee of particular Euents but of essentiall formes Let M. Chambers reconcile these things together saith hee M. Chambers is not bound to reconcile the absurdities of your Astrologers for that worke were infinite Yet this may well be reconciled For where hee saith particulars cannot bee foretold but by the helpe of a Daemon and yet himselfe in many Aphorisines declareth how the Astrologer may come to the knowledge of particulars Here is no contradiction at all For either hee speaketh of such particulars as the Astrologer shall know by the helpe of his Daemon or of such as himselfe knowing by that meanes did publish in writing Wherein wee haue an open confession of their impiety but no repugnancie in the words So wee may proceed to the examining of another witnesse Plotinas as Porphyry writing his life doth testifie as well studied in Astrology and after great paines taken therein did finde that no credit was to bee giuen to Iudiciary Astrology and did refute the same both in his priuate speeches and in his Books Thus much Porphyry recordeth Marcilius Ficinus reporting this lib. 3. Ennead 2. Plotin addeth farther That Plotinus refuseth iudiciary Astrology Lib. de fato atque libres de prouidentia lib. de Coelo This testimony is double for it witnesseth what Porphyry Plotin both did find in this Study which they both some while professed Other testimonies to the same purpose wee referre to the Sixth Chapter CHAP. V. That Confession of the Knight examined that Astrologicall Predictions reach not to the regenerate An inuincible Syllogisme of the Knights examined HItherto wee haue proued that Astrologicall Predictions haue no place or ground among naturall meanes that the Starres are not naturall Causes of such Euents that the naturall man receiueth not such knowledge that the knowledge of these things commeth by an instinct or familiarity with a Spirit by the confession of those whom the Knight much esteemeth for their knowledge in Astrologie What proofes can wee seeke more euident Therefore wee conclude that the broken staffe faileth him vpon which all his Booke resteth That the Starres are naturall Causes of such Effects as Astrologers foretell it is broken in pieces and the shiuers therof strike the Cause through the sides Seeing Philosophers haue reiected the Art for this cause the Knight comming to the same point should haue enformed vs with some conuincing reasons and not intreat vs to conceiue that which hee should proue And yet wee must both pardon and pitty him I will admit that hee is able to say much for the Cause that his Learning is much better then his Booke maketh proofe of that it is pitty so good parts should bee so euill imployed How the Knight taketh it I know not But vnto mee it seemeth strange that so good parts and guifts should be spent vpon so sottish a Subiect and failing in the maine point that hee should not haue feeling thereof What can wee thinke but that with Astrology there is alwayes ioyned some Magicke And that your vnderstanding othâ—…rwise so quicke and liuely is in this particular bewitched with an Astrologicall illusion as it were with some Magical Incantation I wiâ—…h his good from my heart Neither can I feare such a base feare that hee will take it in euill sort which is meant for his good And if he bee the man which I take him for hee will one day thanke him that is not affraid to deale roundly with him to pull him out of the fire I meane to draw him if by any meanes so it bee the will of God from this sottish Superstition But I must proceed One common euasion hee vseth which I haue mentioned before that Astrological Predictions reach not to the Church nor to the regenerate in the Church and sometimes hee saith neither to the regenerate nor to the wise Now because properly euery Art ought to bee defined by the Subiect by this Astrologie should bee defined an Art that considereth the fortunes of fooles and wicked For that euery habite of the minde ought to bee defined by the Subiect it is well
rising of the Sunne should not know when it would bee day Either this instance is nothing worth or else hee holdeth that as the day followeth the Sunne-rising by such a naturall course which cannot bee broken without Miracle so the particular Euents in mens actions foretold by the Astrologer follow the Positions of the Starres in such a naturall course as cannot be broken without Miracle The operation of the Sunne and Moone that are naturall are confessed The Husbandman can tell when it will bee day as well as the Astrologer The Husbandmen and Fishers by marking the course of the Moone can foretell the full Sea and Eâ—…be more exactly then any Astrologer what then Are thâ—…se Astrologicall Predictions No verily no more then the foretelling of an Ecclipse For of these things that naturally follow and without a Miracle are not broken our question is not This M. Chambers granteth But what affinity hath this with your Astrologicall Predictions Or how will you conclude from this grant a particular contingent Euent in a mans life or state as that Henry 2. shall bee at such a time wounded in the head or that Ioh Medices shall bee Pope or any such like For M. Chambers by Astrologicall Predictions meant onely particular contingent Effects as your selfe say they are such Pag. 210. Now when as your selfe confesse that Astrologicall Predictions are in things contingent not necessary you grant directly with M. Chambers that the day following the rising of the Sunne naturally that is necessarily not contingently the ebbing and flowing following the Positions of the Moone necessarily not contingently the Eclipse following the interposition necessarily not contingently You must needs grant that these naturall and necessary Consequents haue no affinity with Predictions which are not naturall and necessary Consequences but contingent as your selfe doe acknowledge And yet you aske with what face can M. Chambers say this With an honest face and a learned head Wee will not vrge with what face you may looke vpon your ouer-sights Learne what it is wee grant and what wee deny Wee grant that the operations of the Sunne and Moone are euident that their Effects are naturall and therefore bound to naturall necessity no way subiect to Contingence Wee deny that the particular Euents foretold by Astrologers are naturall Effects or necessary but only contingent You confesse thus much How then can you refute these things If I grant the operations of the Sunne and Moone in things necessary by the ordinary Course of Nature must I needs grant the power of Starres in things contingent Yet this you thought to bee such a Syllogisme which all the Aduersaries of Astrology should neuer bee able to answere You deceiue your selfe and would deceiue others But who is not able to distinguish betweene naturall Effects and contingent Euents which poore distinction cutteth off all your hopes of this inuincible Syllogisme and sheweth the Cause to bee weake that cannot bee better supported And whereas you take pleasure to compare the influence of Starres towards a contingent Euent to the operation of Simples it is not worth the refuting your selfe granting the one contingent and the other naturall Now call you this a begging of the question the question being of Predictions in particular Euents What doe wee begge in distinguishing betweene naturall Effects and contingent Euents Doth not hee thinke you famously begge the question who answereth in euery passage of his Booke that the Astrologer containeth him within the bounds of naturall Philosophy that the Starres are naturall Causes of particular contingent Effects which neither you proue nor your selfe or any man liuing is able to proue Where you tell vs that M. Chambers is conuinced by the testimony of Moses who expressly witnesseth that the Stars bee created for Signes which words are often repeated in your Booke whereby you inferre that Moses doth warrant your Predictions Wee answere that you must not giue interpretations of Scripture to the Church but take them from the Church The Church hath interpreted these Signes to bee such as pertaine to naturall and politicall Orders and Seasons You draw the words to hidden secrets beyond the Course of Nature without warrant Further wee distinguish betweene generall Effects in nature and particuler contingent Euents Now if M. Chambers admit with Clem Alexandrinus and others that by the rising and setting of certaine Starres men may foretell the change of the Ayre plenty dearth plagues drought and that in this respect Mariners and Husbandmen haue vse of that knowledge Must hee that granteth this needs yeeld to your Predictions of particular contingent Euents No Sir wee admit the one and deny the other without any repugnance But whereas wee vrge your particular Euents you would gladly shift off the matter with a distinction of particulars The conceit good Reader if it bee worth the hearing is this Particulars saith the Knight are of two sorts either indiuiduall particulars or specificall For species specialissima and species subalterna are particulars saith hee First it is newes if wee speake properly that species and genera should bee particularia particulare in the proper acception thereof being alwayes opposed to vniuersale Secondly if a man should admit this goodly distinction yet will it doe the Knight no seruice For if any were so absurd to say that Astrologicall Predictions are in particulars that is in generals yet this speech differring altogether from the sense of the Learned cannot helpe them who set their Predictions in such particulars as that Henry 2. should bee wounded in his head in such a yeare of his age that such a man should bee Pope that Don Fredericke should bee King of Naples and such like which are all of those which hee calleth indiuiduall particulars And thus you see to what faire end you haue brought your Syllogisme which you told vs none could auoyd CHAP. VI. The Examination of the Knights Definition of Astrologie whereby as by a Rule hee would rule the question THe Knight fearing belike something before hee came to the Answeres of the Scriptures alleadged by M. Chambers setteth downe as hee calleth it a Rule whereby the Reader may leuell and direct his Iudgement as he saith This Rule is to compare all authorities that are brought against him with the definition of Astrologie by himselfe set downe This proceeding seemeth to vs strange First hee will make a Definition as it pleaseth him best Then hee will haue not onely Philosophicall truths which were absurd enough to bee leuelled according to his Definition and not his Definition to those truthes but he would also perswade vs to leuell and direct the authorities of holy Scripture to this Definition and to vnderstand the Scriptures by this Definition and not his Definition by them For these are his words Pag. 23. I haue thought good to forewarne the Reader not to bee discouraged with the shew of testimonies which he M. Chambers mustered out of the Scriptures Councells Fathers but still to compare his
authorities and Arguments with the Definition by mee at first set downe to the end it may serue as a Rule whereby the Reader may direct his iudgement Indeed Sir if you could finde such Readers as you wish that would take such Rules without examining then might you thinke your Cause were in good case But what if the Readers will not take your Rules What if they wil not be perswaded to leuel the Scriptures by your rules but examine your rules Would any speake thus to his Reader but an Astrologer What Readers doe you hope for that will examine scripture and all authorities by your rule But what is this rule This is your definition of Astrologie Pag. 2. Astrology is that Art which teacheth by the motions configurations and influence of the signes starres and coelestiall Planets to prognosticate the naturall Effects and Mutations to come in the Elements and these inferiour Elementary bodyes When you haue set downe this your definition or rule then orderly you diuide it into two parts the first speculatiue in the heauenly motions and appearances the second practical which they cal the Iudiciary part of Astrology What learned man will euer yeeld this definition and diuision It were an easie matter to prooue any thing if this might serue the turne to set downe a definition and therein to begge the question If this definition must be a Rule to rule all disputations against you you neede not dispute or make proofe of any thing it is all done in your definition But this manner of writing is both idle and presumptuous ruling the disputation by your fancy without proofe without reason Consider the absurdities of your definition First whereas you lay it to Master Chambers his charge that hee did not define Astrology you haue small reason for that if you consider all For this deuise of entering into a controuersie with a defition is vnwarranted Where did any of the Ancients so Now to examine the writings of learned men by new deuises were not reason The most learned and iudicious Writers come not rashly to a definition Obserue Aristotle as you shall finde that hee setteth not downe a definition before he hath fully prooued euery part thereof Then commeth the definition as in a place of a conclusion The iudgement of this man and others may warrant men to write after this sort Neither is it reason that late deuises should prescribe against the auncient manner of the best Writers Neither doe you vnderstand your Master Ramus herein for it is not his meaning that all disputations should begin with a definition But as it is the fittest and most orderly course in teaching children the rudiments of Arts and so farre we allow it so in handling of Controuersies what learned man did euer vse that course There is a place and time for all things but in the beginning of a Controuersie no place for a definition The reason is the parts should first be prooued Yet this man without any proofes is presently at a definition And hauing prooued nothing he will haue his definition to be a Rule thereby to examine all things that are against him Now let vs consider the manifold perfections of this definitie First he saith Astrology is an Art We haue learned out of Aristotle what an Art is It handleth things variable quae aliter fieri possunt And so is distinguished frō science which handleth true things not variable Aristotle speaketh so generally that hee wold be vnderstood of al Arts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this Knight will haue ars to be genus to Astrology and Astronomy And Astronomy which is scientia not ars to bee a species thereof Was it euer heard before since learning first began to be knowne amongst men that any thing which is truly called Scientia could haue his genus to be ars Then he saith that this Art teacheth by the motions confifigurations and influence of Signes Stars and Celestiall Planets Astrology medleth not with motions that is the worke of Astronomy with configurations it dealeth but where hee addeth influence it had bin good first to haue declared what influence hee meaneth For as we deny not naturall influences so Astrologicall influence we reiect as hauing no place in Nature but onely in the braines of Astrologers And whereas a definition should be short no superfluous words admitted in it to what end doth he say Celestiall Planets as if there were some other Planets And where he saith it is to prognosticate naturall effects and mutations to come wee admire his wisedome that to saue disputation and proofes hath put the question in a definition And therefore his definition is a very idle conceit vnlesse he or any for him can first prooue that the subiect of Astrology is the consideration natural of Causes with their effects Now whosoeuer will proue an Art or Science or any habit of the mind whatsoeuer must first bee sure of the subiect thereof For it is most true which Aristotle both sharply saw and soundly deliuered Ethic. 6. That all Arts Sciences and habites of the minde are distinguished one from another by their seuerall subiects But this man hauing made no proofe of the subiect of Astrology thinketh that is enough for him to define and not prooue but onely put the subiect in his definition and then to giue warning to all men to take this his definition for a Rule to rule al things brought against him And therefore we vtterly reiect your definition as vnlearned because you haue not prooued the subiect You say the subiect is the consideration of natural Causes and their natural Effects This we vtterly deny for the reasons which we haue deliuered Other escapes we let passe for shortnes Vpon this we stand not only because the genus is mistaken but especially because the Subiect is mistaken You should by proofe and disputation declare and manifest the true subiect of Astrology But you may see what commeth of it when a man will runne so hastily to a definition CHAP. VII An Historicall relation of the principall Authours that haue written of Astrology THe Knight hath added to this booke a Chronologicall Index of Astronomers meaning thereby Astrologers from Adam to his time In this order he setteth all the Patriarches till Abraham Isaac and Iacob them and all before them he reckoneth Astrologers And in the midst of these godly Patriarches betweene Henoch and Methusalah whereby wee must vnderstand that either Zoroastes must be taken for an Holy Patriach or that the Patriarches must bee accounted for men of the same profession with him And thus along he ioyneth cleane and vncleane together but without proofe without reference In this Index he hath set Ioseph Homerus Hesiodorus and many other to fill the number which would bee a hard taske for the Knight to make proofe that they were Astrologers And therefore I haue thought it needfull for the vse of the vnwary Reader to mark the iudgements of
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
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