M ^R Chambers (a man for his Life and Learning worthily honou­red of all that knew him, & by his learned Labours known f [...]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 [Page 2] 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 [...]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, [Page 3] 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: [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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, [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] 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: [Page 11] 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.

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 [Page 12] 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.

[Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 Ioh. Sleidan Commentar. Lib. 19. 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; [Page 16] 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 Secunda Se­cundae Qu 95. Art 1. Qu. Seq. 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 Obiectio. 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, Solutio. 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 [Page 17] 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.

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, 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, [Page 19] 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 Lib. 1. de Di­uinat. Stella Iouis aut Veneris coniuncta cum Luna ad ortus puerorum salutaris sit; Saturni Martisuecontraria: He ioyneth these together, as alwayes his manner is, the [Page 20] 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 Lib. de Diui­natione. 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 can you not as well conceiue, that Mars and the rest of the Starres, on which the qualities of these inferiour things depend, ma [...] 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 [Page 23] 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.

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 [Page 24] 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. [Page 25] 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 De Doctrina Christ Lib. 2. Cap. 2 [...]. 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 [Page 26] 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 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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; [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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, [Page 32] 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 [Page 33] 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, [Page 34] 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 so [...]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, [Page 35] 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 by naturall meanes? Aristotle saith they can­not bee knowne being of Contingents, and no man can say that such an Euent is true or false before it be accomplished; therefore it cannot be foretold. This Knight answereth, that they are knowne to God. The question is not whether they be knowne to God or to his Prophets, when hee reuealeth them; but whether they may bee knowne by naturall meanes. Now how is the foreknowledge of God brought in here, and his Reuelation to his Prophets? Vnlesse that it be to proue; that Astrologers are Prophets, to haue this Knowledge by Reuelation, as some of them con­fesse; that without the helpe of a Spirit, these things cannot bee knowne: Either hee must confesse, that Astrologers haue this knowledge by Reuelation, not by naturall meanes, or else hee answereth nothing to Aristotle. For that which he addeth, that these things are knowne also to such as are able to discerne Euents in their naturall Causes, is but a begging of the questi­on which Aristotle will not admit, who saw Euents in their Causes, as farre as the Knight. Aristotle doth deny that these things can bee knowne in their natu­rall Causes, and wee with him. Remoue from your [Page 36] Answere that feeble begging of the question, and then what else doe your words containe, but that Astrolo­gers foretell future Euents by Reuelation, as the holy Prophets of God haue foretold such things by Re­uelation. Was not hee fore driuen, trow you, that leapeth at one iumpe out of the Course of Nature? But Aristotle will not so bee satisfied: For hee keep­ing still within the bounds of Nature, made that Obiection. The Philosopher thrusteth you on the one side from the Course of naturall knowledge: The Prophets, thrust you out of their company, on the other side: And the Church will neuer admit, that you do these things by diuine Reuelation: then looke you better to your standing.

What greater euidence against Astrologie can wee looke for; vnlesse wee stay till wee heare themselues confesse against themselues; that these Predictions can­not bee foretold by Art; or from any naturall Prin­ciples, but onely by the illusions of the Diuell. If nothing can serue, but their own confessions (though this seeme hard to such as are brought to strict exa­minations, as witches are, betweene whom and A­strologers the difference is not great, both being brought vp in the same Schoole, sauing that the Astro­logers (vnder a pretence of more learning) seek to hide themselues) yet is it not impossible to wring it out of their owne Confessions.

The Knight telleth vs, Pag. 203. That the Papacie was certainly presaged to Paul 3. by Paris Caeresarus, as Cardan testifieth. And by Richardus Ceruinus vnto his Sonne Pope Marcellus 2. as Panuinus and Garim­bertus report, and againe by one Erasmus a Germane, [Page 37] and Marcilius Ficinus to Pope Leo 10. whereof I take to witnesse Paulus Iouius, saith hee. And thus (for­sooth) he thinketh he hath answered an Obiection of M. Chambers, of certaine false Predictions giuen by some Astrologers. For if M. Chambers shew him false Predictions, hee thinketh it enough, that these whom hee citeth were not false: And how doth hee proue them? Forsooth, because Cardan and Paulus Iouius witnesse so much. This is very strange dealing. Hee taketh exception, Pag. 202. at the testimony of Cicero; witnessing a thing of his owne knowledge, that the Astrologers of his time were conuinced daily: For Cicero knew them, that they assared Pompey and Cras­sus, and Caesar, that none of them should dye till hee was old, and of good reputation, and famously. This which Cicero speaketh of his owne knowledge, the Knight will not receiue. He saith, that Tully his testi­mony is worthily suspected; but none that liued in his time, did euer charge him of such a crime: yet must Cicero bee reiected. But if Cardan or Paulus Io­uius once say the word, hee taketh that vp as an vn­doubted truth. Was not Cordan commonly noted throughout all Italy, by the name of Cardan the Foole? And who knoweth not, that Iouius is (of the learned) noted, that where he would haue spoken the truth, that is in the Turkish and Persian affaires; there hee could not. But where hee could haue spoken the truth, that is, in the affaires of Europe, and especially of Italy; there hee would not. They who speake most moderately of him say thus. But M. Askham in his Discouery of Germany, writeth much more sharply of him, char­ging him with flattery, lies, forgery, and that hee [Page] wrote his History to no other end, but to deface the truth of the Story with lies. Yet the Knight will re­iect Cicero, whose credit in reporting a matter Histori­call, was neuer in question; but Cardan and Iouius are Authors for his tooth. But let vs follow him a while in this humour, and see what hee will make of this matter.

Admit all this true that hee saith, that these were true Predictions. What followeth? Then saith hee, these true Predictions proue the validity of the Art, and maketh him confident in it. But wee say, if they speake true (which thing wee deny, till wee heare it better proued) yet it was not from the knowledge of naturall Causes; but from the Diuell. If wee could make one of these Astrologers (on whom the Knight so much glorieth) cōfesse the truth, whether these Pre­dictions were done by Learning and naturall Know­ledge, or by the helpe of a Spirit: could any proofe bee more pregnant then that? But how shall wee wring this Confession out of them? Paris Caeresaruis, and Richardus Ceruinus, and Erasmus the German, are men not famous for any writings. But Marcilius Fi­cinus is a man of name for his Learning, & he will tell vs the truth. Wee will intreat him to cleare vs this doubt; seeing the Knight taketh it vpon the report of Paulus Iouius, that hee presaged the Papacy to Leo 10. Whether may this thing bee done by learning, or no? Let Ficinus answere. Marcilius Ficinus answe­reth thus. lib. 3. Aeneid. 2. Platin. Such Predictions stand not by Learning, but by some instinct. And after some Discourse, wherein hee sheweth, that such Pre­dictions are not by Learning, but by an instinct, hee [Page] saith thus; Hinc efficitur vt plerique vel inertes, vel minus in artibus eruditi praesagio doctiores excellunt. And after, speaking of the same knauery, as he termeth it, hee saith thus. Quam fallaciam doctissimi quique Astronom [...] deprehendentes iudicia neglexerunt. In which place hee sheweth, that diuers Astronomers well-known to him, men of great Learning, did scorne this folly. And addeth, that Paulus Florentius, being a man of singular skill in Astronomy, did vtterly scorn these Predictions; who liuing till hee was 85. yeares old, & (with all exactnesse) considering the Figure of his owne Natiuity, could finde therein no signe of long life. Briefly, Ficinus giueth this verdict of them. Astrologi fingunt, non docent. This testimony is such, against which the Knight can take no exception: For hee hath commended Ficinus vnto vs for a great Astrologer. Which thing, for his pleasure, wee will 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 [Page 40] 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 [...]orme, or Platonicall Idaea: But what is this for Predictions? He is there giuing Precepts for [Page 41] 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 pa [...]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 [Page 42] 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.

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 [Page 43] 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, oth [...]rwise so quicke and liuely, is in this particular bewitched with an Astrologicall illusion, as it were with some Magical Incantation? I wi [...]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 proued by Aristotle. And is not this, thinke you, the reason why the Regenerate and wise forsake the Study of Iudiciary Astrologie? For, by your confessi­on, it profitteth them nothing, it reacheth not so farre as vnto them. For what other reason can you giue vs, [Page 44] why Augustine, Picus & such like, being both thorowly enabled by naturall abilities, & hauing a desire to that knowledge, vtterly forsaked the Profession therof; but because they were either regenerate or wise? then what are they who professe it? I moue nothing but from your owne Principles. And doe you not handsomly perswade men, to thinke honourably of your Professi­on, when you say, it concerneth neither wise nor re­generate? Or what account doe you make of all such, as come to seeke your helpe in this Art? Doe you not say, that they can haue no helpe of you, vnlesse they bee fooles, and wicked men? Perhaps true. But here I intreate that it may bee well considered, what a manner of Art this is, that by the Professors thereof is confessed, wholly and onely to concerne them, who are in Regno Diaboli. All lawfull Arts doe concerne alike the Regenerate and vnregenerate; and the worke of regeneration, maketh no distinction, no manner of alteration in the vse of a lawfull Art. And is not this enough, to proue the whole Profession not to belong to Nature? For can any man shew any of the Libe­rall Sciences, any Art or Profession in the world, that dependeth vpon naturall Knowledge, and goeth no further, which concerneth not all men alike, of what quality or disposition soeuer they bee? And what warrant can any man haue to professe or practise such Art, as is wholly conuersant about the members of Sathan, and goeth no further? But as soone as euer they haue bidden the Diuell farewell, the Art biddeth them farewell.

Againe, they who grant that Astrologicall Predicti­ons touch not Religion, nor the regenerate, nor the [Page 45] Church, haue no reason to vse Predictions within the Church. Let them bee shut out of the Church, and illude the Reprobate, for whose vse they hold their Art by their own confession. Now within the Church euery one receiueth the Sacrament of Regeneration: And therefore the Children that are baptized in the Church, are taken for Regenerate, albeit the effect thereof, is more or lesse apparant, or not apparant in processe of time. What then hath the Astrologer to doe within the Church, where all receiue the Sacra­ment of Regeneration? Further, wee say, that the Art which concerneth only those men which are in the Kingdome of the Diuell, and none else, is Diabo­licall, and nothing else: This is manifest from the contrary. For, as that Profession which concerneth the godly and obedient, and none els, is only of God; so that Profession which concerneth the wicked, and none else, must needs bee onely from the Diuell: For ouer the wicked the Diuell, ruleth Ephes. 2. 2. and not in the godly; for they are freed from the Kingdome of darkenesse, from Sinne, and the power of Sathan. Now when they are once freed from the power of Sathan; then saith the Knight, they are freed from Astrologie. Could any man more plainly proue, that Astrologie is one part of the power of Sathan? Bodin Lib. 4. Demon proueth by many Examples & Confessions of Witch­es, that Witchcraft hath [...] [...]ower vpon the Regene­rate, or vpon Magistrates, who execute the Lawes a­gainst them; which is fully confirmed by his Ma­iesty, Daemonol. lib. 2. cap. 6. Now if Astrologicall Predictions haue no power ouer the Regenerate and wise, what doe they differ from Wi [...]chcraft? Sauing [Page 46] that heere in a greater shew of Learning, they haue gotten, as they thinke, a deeper hole to hide them­selues in? But this is but the deepenesse of Sathan. In the meane time, wee cannot but obserue one espe­ciall marke of an vnlawfull Art: the godly are exclu­ded, it medleth not with them. Lawfull learning and Knowledge excludeth none, but worketh vpon all sorts of men alike. Onely Sorcery, Witchcraft, and Astrologie, declared herein to be the inuentions of the Diuell, are confessed by the Maisters of these Arts hereein to bee vnlike all other lawfull Arts.

The Knight saith, it is not his part to proue, but to answere; but no man will yeeld it to bee an Art or Profession, without proofe: And therefore, Pag. 507. hee vndertaketh to proue, and warneth vs of an in­uincible Syllogisme, which, saith he, is of that force, that neither Hemminga, nor all the Aduersaries of Astrologie, shall euer bee able to auoid it. This Syl­logisme is worth the learning, it will giue full satisfa­ction, and make vs all recant what wee haue written, or can write against Astrologie. Let vs therefore heare this wonderfull Syllogisme. This it is. ‘The Sun and Moone worke vpon these inferiour matters, but the other Starres haue the same nature and substance: ther­fore the other worke and gouerne in the same manner.’ But how are wee disappointed? For wee looked for a Syllogisme concluding Astrologicall Predictions, and that so forcibly, as could not be auoyded. Here is nothing concluded touching Astrologicall Predicti­ons. This Syllogisme, M. Chambers hath answered, & so battered it in pieces, that I doe maruell, how the Knight could thinke it fit for any Seruice: but he that [Page 47] hath no better, must make much of the best he hath.

To satisfie the Knight, I must set downe how hee refuteth M. Chambers: by this the Knight can take lesse exception, and the Reader may better vnderstand the manner of his writing. M. Chambers admitting this Argument, saith, the operations of the Sunne & Moone are euident; and nothing belonging to Pre­dictions. ‘How repugnant, saith the Knight, is hee to himselfe? For if their operations be knowne before hand, they must serue to Predictions: and to deny it is all one, as if confessing a man able to know when the Sunne shall arise, hee should yet deny it possible for him, to foretell when it shall bee day. And againe, if the operations of their Lights bee also first knowne vnto vs in ouery part of the Zodiacke; why should not their operations by like reason, belonging to Predictions? For the Astrologer doth no lesse know their effects; as their motions doe di­uersly apply their Influence to the matter of things, then the Physitian doth the operation of those Simples, which bee doth minister. But fully to stop his mouth in this point, what hath hee brought but a begging of the questi­on, which neuerthelesse is consirmed by Moses, who ex­pressly witnesseth them to bee created for Signes? And to oppose his owne Confession against him, M. Chambers himselfe in his 15. Chapter, acknowledgeth them to bee Signes to foretell the changes of the ayre, plenty, dearth, plagues, drought, & such like: with what face then can he here deny, that which he hath expressly affirmed before?’ I haue set downe the Knights words at large, because the Reader may iudge of the proofe of this inuincible Syllogisme. M. Chambers saith, the Argument pro­ueth [Page 48] not Astrologicall Predictions: the Knight saith, it is, as if granting that one knoweth the time of the 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 Sunne­rising, 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 E [...]be, more exactly then any Astrologer: what then? Are th [...]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, [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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.

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. [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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. [...] Lib. Ethic. 6. Cap. 4. [...]. 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 [Page 55] 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 [Page 56] 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.

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 [Page 57] 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 the best writers that haue spoken here­of, that a plaine distinction may appeare betweene good learning, and Astrologicall Sorcerics.

The first inuention of Astrology, is by many lear­ned men attributed to the diuels. This is the iudge­ment of Tertullian, lib. de habitu muliebri. And againe, Lib. de Idolatria. And of Clemens Alexandrinus in Ec­log. And of Origen. Hom. 13. in Num. Coelius (thodig. Lib. 2. cap. 12. hath obserued, that Lactantius writeth: Astrologia, Auspicia, Auguria et oracula esse Daemonio­rum inuentum. And that Apuleius (a man of that pro­fession) confirmeth the same. The Knight to remoue this odiousnesse of their originall telleth vs, that Plato in Phaedro, attributeth the Originall of Arithmeticke & Geometry to a diuell that was called, Theuth. And o­thers say, that Philosophy and other Arts were so in­uented. The Knight by this answere would deceiue himselfe and others. It is true, that the Graecians did attribute the inuention of Arts, and of other things that serue for the benefit of man, to such as they held Gods; as the inuention of Wine and Corne & other things: though we know by the truth of Gods word, that these things were inuented before those Gods of theirs were borne. It is also true, that those Gods of theirs were men which had liued here before. It is also true, that the worship which they offered to such Gods, was Idolatry; and by exhibiting diuine wor­ship to such, they made them deuils. Hereupon the Knight inferreth; therefore they did attribute the in­uention of good Arts to deuils: This we deny. For [Page 58] they did not hold their gods to be diuels, or vncleane spirits: as the knowledge of the truth teacheth vs to hold. And the Heathen did account them Gods, which once were men, as the Knight himselfe confes­seth of this Theuth, which diuers thinke to haue beene Mercurius Trismegist. Now when the learned Fa­thers of the Church speake of Deuils, they haue an other sense, then the Heathen speaking of those which they c [...]ld [...], or [...]. Which words of Heathen, are taken in good part, but not of Christi­ans. And therefore his answer is nothing to the pur­pose; vnlesse he could shew, that the Heathen did at­tribute such inuentions, to such as themselues accoun­ted euill and vncleane spirits: For from these euill spirits came Astrology, and from these came no part of good learning. And therefore, Origen carefull long before to answer to this particular, disputing of that which is called the wisedome of the Princes of this world, saith: Sapientiam principum huius mundi intel­ligimus, vt est, Aegyptiorum secreta, quam dicunt et oc­culta Philosophia, et Chaldaeorum Astrologia, et Iudaeo­rum de scientia excelsi pollicentium, sed et Graecorum multiplex variaque de diuinitate sententia. Where hee doth distinguish Astrology from Philosophy, and the actes which hee nameth presently before, thus: Poetica, Grammatica, Rhetorica, Geometria, Musica, Medicina. All which, he maketh an other part of wise­dome or learning much differing from Astrology. For these Arts he calleth the wisedome of the world, and of men. But Astrology, saith hee, is not a part of the wisedome of the World, but of the Princes of the World, for so he calleth Deuils. And to this purpose do many learned, both Philosophers and Diuines, [Page 59] distinguish betweene Astrology, and good learning, accounting the one to be profitable for mans vse, the other to haue no vse in nature, no place in good lear­ning. The first spreder of this Art, as most men agree, was Z [...]roastes, who being a man giuen to the familia­rity of wicked spirits, did first open to the world in writing, the secrets of these illusions, which curious men in a desire to know things to come, beeing also inticed and drawen thereto by wicked spirits, gathe­red into a kinde of Art and Profession. The learning whereby these men sought to know particular acti­ons to come, was in one word called Magicke; wher­vnto Astrology did serue as an instrument or pretense. And therefore Zoroastes is famous or infamous for teaching of Magicke. This man was a Persian, and not (as many thinke) a Bactrian, and from him the Per­sians had this learning. Yea their Kings Sonnes were brought vp therein. Plato tearmeth this [...] Alcibid. 1. [...] ( [...] The Magicke of Zoroastes, the Son of Oromasius: this is the worship of the Gods. True it is, that Plato speaketh honourably of it: but no otherwise then of the worship of their gods. Pliny witnesseth that Plato trauelled to learne it, Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1. & before him Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus; but they trauelled to learne all Magicke, not only Astrolo­gy, as the Knight seemeth to say, commending Astro­logy by their trauell. For they were either Magitians, or sought the knowledge therof, in some measure. And therefore by their trauell hee may as well commend Magicke, as Astrology. As also where hee saith, that Kings and great Personages haue studyed this Art; where he pleaseth himselfe with a pleasant conceit of [Page 60] this study, which reacheth to the highest heauens; and therefore should (as it were) through their secret influence aboue all other, be embraced and aduanced by the Highest on earth. But if you strip his speech out of his Rhetoricke into plaine Logicke, then it will appeare, that these Kings, of whom hee glorieth so much, were Students in Magicke, as Pliny witnesseth, speaking of Magicke. In tantum fastigij adoleuit, vt Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1. hodieque etiam in magna parte gentium praeualeat, & in oriente regum regibus imperet. The Knight must ey­ther take all the commendation of this Art, or leaue it. Learned men haue trauelled for it, it hath beene the study of Kings. This he taketh as in the commen­dations of Astrology: By which he yeeldeth, that A­strology is a part of Magicke. For certaine it is, that the study for which these men are reported to haue trauelled, and which those Kings haue studyed, was Magicke. And if vnder this name of Magicke, hee commend Astrology, then indeede we grant, that he may to this purpose finde somewhat amongst the An­cients: but otherwise, he will find nothing for Astro­logy. And hee will neuer finde, that the Ancients re­ferred it to any other part of learning then to Magick. The Knight seemeth to helpe it well, by taking that to Astrology, which the Ancients spake of Magicke.

Aristotle seemeth to scorne this learning, as not ad­mitting it into any place of naturall knowledge. For he going thorough all the parts of good learning, medleth not with Astrology, shewing thereby, that he tooke it for no part of good learning. After these, Eudoxus, a Scholler of Plato, was much renowned for his learning, who being a man of great skill in Astro­nomy, [Page 61] vtterly reiected all this learning that standeth in Predictions. Cicero saith of [...]im thus. Ad Chaldaeorum Lib. de Di­uin. 1. monstra veniamus: de quibus Eudoxus Platonis auditor, in Astrologia, iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile Princeps, sic opinatur, id quod scriptum reliquit Chal­dae is in praedictione, & in notatione cuiusque vitae ex na­tali die minime esse credendum. Eudoxus in the know­ledge of the Mathematickes, went beyond all the Chaldaeans, and all other in the iudgement of the best learned, as Cicero saith. Pliny and others that speake of him, giue him the commendation of a man of grea­test Learning in the Mathematickes.

If then a man of such knowledge reiected these Pre­dictions; was it not because hee accounted these no part of Ma [...]hematickes or Philosophy? Now because the Knight hath said somewhat of this, and thinketh he hath well answered all; this must be considered before wee proceed.

To that which Tully saith of Eudoxus, the Knights answer is, that hee can conuince him by as Authen­tique witnesse, as his owne. For Laertius (saith he) was the Sonne of an Astrologer, and wrote of Astrologie. Sextus saith, that hee and Hiparchus practised Pre­dictions of weather. And Pliny, shewing that Ma­gicke doth consist of Physicke and Astrologie, affir­meth, that Eudoxus reputed it as the most excellent & profitable study, of all other Disciplines that pertaine to wisedom. And therefore, saith the Knight, conside­ring that Tully is so taken tripping in one, what credit are we to giue to him in the rest? Whether Cicero or S. Christopher be taken tripping, let it bee examined. The Knight would proue by other testimonies that [Page 62] Eudoxus was an Astrologer: And if hee might once proue this, then hee thinketh Cicero is taken tripping. Alas poore trip: what needeth hee seeke any proofe for this? For Cicero hath said more for this, then all his proofes. Hath not Cicero said, that Eudoxus was, in Astrologia iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile Princeps? All the testimonies which the Knight brin­geth, come short of this: to what end, are testimonies brought to proue a thing granted? What then fol­loweth? The Knight saith, therefore wee must not giue any credit to Cicero in the rest. Let the Reader iudge; whether this be plaine dealing. Cicero dealeth plainly, and therefore deserueth credit: He saith Eu­doxus was a most learned man in Astrologie, and yet hee did vtterly reiect the Chaldaean Predictions. Against this, there is nothing brought; for, that he was an Astrologer, is confessed on all sides: the tru [...]h is, this word Astrologie was otherwise vsed, and in ano­ther meaning amongst the Ancients, then now it is amongst vs: and from the ambiguous vse of this word, the Knight seeketh in diuers places, to deceiue the vnwary Reader. The word was by ancient Wri­ters, taken for Astronomy: And when they commend Astrologie, they meane Astronomie; and reproue Astrologicall Predictions, although they speake well of Astrologie. Cicero saith, that Eudoxus reiecteth Pre­dictions, & yet was the greatest Astrologer that liued then. This sheweth, that Astrologie, as then this word was vnderstood, might be studied & knowne without Predictions. That which the Knight bringeth out of Pliny, is worse: For Pliny, speaking of Magicke, saith Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1. (as the Knight citeth him.) Eudoxus, qui inter sapientiae [Page 63] sectus, clarissimam, vtilissimamque eam intelligi voluit, Zorastem tunc sex millibus annorum ante Platonis mor­tem fuisse prodidit. If hee will make any thing of this testimony, hee speaketh for Magicke: so that hee must proue Astrologie, a part of Magicke, b [...]fore that this can serue his turne. M. Chambers denyeth, that Eu­doxus was an Astrologer, as the Knight vnderstandeth Astrologie, the Knight out of Pliny proueth that hee was an Astrologer, because Pliny saith hee was a Ma­gitian.

Panaetius, whom Cicero accounteth the most iudici­ous of the Stoickes, did not onely himselfe reiect these Predictions, but witnesseth, that Archelaus and Cassan­der, being as Cicero saith, men of greatest sight in Astrologie, did refuse this part, which standeth in Predictions. Hee witnesseth the like of Scylax of Ha­licarnassus. The Knight, being vpon the excepting humour, would also take exception against Panaetius: and why? because Tully saith, that Panaetius wrote more exquisitely of morall Philosophy then any o­ther. Doth not this exception shew the Knights hu­mour? For this is no exception, vnlesse hee will say, that hee who hath skill in Astrologie, cannot bee learned in other kindes of Learning: and hee would also except against him, because Tully saith of him, Non est ausus negare diuinandi artem, sed dubitare se dixit. This which is called Ars diuinandi, the Knight taketh for Astrology: but so Cicero calleth that which stood in Augurijs, Auspicijs, Extispicijs: and in generall, all Magicke.

Let vs consider what Cicero himselfe thought of this Profession: Hee taketh Auruspices, fulguratores, [Page 64] interpretes ostentorum, Augures, Astrologi, Sortilegi, for Professors of certain vaine and foolish Arts, whereof no reason can bee giuen: and putteth them together vsually in his Booke, de Diuinatione, as Professors of the like vanities: though one differing from another in the manner, yet all agreeing in the end; which is by foolish and vnnaturall meanes to know before hand the actions of men, in things to come. Wherefore, in his iudgement there can no reason bee brought for Astrologie, which may not likewise bee brought for Augury, Auruspicine, and all these damned Arts. Ci­cero proueth, that this diuination hath no part in good Learning. Nec eorum quae in Geometria describuntur (can any Prediction tell) quae vera quae falsa sint, sunt enim Mathematicorum non hariolorum: De illis vero rebus quae in Philosophia versantur, numquid est quod quisquam diuinorum aut responderi soleat aut consuli? Where wee note, that Diuinus or Hariolus as it com­prehendeth the Astrologer, is cleane thrust out from the Mathematickes and Philosophie: And there­fore the Astrologers profession, is no part of Mathe­matickes or Philosophy. Cicero doeth likewise op­pose, naturam & sensum, against fortunam & casum, and sheweth that these Predictions come not from nature and sense, but from chance, and fortune. For Lib. 1. de Di­ [...]n. who is able to giue a naturall reason, Cur a dextra Cor­uus, a sinistra Cornix ratum faciat? Cur stella Iouis aut Veneris coniuncta cum Luna, adortus puerorum salutaris sit: Saturni Martisne contraria. And againe, it is confessed that these things are such: quorum rerum Ibid. euenta, non causa quaerenda. And therefore in another place, speaking of these future Euents, hee saith: Id [Page 65] futurum est in nulla rerum natura. And because in na­ture hee findeth no reason for such Predictions, there­fore hee calleth them Chaldaeorum Monstra. And againe. O delirationem incredibilem, non enim omnis error stulcitia est dicenda▪ And all this Art hee calleth superstitionem Sagarum. Vtrum Philosophia Dignius Sa­garum superstitione ita interpretari, an explicatione naturae.

M. Varro liuing in that age with Cicero, and ac­counted Coel. Rhod. Li. 10. Cap. 20. the most learned of that age, saith likewise. Ex Astrologiae sinu pro fluxisse superstitionum omnium vanitates. Pliny putteth these Predictions not in any part of the Mathematickes, or naturall Philosophy; but amongst vnnaturall curiosities and Sorceries. And reckoneth that Diuination which is ex Stellis, amongst the parts of Magicke; and reasoning of the ignorance of men, by bringing in of many Gods: that Fortune is made a God, addeth thus, Pars alia & hanc (Fortu­nam) Lib. 2. Cap. 7. pellit, Astroque suo euentus assignat, & nascendi legibus, semel in omnes futuros vnquam Deo decretum, in reliquum vero alium datum. And againe. Ecce ful­gurum monitus, oraculorum praescita, Auruspicum Prae­dicta, &c. Somtimes, as his manner is, in the searching of Antiquities; hee noteth the Professions with the Authors. Auguria ex auibus, Car monstrauit, a quo Ca­ria Lib. 7. Cap. 56. appellata. Adiecit ex caeteris Animalibus Orphaeus Aruspicium Delphus, ignispicia Amphiaraus: Auspicia auium Tiresias Thebanus: interpretationem ostentorum & somniorum Amphiction: Astrologiam Atlas Lybiae filius, vt alij Aegiptij, vtalij Assirij. And thus ioyning Astrologicall Predictions with Predictions of Augu­ry Auruspicine, as Birds of a feather, at last hee setteth [Page 66] downe all these, as kinds of Magicke or Sorcery. Vt narruit Osthanes species eius sunt (speaking Lib. [...]0: c. 2. of Magicke) nam & ex aqua, & e Sphaeris, & ex Acre & Stellis, & Lucernis, ac peluibus, securibus & multis aliis modis diuina promittit: praeterea vmbra­rum inferorumque colloquia. I omit the Censures of the Romane State against Astrologers, as is obserued by Tacitus, and others.

Thus wee finde, that by the learned and iudicious amongst the Heathen, these things were held as impi­ous vanities. So that the holy Scriptures and Fathers need not be vrged against this impiety. We haue the voyce of Nature in the Consciences of the best affe­cted naturall men, thrusting these Predictions out of all the bounds of naturall Philosophy, and good lear­ning. Let the Knight neuer plead that himselfe, or any Astrologer, hath proceeded farther in naturall know­ledge, and good Arts, then these men haue done, that thus haue ouerthrowne their Predictions: for herein who will beleeue him?

Touching the Fathers of the Church, we need not trouble the Reader with long citations: for they are all ours sure: And all sound Writers in the latter time; vntill that Antichristian corruption came in, which with many other doctrines of Diuels, brought this also into the Church (practised amongst some Church men) in the smoake of the bottomlesse pit. Before wee proceede, wee must meet with the Knight in some passages, touching the matter spoken of. M. Chambers saith, that Pythagoras, Democritus and Pla­to hauing trauelled to conferre with the Magitians of Persia, and Priests of Egypt, either neuer learned of [Page 67] them this kind of Art (meaning Iudic iary Astrology or if they did, they seemed vtterly to haue contemned it, as neuer vouchsasing to mention it in any writing: Thus farre M. Chambers. The Knight answereth, this is ab authoritate negatiue. But I tell you Sir, if hee dis­proue it Negatiue, from these authorities, hee speake [...] home to you: for these are the Philosophers, that you must make much of; for you are like to haue none other to helpe you. If we proue, that these haue not maintained Astrologie, nor written for it; then sure all Philosophers are cleane gone from you: All the hope of your Cause, is in these or in none. And therefore, as loth to lose these, hee telleth vs out of Lacrtius, that Pithagoras honoured [...] and out of Tully, that hee did yeeld magnam authorità­tem diuinaioni: You may adde also out of the same, I meane Cicero, if you please, that hee was Augur: For so Cicero calleth him, Lib. 1. de diuinat. the like you say you could confirme of the others; and after ma­ny words, you conclude thus. ‘Because M. Chambers hath thought this an Argument to fauour his purpose, I will adde the testimony of Pliny, who expressly witnes­seth against M. Chambers, Lib. 30. Cap. 1. that as they all tooke vpon them an exiled and banished life, rather then a trauell to learne it, and all secret Arts: so after they had attained it, and were returned, they did no lesse extoll it; but esteemed the same as a secret, not to bee re­uealed.’ This valiant Knight dare venture vpon any thing: for the truth is, these words of Pliny, which hee citeth, are directly and expressly spoken of Ma­gicke M. Chambers saith, That these Philosophers are [...] in Astrologie: the Knight reproouing this as [Page 68] an vntruth, proueth out of Pliny, that these Philo­sophers trauelled for the study of Magicke: Which thing M. Chambers witnessed. The truth is, and we confesse it, that these Philosophers were studious of Magicke, and therefore so farre-forth, their Philo­sophy hath not beene accompted pure. Then are these the only men, of whome the Knight had some hope. Yet it cannot be proued, that these men fa­uored Astrology: but the Knight rather (then he will loose them) will confesse that Astrology is Magicke; for otherwise he can haue no helpe of these: If not of these, then of no Philosophers. Where then are the learned men that haue mayntained this Art, whome the Knight mustereth in Armes? When all search is made of Antiquity, there wilbe found only Zoroastes, Mercurius Tresmegistus, whome though wee could be content to giue him, yet a doubt may be made of this man, because in his Bookes extant vnder his name, though there be manifest profes of Magicke, wherein he excelled; yet there is little or nothing to be found of Astrology. Apollonius Thya­nous, Porphyrius, Iulianus, Apuleius, and such: Adde to these; whome the Knight himselfe challengeth, Spurain, Theagenes, Thrasyllus, Ptolomy, Seleucus, and Ascletarion: These wee yeeld you. If you can proue that these or any of them (for example take Apollonius, because hee is more famous then the rest; the other being obscure or lesse remembred) If you can proue that this man (whome you recken a­mongst your Astrologers) or any other did performe these predictions by Philosophy, or naturall know­ledge; then will wee confesse that you speake to good [Page 69] purpose: till then you haue said nothing. If any man will vndertake this cause, he must be called within the bounds of certaine limitations: For o­therwise, if hee shall write as much as would loade a horse, either in commendation of Astrology, or in euill speech against such as stand against his opinion: I haue nothing to say but that—

Then he that will deale herein, may do well to speake to these points. 1. Wee say, that it hath not hitherto bene proued by any Astrologer, that the Art that is pretended to be in Astrologicall predicti­ons, is any part of naturall Philosophy.

2. Wee say, that it hath not been proued, that it hath bene a part of Mathematicks.

3. Wee say that as it standeth against the Iudge­ment of the most learned; so neither can it be pro­ued by any good reason, that it is, or euer amongst the ancient learned Philosophers, was accompted a part of either.

4. Wee say, that all professors of Astrology of Ancient times, were also professors of Magicke.

5. That it was accompted more honorable to professe the skill in Augury, Auspicia, and Extispicia; then to professe Astrologicall predictions, and men (of more honorable place and greater accompte for 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, [Page 70] 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.

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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] be free from superstitious and absurd conceits, which are impediments to faith and good manners, and in the end make ship-wracke thereof.

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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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. And Agrippa for a Cousener dealeth somwhat plainly: For he saith in his Epistle to Tritemius: Tres libros de Magia composui, & de occulta Philosophia minus infesto titulo inscripsi. Then they who will call Magicke Philosophy, because a Magitian (to colour his wickednesse) so calleth it, may vnderstand how weake their ground is, and see them­selues directly deceiued, by him that professeth to de­ceiue. The Ancients doe exactly distinguish Magiti­ans from Philosophers, as may bee seene aswell from the testimony of Plato last cited, which witnesseth, that the Magicke wherof he speaketh, standeth only in the worship of the Gods, therefore in no naturall know­ledge, [Page 79] & by consequence no part of Philosophy. As al­so by a testimony to the same purpose out of Herodotus; for Herodotus, speaking of the manner of sacrificing v­sed amongst the Persians, declareth; that their Magi were their Priests, Magus astans theogoniam accipit, si Herod. Clei [...]. quidem hanc illi dicunt esse incantationem efficacissi­mam; citraque Magum nullum illis fit legitimum sacri­ficium. And afterward declareth, how the Magi differ from the Egyptian Priests: that is, how the Persian Priests differ from the Egyptian Priests. By which it appeareth that Magi were Priests, not Philosophers. Iamblicus distinguishing these, I meane Priests and Philosophers, saith thus. Non enim intelligentia con­iungit Lib. de Myste rus Egyp. sacrificatores Deo, alioqui philosophi vnionem Dei­ficam reportarent. He calleth that, vnionem Deificam, whereby the Priests of Egypt and Magi of the Persi­ans, were so linked to their familiar Diuill, that there­by they had meanes to foretell and worke certaine great workes, that is illusions. These things be of Ma­gicke craft, but not of Philosophy: and they who doe such things, are called Magi, Chaldaei, or sometimes Priests, but neuer Philosophi, of the Ancients. To the same purpose, Diodorus Siculus witnesseth, that the Chaldeans were not as the Philosophers of Greece, studying naturall knowledge; but as the Priests of Egypt, foretelling particular Euents. Chaldaei Babilo­niorum antiquissimi eum locum in sua repub. quem in Egypto Sacerdotes obtinuere; ad cultum enim Deorum deputati—Diuinatione quadâ futura praedicunt. This is their Philosophy, not to seeke the naturall Causes of things, but by their manner of worshipping their Gods, that is Diuells, to learne the knowledge of [Page 80] Predictions of particular Euents, which cannot bee knowne in nature, but are knowne by the helpe of such Diuels as the Chaldeans worshipped. Heerein Dio­dorus consenteth with Plato, and others, and teacheth vs to know these Chaldeans. True it is, that Strabo cal­leth them Philosophers, but not simply, but [...], Philosophers of that Countrey. Where­by hee distinguisheth them from such as other­where are knowne by the name of Philosophers, and doth more exactly distinguish them by their Profes­sion. For speaking of Wizards by occasion of Mo­ses: such saith he, was Amphiaraus, Trophonius, Or­pheus, Musaeus, and amongst the Getae, Zamolxis; a­mongst the Indians, Gimnosophistae; amongst the Per­sians, Magi, who were called saith hee, [...] & [...] & [...], amongst the Assyrians Chaldei amongst the Romans, Hetrusci, Aruspices. Thus farre Strabo, who speaketh of these things with vnder­standing, comparing the Chaldeans, Magi, and Arus­pices together.

And this may shew how farre they are mistaken, that without warrant, without testimony of the An­cients, call either the Chaldei or the Magi Philoso­phers: they may as well call the Aruspices by that name. Now these called by diuers names in diuers Countries, Magi, Gymnosophists, Brachmanae, Chaldae­ans, Astrologers, Aruspices, Druides, all were Magitians of seuerall Nations. Whereas all the rest are, I cannot say vtterly abolished; but if they bee practised, it is in secret; only the Chaldean Superstition resumeth life and courage in many places, by an abusiue pretence of heauenly influences: Whereas in truth this Supersti­tion [Page 81] hath no more reason then the rest, that are not now so boldly maintained.

These men would hide all their sleights vnder the heauenly influences: we grant, that the Heauens haue their force in these inferiours, so farre as the naturall Philosopher can vnderstand. If it be demanded, whe­ther they haue not greater force, then the naturall man can vnderstand: to that, who can answere precisely? For who knoweth all secrets of God, but God? But wee know, that if there bee any, no man is able to ex­presse it. Now the Astrologer may learne naturall influences from Philosophy: but if there bee aboue that which Philosophers know, the Astrologer must giue a reason how hee commeth to the knowledge of such things, which the naturall man knoweth not.

Giue me leaue (good Reader) for the manifestation of the truth, which onely God knoweth, I seeke: to disclose those secrets, which Astrologers labour to hide, holding vs with faire tales of naturall influen­ces. It greeueth me, that any should be (how much more a man of such place and parts) so bewitched, as once to open his mouth in defence of these workes of darkenesse, in this great light of knowledge, and of the truth. If it were not against a cause that so much ouerthroweth Godlines, I should neuer troble him: but who can holde in this case, wherein Gods glory and the truth is touched; which wee doubt not, will once holde his owne place, like the Sunne in his strength, dispelling these mistes not onely of Errors but of great impieties, which now ouercast the light thereof.

[Page 82] That wee may know what these men meane by their Influences, who can better teach vs then Corn. Agrippa, that hath disclosed the secrets of this Art; whose testimony is without exception, because hee was better seen in Astrology then the Knight, or any that taketh part with him. Agrippa speaking of these Astrologicall influences, first telleth vs a tale of the Platonicks: Omnia inferiora esse idiata a superiori­bus Lib. 1. de occul. Philos. idaeis; et totidem sunt in anima mundi rationes, rerum seminales, quot idaeae sunt in mente deuina, qui­bus ipsa rationibus aedificauit sibi in coelis vltra stellas, etiam figuras, impressitque his omnibus proprietates: Ab hisce ergo stellis figuris, ac proprietatibus, omnes specierum inferiorum virtutes ac proprietates depen­dent. Then the Astrologicall influence dependeth vp­on that doctrine which Plato learned of Mercury Tres­megist, concerning Anima mundi. This influence say they, may, be hindered by the inability of the matter, and is infused acording to the merits of the matter. As they would draw out of Virgil, who heerein ex­presseth the Platonicall conceipt.

Further, hee explicateth this matter thus. Prouenit virtus primo ab Idaeis, deinde ab intelligentijs regenti­bus, postea a coelorum aspectibus, disponentibus, porro ab elementorum dispositis complexionibus correspondenti­bus coelorum influxibus. This is the doctrine of his Influences. I will onely bring it to the light. One thing I note throughout all his discourse of influen­ces, hee neuer citeth a Philosopher, but alwaies Trismegist, Iarchas, Brachmanus, & Hebraeorum mecu­bules. [Page 83] He prooueth also out of Trismegist, that by the right marking of Influence; if an Image bee made of such things as properly agree to each Daemon: that the image shall presently bee animated by a Daemon: all this must wee take as from Astrologicall Influ­ences.

Let vs proceed in these hid mysteries of Influences: Hee saith further. Nihil materiales numeri & figures Lib. 2. Cap. 22. possunt in mysterijs rerum abditarum nisi representatiue per numeros & figuras formales, quatenus reguntur & informantur ab intelligentijs, quae nectunt extrema ma­teriae atque spiritus at voluntatem animae eleuatae per magnum affectum operantis, coelesti virtute potestatem accipiens a Deo, per animam vniuersi & coelestium con­stellationum obseruationes. Thou must not require of mee (good Reader) the vnderstanding of these things. For wee are now about the hidden secrets and myste­ries of Influences, which neither the Knight, nor I vn­derstand; but their great Maister of the Art Agrippa, calleth them hidden mysteries: And hidden let them bee euer from me. And hee telleth concerning these Astrologicall Influences, that which I would haue the Astrologers to marke; but they know it better then I can tell them. And therefore I wish the Reader to marke these Deceiuers, who in defence of Astrologie, discreetly seeke to maintaine all the mysteries of Ma­gicke. For Agrippa, one of the greatest Maisters in both the Professions, or in one, which includeth both, further teacheth; that no Diuination can bee perfited without Astrology, and therefore hee calleth Astro­gie, Clauem ad omnium arcanorum noticiam pernecessa­riam. Lib. 2. Cap. 53. Where hee saith further. Omnia diuinationum [Page 84] genera sic in ipsa Astrologia suas radices & fundamenta habent, vt absque hanc parum aut nihil videantur ad­ferre. And againe, Astrologica diuinatio quatenus coele­stia sunt causae & signa omnium eorum quae fiunt in infe­rioribus, ex solo situ & motu corporum coelestium, quae­cunque occulta aut futura sunt, illorum certissimas largi­tur demonstrationes. Here wee see, from whence the Knight hath that learning, which hee so often repea­teth, but neuer proueth: that the Starres are Causes and Signes of those Euents which are seen in the acti­ons of men. For, in such standeth Astrologicall Pre­dictions.

Thou seest much (good Reader) but yet thou seest not all. There is yet another secret, that belongeth to these Astrologicall Predictions: For, it is not enough to beleeue without reason, that the Starres are Causes of such Euents, which the Astrologer would foretell, whatsoeuer they bee: but hee must beleeue with a strong credulity, and earnest affection, nay, with the excesse of a desire, otherwise they cannot come to their purpose. So that, it is not in the nature of the thing, but in the vehement desire of him that seeketh to know these things. This is plaine witchcraft and Idolatry, in abusing men to place their highest desires, their faith, and aff [...]ctions vpon these things. And there­fore hee teacheth farther thus. Omnes res habent natu­ralem obedientiam ad animam humanam, & de necessi­tate habent motum et efficaciam ad id quod defiderat ani­ma forti desiderio. And again, Quando fertur in excessum desiderij. And speaking of the same thing, he saith: Et hac eadem ratio, est etiam radix omnium Astrologicarum Lib. 2. Cap. 54. quaestionum, quoniam anima eleuata in al [...]cuius desiderij [Page 85] excessum arrepit ex se horam & opportunitatem magis conuenientem & efficacem, super qua fabri­cata coeli figura, potest tunc Astrologico in ea iudicare & plane cognoscere de eo quod quaerens ipse scire cupit, at (que) desiderat. All this goeth currant amongst Astrolo­gers, for good naturall Philosophy. But let vs turne a little to the Knight, to whom from the heart; we with sound heartpray, that God wil deliuer him out of these snares: hehath giuen vs cause to hope, that he may be drawne to see all these vanities; forasmuch as himselfe doth ingeniously confesse; that, that part of Astrologie which is about questions & Elections, hath in it appa­rant sortilegy. p. 3. He giueth there some reasons of that opinion: but I am perswaded, that the greatest reason that moued him, was, because hee saw it so impiously taught in Agrippa, that without apparant sortilegy, it could not bee admitted. Hee that doth confesse that which is true, that as it is taught by these Maisters, there is apparant sortilegy in this part; may be drawn to see and confesse, that in the whole, there is the like to be found. For this Astrologicall Influence (with­out the which ground the Astrologer can do nothing) is foūded vpon the Platonical conceit of anima mundi: And this cōmeth not by a naturall Course of the light & motions of the Stars; but from the conceiued Idaea to the intelligence; from the intelligence to the Sphere it commeth so to the Aspects of Heauen, and to the Elementary Complexions, reducing the Heathenish superstitions. And yet all this will not serue, vnlesse the Astrologer come to desire this secret knowledge of things to come, with strong credulity, and excesse of desire, placing his faith and affections vpon those [Page 86] inuentions of Sathan, which wee owe only to God, his holy Scriptures & truth. This is that which being against all natural reason, hath driuē away the most ho­nest among naturall Philosophers, frō this profession; And hath driuen away all the holy Fathers of the Church, and is able to driue all true Christians from it. For, when we finde by their owne confession, that that these Predictions are not founded in the nature of things sought; nor in the nature of the Starres, but in an excesse of desire & credulity in him that seeketh, who will not be terrified from this search? And where hee saith, all things haue a naturall obedience to the soule of man; his meaning is not, that all things which they thus seeke haue a desire to bee knowne, which is Witchcraft: but that all vncleane Spirits are desi­rous to illude the soule of man, and make shew of obe­dience, to catch the soule of man in these snares; requi­ring a strong Credulity, and excessiue desire of the Soule: and so drawing the seruice of the Soule to themselues, from God and from godlinesse. These be the trappes and snares that vncleane Spirites haue spred for Astrologers: Our desire is to giue them war­ning hereof, that they may auoyde them. Let vs re­turne to Agrippa, and marke his proceedings. Non ab alia causa quam a Coelestiterenni orbis virtutes proueni­unt. Lib. 2. Cap. 60. Hinc Magus per illas operaturus vtitur incanta­tione astuta superiorum, verbis Mysteriosis in locutione quadam ingeniosa trahens vnum ad aliud, vitamen na­turals, per quandam conuenientiam inter illas mutuam. Sir, do you heare him? When he hath laide downe a great secret of the Diuels craft, yet he saith, all is done Vi Naturali. These bee the things that wee haue re­nounced [Page 87] in our Baptisme; we renounce not Nature, but the workes of the Diuell. And farther, he sayth: Sicuti in corpore humano membrum vnum mouetur per­cipiendo motum alterius, et in cythera mota vna chorda mouetur et altera: sic quando aliquis mouet aliquam partem mundi mouentur et aliae, percipiendo motum illa­rum. And to teach vs the cause of the malignitie of the Influences, he saith: Quicquid in istis inferioribus Lib. 3. discors dissonum (que) reperitur, non ex influentiae malitia, sed ex mala dispositione percipientis prouenit. And ther­fore he discourseth how the Superiour Influences are first receyued in the Moone, and by the Moone refle­cted vpon the earth. Now in the Moon they receiue some infection; then the indisposition of these Infe­riour Bodies receyuing this Influence, maketh that which is good in it selfe, to be euill. Thus sayth hee, Saturnus influit anxietatem, deliramentum, tristitiam, blasphemiam, desperatione, mendacium, &c. Iupiter a­uaritiam, tyrannidem. Mars arrogantiam, temeritatem. Venus lasciuos amores. Mercurius, fraudes. Luna insta­bilem progressum. If this Doctrine bee true, there is no euill from the Influences, but from the Inferiours indisposition. The trueth is, the Astrologers know not themselues, what to make of their Influence, and therefore we must be content not to know it. Yet one thing I must obserue. When they teach, that the Su­periors by Influence gouerne the Inferiors; and teach also, that the Influence of the Starres are not euil, but as they are receiued into indisposed Inferiors. For my part, I vnderstand not how these things agree. For, it should rather seeme by this, that the Inferiour Ele­mentary Bodies, do ouer-rule the Influence of the Su­periors. [Page 88] One thing I must remember more, that A­grippa retracting in some shew, these diuellish supersti­tions, doth not retract that which he wrote of Astro­logie of the mutuall vse, coniunction and affinity be­tweene Astrologic and Magicke. But that wee may vnderstand that this knot betweene them is indissolu­ble, hee saith in that retractation thus. Magiacum Astrologia sic coniuncta atque cognata est, vt qui Magi­am sine Astrologia profitetur is nihil agit, sed tota aberret via. Then hee leaueth vs this vnretractable Position, that Magicke and Astrology cannot bee separated. Adde vnto this, that which before wee haue re­hearsed, out of the Booke intituled the Centiloquie: That no Astrologer is able by meere Art, without the helpe of a familiar Spirit, to foretell any particular Euent. And which wee obserued out of Ficinus, That those Predictions stand not by Learning, but by some instinct. And then it is apparant to all such as will not blindfold themselues, that all Astrologicall Predicti­ons of particular Euents, concerning the actions of men, are not naturall, but meere illusions of vncleane Spirits: and that Astrologie, so farre as concerneth these Predictions, hath no other end or vse, but onely to serue as an instrument to Magicke. This is the Do­ctrine of these men, who haue most of all excelled in Astrologie, whom in this case wee are bound to be­leeue, before others. Now, what will the Knight say to these things? or, which way will he turne himselfe? He will perhaps, deuise a distinction betweene Astro­logers in old time, and in these times: but that will not helpe him. For Agrippa hath opened plainly, that old and new Astrologie is the same, and proceed from [Page 89] he same Principles by the same meanes, to the same end, and all is to serue Magicke. Hee will perhaps say, as often in his Booke hee doth, that Astrologie is con­demned onely as it is ioyned with Magicke, but nei­ther will this helpe him. For Agrippa telleth vs, that there is such affinity and cognation beteene them; that as Magicke cannot bee performed without Astro­logie; so Astrologie cannot haue a his and per­fection without Magicke. So the difference is not much, whether wee call these Predictions Magicall or Astrologicall Predictions. Nay, will the Knight say, the Magitian though vsing Astrologie, yet may proceed so farre as to the conference with an vncleane spirit: but the Astrologer may stay himselfe in his fi­gure, and proceed no further. I answere, that diffe­rence is not great, in what degree hee proceedeth, so he proceed at all with the Diuell in his illusions. But if hee come to the knowledge of a particular Euent, whether that bee by conference, or by some other meanes; wee are heerein certified, that this thing can­not bee done by Art and learning, but by the helpe of a Spirit; take that helpe which way you will, it is Di­abolicall. For that iudiciary Astrologie, either hath beene, or may be altogether separated from Magicke; this the Knight can neuer proue: Neither can hee bring the testimony of one learned man of ancient times, to testifie for him: but wee haue enough a­gainst him. For, besides these which wee haue cited, Iamblicus is so round herein, that his testimony admit­teth no answere, thus hee saith: Et impossibile iudicare certos euentus, cum omnium causarum concursum com­prehendere Lib. de Mist. nequeamus, nisi per inspirationem diuinam [Page 90] id assequamur. To the same purpose saith Psellus a Pla­tonicke. Instructa est Magia multum Astronomica facul­tate, Lib. de Daemo­nibus. plurima (que) per ipsum peragit. And Philo stratus wri­ting the Life of Apolonius (the most famous both Magitian and Astrologer in his time) saith, that Apo­lonius conuersing with Iarchas, the chiefest of the In­dian Wizards, called Brachmanae, did seeke to find out the end of Iudiciary Astrologie, that is, to bee able to foretell things to come, by certaine secret sacrifices. His words are these. Verum arcanas libationes per quas Philostr. Lib. 3. Cap. 13. Astrologicam facultatem, & diuinandi peritiam inqui­rebant, sacrorum praeterea rationem & incantationem, quas dijs gratissimas esse nouerant, Iarcham cum solo Apolonio communicasse refert Damis. It will much trouble the Knight, to answere these testimonies, and especially this last: For Apolonius was as well seene in the Mathematickes, as any other. If the meere knowledge of Mathematickes could helpe a man to the knowledge of Astrologicall Predictions, then might Apolonius haue beene able to know such Pre­dictions by his skill in Mathematicks: but his skill was not able to helpe him; and therefore he sought Astro­logical Diuination by certaine secret Sacrifices. And, bring all the skill in naturall knowledge that ye will; yet your great Masters haue told you, that a Prediction of certain euents, cannot be made without inspiration. These be the secrets of Astrologie, which the Knight cunningly hideth from vs, but others plainly reueale them: secrets they are, & must be done in great secrecy. & that Agrippa witnesseth, Experimentū omne magicum Lib. 3. C. [...]. fugit publicum, quarit occultari, silentio roboratur, propa­latione destruitur. Opportet ergo Magicum operatorem [Page 91] secretum esse, nullis aut opus suum, aut locum, aut tempus, aut desiderium propalari, nisi preceptori aut coadiutori. Ipsa socij loquacitas, incredulitas (que) in omni operatione effectum impedit. These things agree together: For Agrippa speaketh of the secrets in Magicke, as Philo­stratus doth of the like secrecies in Astrologicall Diui­nation. This knowledge that thus flyeth the light, sheweth euidently whence it commeth. Iamblicus disputing against Porphyry, telleth vs, that Porphyry following Astrologicall diuination, went not foundly to the way of foretelling, but the Egyptian way was as hee thought the surer. Both did seeke to know the Lord of the Figure, which in truth was a Diuell: but they were not well agreed to what Diuell to giue the place: but the Egyptians (saith hee) went more di­rectly to it. Quidnam prohibet figurae dominum, at (que) Lib. de Myst. Egypt. daemonem per Astrologiam quidem difficile inueniri; fa­cillime vero per diuinum vaticinium at (que) sacrificia. Where hee plainly confesseth, that Dominus figurae, whom the Astrologers seeke so much, is in truth Dae­mon, a Diuell. Sir, you vnderstand by this, how your Astrologie is censured. There is no certainty in it till you come to Magicke, that is the sure way: so that Iamblicus telleth you, that Astrologers doe but spend the time in vaine, till they come to the Egypti­an sacrificing, that is, to plaine Magicke. Plotinus qui inscribitur; si faciant astra: saith (as Macrobius ci­teth Insom. Scrip. Lib. c. 9. him) Pronunciat Plotinus nihil vi vel potestate co­rum hominibus euenire: sed ea quae decreti necessitas in singulis sanxit, ita per horum septem transitum statione, recessiue monstrari: vt aues seu praeter volando, seu stan­do futura pnnis vel voce significant nes ientes. Where­by [Page 92] it appeareth, that in his iudgement, there is no more naturall cause of a particular Euent in the Starres, then in the flying of Birds. And therefore these things being shut out from naturall Causes, are found onely amongst diabolicall Superstitions.

My purpose is heerein to refute Astrologicall Pre­dictions, as standing against nature; by the voyce of the naturall man: by Philosophers, and the confessions of them that haue beene reputed most learned in that fession: And I haue dealt little with Diuines: I will adde a few. Origen vpon the Booke of Numbers, ex­pounding [...] Mum. 23. those words: There is no Sorcery in Iacob, nor Diuination in Israell, in due time it shall bee reuealed to Iacob and Israell, what the Lord will doe: speaketh of the curiosity, which men by vnlawfull meanes vse in seeking the knowledge of things to come. Hee shew­eth that there are but two waies to know those things; either from God, as the Prophets spake, or from the Diuell, as all other doe that seeke the knowledge of particular Euents. Est talis quaedam (saith he) in Mini­sterio Hom. 16 in Num. praesciētiae operatio Daemonum, qua artibus quibus­dam ab ijs qui se Daemonibus maciparint, colligitur. And expounding the latter part of that Verse: In tempore dicitur? Iacobo & Israeli quid perficiet Deus. Quid est (saith he) in tempore dicetur? cum oportet & expedit, hoc est in tempore. Si ergo expedit pranoscere nos futura, dice­ture Deo per Prophetam Dei, per spiritum sāctum. Si ve­ro non dicuntur neque denuntiantur, scito quia nobis non expedit futura pranoscere Quod si idcirco non dicuntur nobis, quia nobis ea scire non expedit, qui diuersis artibus, & daemonum inuocationibus gestiunt futura praenoscere, quid aliud faciunt, nisi ea cupiunt discere, qua sibi scire [Page 93] non expedit. And a little after after, A solo Deo debe­mus de futuris discere, & neque diuinum neque augu­rem, neque aliud quodcunque horum recipere. The Knight would make Origen to stand for Astrologie, and produceth a testimony of Origen (as he dreameth) out of the narration of Ioseph, in which Iacob is said to tell his Sonnes, that Heauen was a Booke, wherein they might reade whatsoeuer should befall them. This, howsoeuer the Knight thought worthy his Re­lation; yet I doe not account it worthy my Refuta­tion. It is grosse ignorance, or wilfull collusion, to thinke that Origen gaue credit to any such Booke, or wrote any such thing: it is true, that many such tricks are put vpon Origen, by deceiuers, and thrust in a­mongst his workes; of which Origen complained in his life time, confessing that his workes were interpo­lated by couseners: but for this particular. 1. It is against the vsuall Doctrine of Origen, in other places. 2. It is reiected by the Church as fabulous. 3. It is refuted by S. Augustine, and others. Augustine teach­eth no otherwise, speaking of Astrologie, and of Di­uination in generall: He saith; Omnes Artes huiusmo­di vel nugatoria, velnoxiae superstitionis ex quadam pe­stifera societate hominum & Daemonum. Hee calleth it pestifera curiositas, crucians sollicitudo, mortifera serui­tus. And reckoning all the kindes of Magicke, harus­picum, & Augurum libros, ligaturas, remedia in prae­cationibus & Characteribus, and other things of that sort, at last hee saith. Nec ab hoc genere pernitiosae su­perstitionis segregandi sunt, qui genethliaci propter nata­lium dierum considerationes, nunc autem vulgo Mathe­matici vocantur. For anciently these were not called [Page 94] Mathematici, and therefore hee seemeth loth to giue them that name; as a name vndue to their occu­pation. For himselfe obserueth so much, Non cos ap­pellarunt Lib. 83. quaest qu. 45. Mathematicos veteres, qui nunc appellantur, sed illos qui temporum numeros, motu coeli ac Syderum peruestigarunt. This amongst the Ancients was the knowne Subiect of the Mathematickes, the supputati­on of times by the motion of the Starres: And anci­ently, Predictions were neuer accounted any part of the Mathematickes. The Knight vtterly scorneth this ancient vse, as idle and vaine without Predictions. For an answere to S. Augustine, the Knight telleth vs, that S. Augustine reproueth onely such, as either fol­low the Idolatry of the Heathen, or suppose a fatall necessity in those things that depend vpon our will; in all things else confessing the gouernment of the Heauenly Bodies, and both the Starres to haue their properties, and the Astrologer to know the same. This was soon said and boldly; but when will it be proued? The truth is, that S. Augustine and the rest of the Fa­thers, reproue Astrologie, for the vaine curiosity of foretelling things to come; which cannot bee foretold but by God and his Prophets, or to the Diuell and his Prophets. This is that which moued the Fathers a­gainst Prediction, because a Prediction cannot bee foretold, but by the Spirit of God. This saith Origen, this saith S. Augustine. That the Predictions of those that are called genethliaci, is nothing but pernitiosa su­perstitio. Cyrill, writing against Iulian the Apostate, answereth an Obiection that Iulian hath made, that Abraham was an Astrologer, that hee did vse Diuina­tion or Prediction by the Starres. Cyrill answereth, [Page 95] that there is no such Diuination or Prediction; the Starres haue no such vse, they were not made for any such thing: but as hee saith; Factum ab ipso (Deo) di­cimus Astrorum chorum, non quod sanctorum Propheta­rum dignitatem habeat, vel aliud quicquam preter quam vt luceant hominibus, & sint in signa temporum. When the Fathers reproue Astrologie, this is their pur­pose, to reiect it for Predictions of future things. This Prediction cannot be done without the Spirit of God. The holy Prophets did make Predictions by that spi­rit: If any shall attempt such things by the Starres; then they answere, the Starres were not made to haue the honour of the holy Prophets, which they should haue, if by them wee should come to the knowledge of things to come. The Fathers say, the Starres haue no other vse or end but to giue light, and by their mo­tion to measure the times. The Knight saith, they should haue an idle and vaine creation, if this were all their vse: so hee saith, Pag. 2. Behold how farre these men proceed, to censure not onely all learned men, that stand against their fancy, but the very Cre­ation of God must bee censured, if it stand against their madnesse. God giue them a meeke spirit. To satisfie the Knight in this, that the Fathers in repro­uing or reiecting Astrology, doe it in respect of the Predictions, that their Diuination and Predictions are vnlawfull: That this was the thing, which so trou­bled the Fathers, hee may vnderstand by that which wee haue said, and if that will not satisfie, wee could bring enough. S. Augustine saith; Planetarios quos Lib. Confiss. 4. C. 3. Mathematicos vocant, plane consulere non desistebam quod quasi nullum eis esset sacrificium, & nulla preces ad [Page 96] aliquem spiritum ob Diuinationem dirigentur. Quod tamen Christiana & vera pietas consequenter repellit & damnat. And againe, Iam & Mathematicorum fallaces Lib. Confess. 7. Cap. 6. diuinationes, & impia deliramenta reicceram. And a­gaine, Inde certissime collegi, ea quae vera consideratis Lib. Confess. 7. Cap. 6. constellationibus dicerentur, non Arte dici sed sorte: quae autem falsa, non artis imperitia, sed sortis mendatio. And again. His omnibus consideratis, non immerito creditur, Lib. de Ciuit. Dci. 5. Cap. 7. cum Astrologi mirabiliter multa vera respondent, occul­to instinctu fieri spirituum non bonorum, quorum cura est has falsas & noxias opiniones deastratibus fatis hu­manis mentibus inserere, at (que) firmare: non horoscopi notati & inspecti aliqua arte, quae nulla est. And to this purpose Theodoret saith, Vniuersum Diaboli genus in Theod. in Zac. medio proposuit, diuinatores ex syderibus prognostica profitentes, somniorum interpres, corum mendacia repre­hendit, & poenas constituit. It would bee a worke to fill a Booke, if I should write all which the Fathers haue obserued to this purpose: Let the Knight satis­fie himselfe in this, that the especiall cause why the Fathers reproue Astrologie, is, for that they take vpon them to foretell particular Euents fortuitall. Which thing cannot bee done but by a Spirit, though many times that Spirit may lye: But without a Spirit this cannot bee performed, by the common consent and torrent of the Fathers.

THe boldnesse of many men is much to bee maruelled at in these euill & licentious times, who in colouring of corrupt Causes, dare presume to vse the pretence of holy Scriptures, tur­ning and forcing Gods truth sometimes to iustifie the forgeries of Sathan: which impiety, as it proceeded from the Diuell, the first corrupter of the truth; so, wheresoeuer it appeareth in other, it doth bewray it selfe, and sheweth euidently, whom they imitate that vse it. For Gods holy truth cannot be so spoken of, as a matter of common Learning may be: For smooth tearmes, and a trim [...]ed speech, without a religious heart, opening the truthes of Gods word, will pre­sently bee descried. Whether this religious heart bee in the Knight, or that hee hath presumed with vnclean hands to handle holy things; let the Children of the Church iudge. I will not charge him with prophane words; as where hee, speaking of the immortality of the Soule, of the diuine Prouidence, of the Miracles and Mysteries of Religion; calleth these things meer­ly Theologicall, or Metaphysicall, Pag. 94. & 95. Re­ligion is Metaphysicall, as it dependeth vpon the im­mediate will of God, and not vpon the order of na­ture: This wee passe ouer, and come to try his spirit, and sound his iudgement in Diuinity.

Whereas M. Chambers citeth the Prophet Esay 47. 12. 13. where the Prophet foreshewing the destructi­on of Babylon, derideth the Astrologers (so much vsed [Page 98] and honoured there) who tooke vpon them to fore­tell calamities, because their Predictions herein could not help Babilon. After a fruitlesse Discourse, wherein hee telleth vs that those Astrologers were Magitians, at last hee affirmeth, ‘That the ruine of this Monarchy (meaning Babylon) was extraordinary, beyond the compasse of naturall things, and did no lesse transcend humane knowledge by naturall meanes (to speake his owne words) then the standing of the Sunne in the Hea­uens, in the dayes of Ioshua, or the going backe there­of in the time of Hezekiah. Which things, being miracu­lous and not naturall, the Astrologer cannot foretell. And such hee affirmeth the destruction of Babylon to be. Because God in his secret purpose, had decreed to stirre vp the Medes against that people: this determination de­pending (as hee saith) vpon the immediate will of God: because Cyrus is named two hundred yeare before the accomplishment of that Prophesie: because the Medes were subiect to the Babilonians, and of small power: be­cause the surprise of Babylon was so sudden, as Herodotus reporteth, that the enemies found them eating & drink­ing, and dauncing.’

And thus hee runneth on, and telleth the Reader, that these are reasons to proue, that the destruction of Babylon was not naturall, but miraculous, depending vpon the immediate will of God: what hee meaneth by the immediate will of God, I know not: But this we know, that the Miracles that are wrought on­ly by the Word, or immediate will of God, are such, as being done without meanes, causeth the naturall man to wonder, whose knowledge can reach no high­er, then as it is led by meanes. Therefore the stan­ding [Page 99] of the Sunne in the time of Ioshua, and the going backe therof in Hezekiah his sight, & such like works, were Miracles, because they were done without natu­rall meanes, and against the ordinary Course of Na­ture, and beyond the knowledge of the naturall man. But what Diuines hold the destruction of Babylon to bee a Miracle? Here were all the meanes vsed, that are vsuall in other destructions: the meanes are well vnderstood by the Heathen Historiographers, that neuer found any Miracle herein. The force of Men, great Armies, a valiant and politicke King Cyrus, a­gainst a feeble and dissolute King Belshazzer, a man without vertue and foresight. What Miracle doe you see heere? Herodotus recordeth, as the Knight also noteth, Pag. 36. when the Medes on a Festiuall day had entred on the one side of the City, the other part was ignorant thereof, being wholly giuen ouer to dancing and merriment. This the Knight noteth, to proue, that this destruction was miraculous, not by naturall meanes. Did euer man reason thus before? Is it a Miracle, that a vigilant, wise, valiant Army, should ouerthrow a carelesse and drunken People? And must this be brought as a reason to make it a Miracle? Your Cause wanted reason to maintaine it; for shame giue ouer such a Cause, as must be maintained by such rea­sons; or else set better heads to it. But he thinketh that he hath said much to it for proofe, because the Prophet Esay nameth Cyrus 200. yeares before the accom­plishment of the Prophesie. If this be enough to proue a Miracle, because God foresaw the thing long before, and reuealed it to his Prophet; then, what thing in the world can the Knight name, which by this worthy [Page 100] reason will not proue a Miracle? Doth not God fore­see euery thing as he did that? If there were such Pro­phets amongst vs, as had such reuelations of things to come, as Esay had; then should other Euents be like­wise foretold. But seeing wee haue not such reuela­tions, God hath giuen to the Children of the Church, that precious guift of Faith; by which wee beleeue and know assuredly, that all things in the world are ruled by Gods Prouidence; and wee are taught to know, that the knowledge of things to come, not re­uealed to vs, is not needfull for vs: When it it is need­full, we shall haue it, but from God and his Prophets, not from Astrologers. Thus wee rest in Gods Proui­dence, and we exhort the Knight to rest there.

But the Knight like a graue morall Diuine, to winne some honour both of Cicero, and of M. Chambers, bra­ueth it out thus, Pag. 95. Tully profanely in his 2. de Diuinat. and in his Booke de Fato, denyeth and deri­deth the prouidence of God; and yet (saith he) may M. Chambers goe to Schoole with him, and learne manners. But before wee haue done Sir, it will ap­peare, who they are that haue need to goe learne man­ners, and the Doctrine of Gods prouidence; which they may learne euen of Cicero. For, good Reader, consider whether his wits bee not inchanted, that writeth thus. Cicero through all the 2. de Diuinat. de­nyeth & derideth nothing else but Predictions, which are made by Auruspicine, Augury, Astrologie, Sorti­ledge, and such like. This the Knights Booke cal­leth Gods prouidence: Is not this good Diuinity? Cicero in his Booke de Fato, disputeth so, as to take a­way fatum Astrologicum, and leaue fatum Physicum; [Page 101] that is, a dependance betweene naturall Causes and their effects: and this is all which is called fatum. Chry­sippus, saith hee, necessitatem effugere voluit, & retine­re fatum. This conceit pleased Cicero, and therefore hee saith. Quid afferripoterit, cur non omnia fato fieri fatendum sit? modo intelligatur, quae sit causarum distin­ctio, ac dissimilitudo. Tully then taketh away fatum Stoicum and granteth fatum Physicum. And herein he goeth as farre as the naturall man could goe, holding naturall Principles, which hee is euer carefull to hold. But whether the Knight goeth so farre as a Christian should, inspeaking of Gods prouidence, or as one professing morall vertues, fathering that vpon Cicero which hee ouerthroweth; let others iudge.

Hee proceedeth still the same man, handling the vndefiled word of God without reuerence, without feare of checke. M. Chambers acknowledging the power of the Starres, in things subiect to their power, but denying it to touch particular Euents, or mens actions, wherein the Astrologers wholly set it, saith, that the Starres haue no force at all in this sense: the Knight speaking hereof, saith, that place of Iob, 38. 33. vnanswerably refelleth that barbarous opinion which M. Chambers holdeth, that the Starres haue no force at all (vnderstand ouer mens actions) for if they had no force, God would not vainly tell vs of their Do­minion ouer the Earth. Pag. 48. Then blessed is M. Chambers, and the Cause which hee handleth, that cannot bee charged of Barbarisme; but with him the liuing God must also bee charged of vanity. It grees [...]eth mee to write these and such like blasphemies. Shall a wretched man, corrupt dust & ashes lay vanity [Page 102] to the liuing God, if the Dominion of the Starres reach not so farre, as hee in his foolish heart imagineth? These things need no resolution, but a sharp reproofe. Repent and weepe for this blasphemy, and pray to God, that these thoughts of thy heart may bee forgi­uen. This also is your pride and presumption, that you thinke that you can see farther into a Text of Iob, then all Diuines can. In that place of Iob, there is men­tion of the sweetnesse or amenity of the Pleiades, the bands of Orion, and the Dominion of the Heauens; which the best Interpreters expound thus. The sweetnesse or pleasures of the Pleiades; Delitiae; doth expresse the sweetnesse and amenity of the Spring, which those Starres bring in. The bands of Orion, the constriction of all things procured by Winter, which that Starre bringeth in. The Dominions of the Hea­uens on the Earth, is apparant in all things vegetable vpon the Earth: And is not this a great Dominion which the Heauens haue ouer the Earth, when all things spring and flourish at certaine positions of the Heauens. And againe, all things are bound vp and frozen, and as it were deaded at some other Positions of the Heauens: What worldly power is like this power? Moreouer, wee yeeld the influence of the Heauens ouer things vegetable: And when we yeeld this dominion of Heauen, wee yeeld nothing but that which is seene in Nature. If you will haue more, you must proue it. The actions of men wee deny to bee ruled by this power. And you, if you cannot get the act [...]on [...] of Men, and particular Euents to bee vnder this power; you open your mouth against the Crea­tor, and charge him with vanity.

[Page 103] But how doth the Knight proue his imagined do­minion of the Heauens? Forsooth hee maketh some shew, to proue that the Starres haue some force, which thing is not denyed. But the question betweene vs and him is not, whether the Starres haue some force or no; but wherein their force standeth. After some wandring discourse, at last hee will proue forsooth, that the influence of the Starres reach to the successe of mens actions. Now Sir, you are welcome home, proue this, and there shall bee an end. But how proue you this? thus forsooth, Pag. 49. The influence of the Starres extendeth to the successe of men, which is yet more fully confirmed, (as if before hee had proued it) whereas he hath said nothing to this point. But how is this more fully confirmed? Iudic. 4. 20. Where it is expressly testified, that the Starres fought from Heauen in their Courses and order, against Sisera.

By all which, saith the Knights Booke, it appeareth what Dominion they haue ouer all men, as ouer all o­ther creatures, either vegetable, or sensible. But if M. Chambers obiect, that this power is not vnderstood by men, why doth Moses testifie, that they were created to be signes? whose significations if they be notvnder­stood, I affirme to be Barbarous, or no signes to vs at all. M. Chambers must be content to be charged with barbarous opinions; Moses and God himselfe, and whosoeuer stand in his way, are thus charged. Sir, bee contented and quiet your selfe, and you shall sooner see the truth. The Conclusion which you would proue, is, as you tell vs, a thing naturall: wee looked for a naturall reason of a naturall Conclusion. You [Page 106] goe to proue it by Scriptures, confessing thereby, that you finde no reason in nature for it: Wee need no Scriptures to proue things naturall; they are for high­er matters then nature can reach. But you say, the Starres haue Dominion ouer the successe of mens actions, because it is said, that the Starres fought from Heauen in their order against Sisera. Did euer any Diuine expound this as you doe? And, what warrant haue you to make the word of God serue your fancy? First, you charge not onely the words, but the sense of the place: which thing either, you should not haue done; ot else, not so rashly and without considering of your owne words, charge M. Chambers of false sug­gestion, or false translating, as you doe, Pag. 47. For whereas M. Chambers citeth the words of Iob thus: Dost thou know the order of Heauen, and wilt thou reduce the course of it to the Earth? You say he doth falsly translate the words; because the Originall hath, Knowest thou the Lawes or Ordinances of Heauen; and canst thou dispose the Dominion thereof vpon the Earth? Let a man, not transported with affection, tell me the difference betweene your words and his, and giue a sensible distinction betweene. Dost thou know, and knowest thou: betweene the order of Heauen, and the Ordinances of Heauen: betweene reducing the Course of Heauen to the Earth, and dis­posing the Dominion thereof vpon the Earth? Is not one sense kept in both? But now, how the sense and words of the other place, is chopt & changed by you, let vs consider. The place which you cite, in the origi­nall, and in all Translations, certainly in all that I haue seene. The Hebrew Text hath it, the old Latine Tran­slation, [Page 105] the Septuagint, Tremelius, Leo, Iuda, the En­glish: all, I say, without exception reade the place thus. They fought from heauen; euen the Starres in their Courses fought against Sisera. The Interpre­ters of this place, old and new, vnderstand it so, that this fighting from Heauen, was by Hayle, Raine and tempest. And true it is, that the Starres by their Cos­micall rising or setting, are obserued to further raine and tempest. And thus wee haue the words of the Scripture, faithfully translated in all Translations, ex­pounded by ancient and later Expositors, shewing how the Heauens fought against Sisera. This is con­firmed by the circumstances in the Text. For in the next words, it followeth. The Riuer Kison swept them away. The inundation of the Riuer is declared, caused by the Hayle and Raine, which fell from Hea­uen, whereby the Canaanites were ouerthrowne by the tempest from Heauen, and drowned in the Riuer. Thus much is euident by the Text, and confirmed by the testimonies of all that haue touched this place. A­gainst this the Knights Book (for Alas, the Knight him­selfe may be guiltlesse of many things contained in the Booke) against this, I say, this writer taketh vpon him to translate it anew, and to expound it as him listeth. That the Starres fought from Heauen in their Courses against Sisera: and expoundeth it, that the Starres by their Influences gaue successe to the Action; against all Expositors. But if the Influence of the Starres gaue successe in this Action; wee would know, whether the Astrologer could haue giuen Prediction hereof, by looking vpon the Starres. In the destruction of Ba­bilon, you say, hee could not; and why could hee [Page 106] more in this? For in this a Miracle was shewed eui­dently. Againe, if the Starres did signifie successe; whether was it good successe or euill? For, wee know the ancient cosenage of Astrologers and Oracles. If the Astrologer should haue told the King of Canaan, that the Starres signified good successe, hee should haue but deceiued him, as many doe. Further, if this be a good reason, because the Starres did fight against Sisera, therefore the Influence of Starres reacheth to successe in mens actions: Why should not this bee as good? The Riuer Kison helped the people of God against Sisera; therefore the Influence of the Riuers doe the like: For there is no more giuen to the Starres then to the Riuer. It is true, that all the Creatures of God, are at his command, and are vsed as Instruments to doe his will in the protection of his Church, and against his enemies. What is this to Astro­logie?

But you say, why did Moses testifie, that they were created to bee signes; whose signification you affirme to be barbarous, or no signes at all to vs, if they bee not vnderstood Your meaning is, that Moses witnessing Gen. 1. 14. That whereas God in creating the Lights of Heauen, said, Let them be for signes & for seasons, and for dayes, and yeares. These words must bee so vnderstood, let the Starres bee created to signfie par­ticular Euents of warres, of troubles of the Estate of Cities, and Common-wealthes, of the death of Kings, of particular Euents of mens actions: that the Astrologers by looking vpon them may foretell those things. For if they bee made for signes, they must sig­nifie these things: And if they doe not signifie these [Page 107] things, then are they vainly created. And is not this a great meruaile, that the Diuell did not set some Astro­logers a worke to interpret Scriptures? For if you had the testimony but of some one Expositor of Scriptures, you might haue some pretence to excuse the impiety; but hauing none, what Astrologicall Sorcery hath bewitched you, to dare (without reue­rence) offer force & compulsion to Gods holy word, to make it serue your turne? All Expositors that euer I could see, with one consent expound this place so, that your Astrologicall significations, are quite shut out. August. Lib. Imperf. in Gen. ad literam. Chrysost. in Cap. 1. Gen. Homil. 6. Beda in Cap. 1. Gen. Origen in Gen. 1. Theodoret in Gen. 1. Abeuleus in Gen. 1. Lyra in Gen. 1. Glossa ordinaria. Caluin in Gen. 1. Fran­ciscus Vatabalus, not a Translator of the Bible, as you call him, but a diligent Expounder. All doe agree in this, that this signification is of things in the knowne Course of Nature, for times, yeares and seasons: And some doe expressly reiect Astrologicall supposed sig­nifications. The Knight will haue it only for Astrolo­gicall significations. Sir, doe you thinke in your in­ward iudgement, that God hath written a Booke in the Heauens, onely for the vnderstanding of Astro­logers? If this signification bee such as you would haue it, it is onely for Astrologers; for none other can open the significations that you meane, and yet you know many Doctors doubt, whether the Astro­logers can open them: This is your Diuinity. But we thinke that it may much better become a Christian Knight, to take Diuinity as the Church receiueth it, then to make it new. Some expound these signes of [Page 108] the moments of times, some of seasons & weather: of which signes all Husbandmen take vse: none as you doe. Iunius translateth the place thus: Vt sint in signa cum tempestatibus, tum diebus & annis. Which tran­slation if you receiue, so agreeing to the vse of words in the Originall, then are your significations gone. Be contented farther to consider the manner of your Ar­gument; for thus you reason. If the Starres bee not created for vaine and barbarous signes; then they signifie the successe of mens actions; but they are not created for vaine and barbarous signes; Remember your selfe, where you had this Argument; for by the like kinde of reasoning, Q. Cicero. Lib. 1. de diuinat. would maintaine the Prediction that you maintaine. Si sint dij, neque ante declarant hominibus quae futura sunt, aut non diligunt homines, aut quod euenturum sit ignorant, &c. And a little after, Sunt autem dij, signifi­cant ergo. Et si significant, nullas vias dant nobis ad significationis scientiam, frustra significarent, &c. By which manner of reasoning hee would conclude, that future Euents of mens actions, may bee foretold by Augury, & Astrologie: He would charge the Gods of vanity, vnlesse these Predictions be admitted. You are not affraid to apply the same manner of reasoning to the liuing God. But what reason haue you to leaue out the whole Argument, and conclude but for one part? For the Conclusion followeth as well for Predictions by Augury, as for these by Astrologie.

It were too long to trouble the Reader, with all the Knights errors: yet I must touch a fewe. M. Cham­bers referreth to a place of Chrisostome in Math. 2. The Knight saith, this maketh more for Astrologie then a­gainst [Page 109] it. For this is all that Chrysostome saith; Si Chri­stus secundum legem sit nat us Astrorum quomodo Astro­logiam dissoluit, fatumque destruxit? If Christ were vnder the law of the starres, how then (as the Knight translateth it) did his comming dissolue Astrologie, and destroy destiny? To which I answere, saith the Knights booke (marke now his deepe Diuinity) That hee hath so dissolued destiny and Astrologie, meaning the power of the Starres ouer vs, as hee hath dissolued death by his passion and resurrection; not that wee are in this world freed from naturall death by the death of Christ, but from the eternall damnation of death: thus farre the Knight. Hee saith that Christ hath dissolued the Dominion of the Starres, as hee dissolued the Do­minion of death. But how did Christ dissolue the Do­minion of death? Verily that his Church might bee freed from it, onely true Beleeuers, the members of his body, all other lye still vnder the dominion of death; for none are freed, but those whom hee soone maketh free. Then, where the Knight saith, Christ hath dissolued Astrologie, as the power of death ouer vs; whom doth hee meane by vs? If you meane vs, that is, all men, then it is false: For Christ hath not dissolued the dominion of death for all men, but one­ly for his Elect. If you meane by vs, vs that beleeue; then how can you make your Similitude good, ma­king sense, and keeping Diuinity? As Christ hath dis­solued the dominion of death to vs Beleeuers onely, but not to all: what will you make the [...]? will you inferre, so hath hee dissolued Astrologie to beleeuers, and all other are vnder the Dominion of the Starres, as they are vnder the dominion of death. [Page 110] If this bee a true inference, it proueth plainly, that Astrologie is a part of the power of darknesse, euill and wicked: for true Beleeuers are deliuered from all such things; and the things from which Christ hath deliuered them are such. But then you say, that except they which produce this place, and otherwise interpret it, can proue, that Christ by his comming hath taken away the naturall vertue and efficacie of the Starres, there is nothing said by Chrysostome. It were good for him that wrote this, to peruse that testi­mony which in the next Page hee citeth out of Salo­mon. The foole multiplyeth words. No man saith that Christ hath taken away the vertue of the Starres? but that mens actions depend vpon the naturall ver­tue of the Starres: But the question betweene you and vs, is, what is that naturall vertue of the Starres. You say againe if Christ came to dissolue it, hee could not dissolue that which was not: Ergo, of consequence it was, and till it bee dissolued, is effectuall. And after this manner, for want of better stuffe, you trouble your selfe and your Reader, with such as commeth in your head. Wee answere, Christ dissolued Astrologie, as hee dissolued Idolatry; yet S. Paul saith an Idoll is no­thing. Now will you Sir, chop Logicke with S. Paul, and say, if Christ came to dissolue Idols, hee came not to destroy that which was not; Ergo, by consequence it was. But the Apostle will tell you that Christ came to dissolue those things that are not in truth, but onely imagined by the superstitious conceipts of men, illu­ded by Sathan: For Christ doth not destroy the nature of the Starres, but superstition, which fancieth another power in the Starres then God hath giuen [Page 111] them: whichsuperstition is the worke of the Diuell, and therefore Christ dissolueth it, as Saint Iohn saith. For this purpose appeared the Sonne of God, that hee might dissolue the works of the Diuell.

If the Starres haue such power ouer the actions of men, then was your booke written vnder an vnfortu­nate Starre: For as it is commonly said, hee casteth euill, that casting all day, casteth not one good chance; So may it well bee said, hee writeth badly, that wri­ting so long a Booke, writeth not one sound sentence: Such is your Booke, alwayes like it selfe. And I sup­pose it were hard to cull out one sentence through the whole Booke, that a man can iustifie, who is resolued to maintaine nothing but truth.

After your manner you preach thus: Pag. 393. I would know of him where hee learned this Diuinity, that God hauing expressly forbidden any thing, as is were against his reuealed will (as hee affirmeth Astro­logie) neuerthelesse concurres to the effecting of that, which shall aduance the credit of an vnlawfull pra­ctises, to the derogating of his owne glory: this is flat repugnant to all Diuinity. And a little after, That God doth not worke by such means as himselfe pro­hibiteth: If need were, I could amplifie by sundry rea­sons and authorities.

Because I am loth to enter into such a large Theolo­gicall Discourse, as this question which here you moue requireth: I will briefly answere. Sir, did you euer care to vnderstand what were those famous Contro­uersies, which that blessed Father S. Augustine held against the Pelagians? It seemeth not. And what doe the knowledge of these things belong to a Knight? [Page 112] No more doth it belong to a Knight to moue such deepe questions, and peremptorily toconclude in Di­uinity; these waters bee too deepe for him to wade in. Briefly know thus much: That God doth worke in many things against his reuealed will. His reuealed will was to Abraham, that Isaac should bee offered in a Sacrifice; yet God wrought against it. Nay the case may bee so, that the will of God and the will of man may bee contrary one to the other; and yet both good. The Father lyeth vpon his death-bed; the Sonnes will and desire is that the Father should liue, and this desire of the Sonne is agreeable to Gods re­uealed will; for that reuealed will containeth what wee ought to doe: But Gods secret will is contrary to this desire of the Sonne, and the Father dyeth, will this Gentleman accuse God, because hee concurreth to some effects against his reuealed will? When Adul­terie is committed and Bastards begotten, it is against the reuealed will of God: But hee that shall affirme that God hath no will, nor power, nor part in gene­gation, shall take away part of his power, and giue it to some other thing, and so make moe Gods. The peo­ple and principall of Israell conspired to put Christ to death; this was an vnlawfull action: Now hee that shall say, that the hand and Counsell of God did not concurre in this action, shall denye the plaine Scrip­ture. Act. 4. 27. Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israell gathered themselues to­gether to doe whatsoeuer thy hand and counsell had determined before to bee done. Neither doth it fol­low hereby, that God doth aduance the credit of an vnlawfull practise, to the derogation of his glory: for [Page 113] God ordereth all things in nature, himselfe being pure from sinne; and punisheth all sinners, puni­shing both Adulterers and Astrologers: But when (I say) that God ordereth all things in nature, this doth not teach Astrologicall Predictions, which are out of the compasse of nature.

No better is that Theologie which hee vttereth Pag. 480. There is no place in Scripture in which blas­phemy is named, but doth describe it to be a verball iniury vttered in detestation of God. Whence hee seeketh to proue, that except it bee euill speaking of God himselfe, it is no blasphemy. His knowledge and sense in these things, whereof hee is bold to speake, is rather to bee pittied, then refuted. I tell you Sir, that you doe nothing throughout your Booke but blaspheme, when you speake euill of M. Chambers; though then your intent is not to offer a verball iniury to God. Yet when you speake euill of such, as for conscience, maintaine Gods truth, and therefore speake euill of them, because they maintaine the truth, then you blaspheme. This is true; and if you re­pent not of this sinne, you will finde it to bee true another day: But therefore wee labour to doe this seruice, both to the Truth and you; that when the knowledge of your sinne is brought to your sight, you may the sooner finde the way to repentance. Now, that blasphemy is not as you say, onely a ver­ball iniury vttered in detestation of God, and so ta­ken in euery Scripture where it is named; but that it is also against the truth of God, and against the Saints that maintaine the truth; may appeare out of these places and many moe. Act. 14. 45. When [Page 114] the Iewes saw the people, they were full of enuy, and spake against those things that were spoken of Paul [...], that is, contradicting and blaspheming. Act. 18. 6. When they resisted & blasphemed, he shooke his rayment. S. Paul speaking of himselfe, and other his fel­low Apostles, saith, Rom. 3. 8. We are blasphemed, And 1. Cor. 4. 13. Being blasphemed, we pray. And 1. Cor. 10. 30. For if I through Gods benefit bee partaker, why am I blasphemed for that, wherefore I giue thanks. To omit many places: they are also said to blaspheme, who dis­semble in hypocrisie, making shew of an holy Profes­sion, themselues being vnholy. Apoc. 2 [...]9. I know the blasphemy of them, which say they are Iewes & are not, but are the Synagogue of Sathan. Which place [...] I note the rather, because the Knight out of his wor [...]ed confi­dence, doth boldly giue it out, that there is not one place of Scripture, where blasphemy is named; but it doth describe it to be a verbal iniury vttered in detesta tion of God. If the places of Scripture were numbred, there will be more found against this, then for it. But his aduantage is, he is no professed Diuine, & therfore may erre in these points, and we must pardon the im­perfections of a Knight in Diuinity. Which kinde of pleading, as I would neuer deny to a man that did de­scry a sound minde, or were compelled to write; so if our Knight looke for the same fauour; we may iustly answere him, as Cato answered A. Posthumius Albinus, who being Cos. wrote some Romane Stories in Greeke, desiring all men to beare with his imperfecti­ons: Because, quoth he, I am a Romane, and therefore of me the exact knowledge of the Greek tongue is not to bee required. But Cato told him that this was but [Page 115] trifling, to intreat pardon, when he might haue beene without fault. For who compelled him to doe that for which hee thought fit to craue pardon; so may we say to the Knight, by silence hee might haue beene blamelesse: By writing so vnskilfully of vnknowne tihngs, vpon hope of pardon; because his place requireth not such exact skill in Diuinity, and of by vpholding a corrupt cause, hee hath shut himselfe from the benefite of that fauour, which otherwise he might looke for. And if ignorance bee to bee excused in a Christian Knight, I should rather excuse igno­rance in Astrologie, then in Diuinity.

But must wee pardon this also which followeth? Where M. Chambers had found fault with one, for ascribing so much to numbers t [...]t therby he thought to attain [...] [...] mystery of hi [...] [...]tion, and to haue his name registred in the [...] God. The Knight de­fending that irreligious speech, writeth thus; Pag. [...]19. It [...] to him that is not blind by malice, [...]at hee intendeth nothing in that Hyperbolicall and excessiue speech; but such a sequestration of our thoughts from all materiall things, as thereby wee may the more freely contemplate the mystery of the Trinity in Vnity; vntill through our whole conuersion to the same, wee come to bee registred in the num­ber of those that are sealed to saluation. Thus farre the Knight. If any man contradict this Gentleman, he is presently charged to be blinded with malice: And yet, M. Chambers did not intend to contradict him, but opened an irreligious speech of another. But the Knight will take the defence of all vpon him. It were to bee wished, that hee would deale more aduisedly, [Page 116] and not take vpon him the defence of euery foolish Astrologer. Wee hope vpon better aduice, hee will thinke least malice in such as deale most plainly with him. And truely, if wee should suffer such prophane speeches to passe without reprehension, it were enough to spill him. Wee reproue that prophane speech: your Defence makes the speech no better, but your selfe worse, then wee tooke you. For you tell vs, that by that Hyperbolicall and excessiue speech, hee intendeth nothing, but such a sequestration of our thoughts from all materiall things, as thereby we may more freely contemplate the mystery of the Trinity in Vnity; vntill through our whole conuersion to the same, wee come to bee registred and sealed to saluati­on. Some of your Astrologers haue told vs, of great power of some names of God abused, and of some words spoken without vnderstanding. They tell vs also, of the Language that the Angels vse among them selues; these bee things which wee vnderstand no [...] therein they may goe further then wee poore soules can reach them. But when they tell vs, how by num­bers wee may bee sealed to saluation; this thing is such, wherein wee may iudge of their vnderstanding. For in these things we haue the rule of the Scripture: And if an Astrologer from the Starres, or an Angell from Heauen, preach vnto vs any other thing concer­ning our sealing to saluation, then that is deliuered in the Gospell, wee are warned to hold him Anathema. You say, wee may know our names registred in Hea­uen, and sealed to saluation by numbers, or by seque­stration of our thoughts from all materials. Consider the euill sauour of this extrauagant speech. 1. This [Page 117] which you say, is no Doctrine of faith; not contained in the Scriptures, and therefore it containeth not our sealing to Saluation; because all things necessary to our Saluation, are, as S. Augustine truly saith: Aperte in Scripturis posita. 2. We say this sequestration of our thoughts from Materialls, is neither Diuinity, nor true Philosophy; for what doe you meane by it? If you meane Mathematicall abstractions which consider magnitude and number, without matter; then is it impious in Diuinity, to say, that such a sequestration can bring to vs any Mystery of Saluation: And ab­surd amongst Philosophers, who put not mans felicity in that. If you meane any other thing, then you depart from your friends purpose, who speaketh of Mathe­maticall numbers. 3. Where you say, we may there­by contemplate the Mystery, &c. You erre in setting the knowledge of a beleeuer in Contemplation; For our knowledge is in the heart, working in loue, and not in the braine an idle contemplation. 4. Where you say, by this we may contemplate the Trinity in Vnity: this is blasphemy to say or to thinke, that the know­ledge of this holy Mystery, can bee apprehended by numbers, or by such meanes as you describe. 5. It is against Diuinity, admitting it were spoken in good words; for a man is not taught to know his saluation by looking vpon the Mystery of the Trinity; but by looking into the Mystery of Christ his Incarnation, and Passion, wherein hee findeth redemption; for heerein hee may finde himselfe; in the Mystery of the Trinity no man can see or find himselfe. 6. Where you by our conuersion to the Mystery, &c. these bee idle words, not vnderstood by him that vttered them. [Page 118] For, true it is, by our Conuersion to God, we come to know our selues to be Gods children; but this conuer­sion to the Mystery is vnknowne in Diuinity. 7. Our conuersion to God, is not either by contemplation of numbers, or by abstraction of our thoughts from Materialls, but by saith and repentance. 8. Where you say, by our conuersion to the same, wee come to bee registred in the Booke of Life; vnderstanding it the best way, it containeth false Doctrine: For our conuersion is not a cause of registring our names in Gods Booke; but the contrary is true: Wee are not registred by our Conuersion; but wee are conuerted because wee were registred. It dependeth not vpon our Conuersion; but our Conuersion dependeth vpon it. 9. Where you say, wee come to bee registred; as if something that wee doe may cause or procure this registring, it is false Diuinity; for that dependeth not vpon any thing which wee doe. 10. Where you say, registred in the number of those that are sealed: this is a confounding of registring and sealing, which are things distinct. For, wee are registred or Predesti­nated not by faith, but vnto faith; wee are sealed by faith after our effectuall calling: as the Apostle teach­eth, Ephes. 1. 13. In whom after that you beleeued you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. 11. The manner of your speech doth breath out Pelagianisme: For you say, we may by sequestration of our thoughts come to bee registred, &c. Doe you not attribute this power to Man, that by the vse of his naturall fa­culties, hee may purchase this registring as you call it? For by naturall meanes, wee may contemplate num­bers, by naturall meanes, wee may sequester our [Page 119] thoughts from all things materiall. If by this meanes wee may come to be registred, as you say, in the num­ber of those that are sealed to Saluation: may we not then by naturall meanes obtaine that grace? And do you know Sir, how to distinguish this Doctrine from the Doctrine of Pelagius? 12. Last of all, you ruune into that damned error, which Pigghius with some other few of late, raked vp out of Hell: That men may predestinate themselues when they please. For when you say, Men may by sequestration of their thoughts from Materialles come to bee Registred in Gods Booke: If you meane that which the Scripture calleth the Booke of Life, that is nothing else but Gods eternall purpose of Predestination, then you tel vs, That men may by your deuice Predestinate them­selues.

Howsoeuer it is, you haue played the part of a bad Interpreter, whilest you desirous to expound ano­ther mans wordes, fall into so many Errours, Igno­rances, Absurdities, Impieties, Blasphemies, in the compasse of so few Words.

This may teach you (if you bee Wise) not to play the wanton with holy Scriptures: not to speake of God, and his holy Mysteries with a prophane heart: For I must bee plaine with you; if your heart were Sanctified, you would not speake in this sort. Giue your heart to God, and all this will be mended. Be­fore that time, meddle with these Mysteries. For our God is a consuming Fire, and will bee Sanctified in them that come neere him.

I will cease to trouble the Knight any further, ex­horting him to abandon that blinde Studie, which [Page 120] hath no place in Nature, but onely in the superstiti­ous conceipts of men; and so iudged as well by Hea­then Philosophers, as by the learned of the Church. Before we part, I commend vnto him the reading of Cicero, that if he heare not vs, hee may be reprooued out of the mouth of an Heathen man. Nam vt vere loquamur, superstitio fusa per gentes, oppressit omnium fere animos, atque hominum imbecillitatem occupauit: Lib. 2. de diuin Quod et ijs libris dictum est, qui sunt de Natura Deo­rum, & hac disputatione id maxime egimus. Multum enim & nobis ipsis & nostris profuturi videbamur, fi eam funditus sustulissemus. Nec vero (id enim diligenter intelligi volo) superstitione tollenda Religio tollitur. Nam & maiorum instituta tueri sacris ceremonijs retinendis, sapientis est: et esse praestantem aliquam aeternam (que) Na­turam, & eam suscipiendam admirandam (que) hominum generi, pulchritudo mundi, ordo (que) rerum coelestium cogit confiteri. Quamobrem vt Religio propaganda etiam est, quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae: sic superstitionis stirpes omnes eijciendaesunt: Instat enim & vrget, & quocun (que) te verteris persequitur. Siue tu vatem, siue tu omen au [...]ris, siue immolaris, siue auem aspexeris, si Chaldaeum, si Aruspicem videris, si fulserit, si tonitruit, si factum aliquid erit de Coelo, si ostenti simile natum, fa­ctumue quippiam: quorum necesse est plerum (que) aliquid eueniat: vt nunquam liceat quieta mente consistere. Out of which Testimony, from the mouth of a Naturall man, it may please the Christian Knight to consider, that the Naturall man espyed thus much in Predicti­ons, that they who yeelded to them, were in their weakenesse oppressed with this strong superstition, as they were also with other of the like sort. All which [Page 121] haue no place in Nature, nor in Religion, that as a pernitious conceite, it is with diligence to bee rooted out of mens hearts; that wheresoere this superstiti­on is once recoyued, men are driuen, and as it were, haunted with Furies, that they can haue no quiet rest. This man shall rise a Witnesse against all such Astro­logers, as now in the light of the Word, follow that Studie, so famously conuinced by the Light of Na­ture.

To conclude therefore, we haue heard the Princi­ples of Astrologers examined: We haue found, that they abhorre from the knowledge of the Naturall man, and from all good Learning. This hath beene confirmed by the testimonies of Philosophers, of Di­uines, and by the confession of Astrologers them­selues. What then remaineth, but the sentence of some Noble Iudge, that may giue iudgement, the cause being opened. But as heere we seeke not an or­dinary iudge, so wee haue found one, a most Noble, Learned, and Iudicious Prince, our gracious Soue­raigne, his most excellent Maiesty: with whose iust Iudgement, let this plea be shut vp without Appella­tion, or any further contradiction. His iudgement is this. As there are two sorts of Folkes that may bee inticed to this Art, to wit, Learned or vn-learned: so Damonologie, L. 1. cap. 3. is there two meanes, which are the first stirrers vp, and Feeders of their Curiosity, thereby to make them to giue themselues ouer to the same. Which two meanes I call the Diuels Schoole, and his Rudiments. The Learned haue their Curiosity wakened vp, and fedde by that which I call his Schoole. This is the Astro­logie [Page 122] Iudiciarie: For diuers men hauing attained to a great perfection in Learning, and yet remaine ouer­bare (alas) of the spirit of Regeneration, and the fruits thereof: finding all naturall things common, as well to the stupid Pedants as vnto them, they assay to vindicate vnto them a greater name, by not onely knowing the course of things Heauenly, but likewise to climbe to the knowledge of things to come there­by: which at the first face appearing lawfull vnto them, in respect the ground thereof seemeth to pro­ceede of Naturall causes onely: they are so allured thereby, that finding their practise to prooue true in sundry things, they studie to know the cause thereof. And so mounting from degree to degree, vppon the slippery and vncertaine scale of Curiositie, they are at last inticed, that where lawfull Artes or Sciences fayles, to satisfie theyr restlesse mindes, euen to seeke to that blacke and vnlawfull Science of Magicke. Where finding at the first, that such diuers formes of Circles, and Coniurations, rightly ioyned thereun­to, will rayse such diuers formes of spirites, to re­solue them their Doubts: and attributing the doing, to the power inseparably tyed, or inherent in the Circles, and many wordes of GOD, confusedly wrapped, they blindely glory in themselues, as if they had by their quickenesse of ingeny, made a con­quest of Plutoes Dominion, and were become Em­perours in the Stygian Habitacles. Where, in the meane time (miserable Wretches) they are become in very deede, Bondslaues to their Mortall Enemie: And their knowledge, for all that they presume there­of, [Page 123] is nothing increased, except in knowing euill, and the horrours of Hell for the punishment thereof, as Adam was, for eating of the forbidden Tree. This iudgement is according to right, and wee rest in it.

SANCTVS EST DOMINVS IN OPERIBVS SVIS.