The Survey of Will. Ramsey's 1. Section of his 1. Chapter.
The Definition of Astrology. W. R. his 1. Section

THat the Reader may the better judge of the controversie between Doctour Homes and my self, I think best here before I enter upon any part of his discourse, to set down what this art of Judiciall Astrology is, which I undertake to defend. Ptolomy lib. 1. cap. 1. Of his Quadripartite, defines it thus, Astrology is that art (joyning it with A­stronomy, as making no difference between them, though M. Homes and other adversaries thereunto do) which teacheth by the motions, Configurations and Influences of the Signs, Stars and Celestiall Planets, to judge and prognosticate of the naturall effects and mutations to come, in the Elements and inferiour and Elementary bodies. And who so takes Astrologie to be any other thing, is altoge­ther ignorant of the Art, or guilty of inveterate malice in traducing so noble and admirable a science, esteemed and allowed of in all ages, and that in great reverence and honour, as well as the Students thereof (as in its due place shall be made to appear) by the chiefest and no­blest of the people. Though Doctour Homes would fain persuade the vulgar and ignorant sort of people that it is a Doctrine of Devils, and unlawfull, which shall in its due place be made to appear (as also the rest of his weak arguments and cavils,) that they are meerly ma­licious, ignorant, weak, and inconsistent with reason or the thing in question; which that he may not be igno­rant of, as also for the better understanding of the Rea­der, [Page 14]I do here more plainly rehearse by way of Quere; viz.

First, whether Astrology, or foretelling, or Progno­sticating by the Stars, be a lawfull Art, free from all Dia­bolicall practises and devices.

Secondly, Whether Astrology may not lawfully be studied and practised, by the best of Gods people, with­out offence in the least, either to the law of God, or man (if they concurre with the rules of the Scripture) which is the full matter in controversie, and to be in this follow­ing discourse discussed, handled and cleared; and if so, then certainly the malicious ignorant condemners of this Noble and most profitable Art studied by mortals, (as in its due place shall appear) ought to be severely punished, and that with exemplary infliction, that posterity may take warning how they condemn what they are ignorant of; and likewise be encouraged to apply their minds to the contemplation and knowledge of all Arts and Sciences, especially this most heavenly and divine study of Astro­logy, or the language of the Stars.

Now you have heard the distinction of Astrology the subject intended, by it you may not onely see the causes which concurre to the constitution of the nature of the Art, but also the finall cause, whereunto all the precepts of the Art are to be referred; seeing then the knowledge of the effects of the Stars in the Elements and their bo­dies, dependeth of the motions, Configurations, and Influences of the Celestiall bodies, Astronomy or Astro­logy (for by the learned, there is made no distinction be­tween them as severall Arts, but generally conclude them (as indeed they are) one and the same Art) is divided into two parts, the first speculative or theoricall, which con­sisteth in the knowledge of the heavenly motions; the other part is that which consisteth in the effects and pro­perties of the former motions, and without this (viz. A­strology) the other is meerly vain and of no use, or to none [Page 15]or little purpose; the former, viz. Astronomy furnisheth the Astrologer with matter and stuff wherein to exercise himself; the other, viz. Astrologie disposeth the matter, and accordingly judgeth as the case doth require, and therefore to be esteemed the more noble part of this Science.

Thus VV. Ramsey.

SURVEY. Behold here VV. R. at the very first, begins his Pamphlet with 3 gross UNTRUTHS. For, If Will. Ramsey begins with 3. great un­truths, in his en­trance, how shal we be­lieve him in the rest of his Pam­phlet [...] 1. there is no such definition as he affirms, nor any thing in form of a definition, in relation to Astrologie in that place of Ptolomy, as his eyes can witness, who of purpose read the Preface and first Chapter once and again in two seve­rall Editions. 2. Ptolomy doth there (contrary to VVilliam Ramsey's assertion) put a wide difference be­tween Astronomy, and Astrologie. For he begins that his Book thus: There are two things, O Syrus, speciall and most chief, by which are made Astrological Predicti­ons. ONE, which is first in order and power, where­by we apprehend at all times the motions of the Sun and Moon and other Starrs, and their postures amongst them­selves, or towards the Earth. The OTHER is that, whereby we consider by the natural qualities of the Starrs the changes that are wrought in Bodies that are congruous to those postures. And of these doctrines, the FORMER hath its proper Art, albeit the end of the SECOND be not added unto it, &c.

In which words most evidently, Ptolomy distinguish­eth Astronomy from Astrologie of the nearest kinde, viz. Natural; in so much that he saith, Astronomy is a per­fect Art without that Astrologie. Yea, and (as it follows there,) we have this into the bargain, that Ptolomy doth sundry wayes, and with severall reasons in that Treatise shew the uncertainty and imperfection of Astrologie; but cries up the certainty and perfection of Astronomy. 3. The Learned (contrary to VV. R. false assertion) do [Page 16]make a distinction between Astronomy and Judiciall Astrology, as severall Arts. For they thus distinguish. OU­RANOSCOPIE, or URANOLOGIE, or OURANOGRA­PHIE (the genus) is either Astronomy or Astrology, Alsted. Eneycl. l. 11. p. 1. c. 1. p. 4. c. 1. (the species.) Astronomy is concerning the motion and measure of the Stars. Astrologie handles of the effects of the Stars; called also Prognosticall, or Judiciall Astrologie.

Adde to these three untruths, the impertinencies or equivocations of W. R. in this his 1. Section; who having defined Naturall Astrology, he puts quercs of the law­full study of, and Prognosticating by Astrologie. By which if means Naturall; he is extremely imperti­nent. For the Doctour allows it (as I have shewed) onely he would have it called by another name, as a part of another Science. If he means Judiciall; then he plainly equivocates, defining one kind, but prosecutes an­other.

Lastly, VV. R. is what he was at first, an avoucher of untruths, so he began, and so he concludes the Section; saying, That Astronomy is meerly vain, and of no use without Astrologie: Which is most false as his own Pto­lomy witnessed afore; and renowned Keckerman is his second; who wrote a famous System of Astronomy, de­claring the excellent use thereof, without handling of any Astrologie at all: w ^ch Astronomy for me to commend here, by the enumeration of its excellencies in particular were to carry water to the sea; or hold a candle to the Sun. I therefore leave all pure Astronomers, Chronologers, Geo­graphers, Navigatours, &c. to decry the false Assertion of VV. R.

W. R. his SECT. II. In answer to some cavils of M. Homes his, wherein he denyeth Astrology to be warranted by Scri­pture, proved to be erroneous and false.

Having thus painted forth the matter and form of the [Page 17]thing intended to be insisted on, I come now to shew you what M. Homes his utmost power and malice against it is: and first his blind zeal begins to shew it self, in per­suading the Reader it is condemned by the Scripture, and no wise thereby tolerated; his words are, It is no where allowed in the Scripture, under the notion of Astrology, but every where spoken against as we shall see afterward: and all that he can shew us and make us see, is but six places of Scripture, A which is far from being worthy of the Title of a generall condemnation, when there is none but knows the extent of the Scripture to consist of many half dozen Chapters, nay of Books, Ergo, not every where condemned; and those places neither, but imagi­ned by him to condemn Astrology, when indeed they serve no whit at all for his purpose, as in its due place shall be made appear. But by the way, B is it every where condemned? doth not the King and Prophet David say, The heavens declare the glory of God, Psal. 19.1? and in another place, The language of the stars, (which is the signification of the word Astrology [...] the lan­guage of the stars; and is it not allowed any where in Scripture under the notion of Astrology?) Is heard over all the earth, or the uttermost parts thereof, Psal. 19.3? as if he had said, there is no part free from the power of their influences; for their power hath a generall extent o­ver all Nations, Kingdoms, Countreys, Provinces, and Languages. I pray, who can restrain the sweet influences of the Pleiades? Job 38.31. And did not the stars in their courses fight against Sisera? Judg. 5.20. One of these places had been enough to have convinced him of great wickednesse, in denying the Scripture doth any where allow of Astrology; for if he never read these places, then he is wicked, and no lesse then wilfully wic­ked, to conclude what he understands not; if he hath per­used them, then most malicious to speak against truth; I may even as well say diabolically wicked, and that he [Page 18]teacheth rather the Doctrine of Devils, for the Devils Doctrine is falshood; and if he preacheth such gross lyes as these, he is the Devils Preacher, and not Astrologers: neither is Astrology a Doctrine of Devils (as shall he made clear to him before the closure of my Discourse) as he in his 160. page line 21. is pleased to terme it. So then, now I hope the Reader doth clearly see, these his first words of his Discourse, to be meerly envious, slan­derous, and malicious, or (at the best) most ignorant; for it will puzzle all his brains, and M. Raunces, nay and all that dare or will take their parts, to make any one of those passages of Scripture (he brings to confute or con­demn Astrology) to serve in the least for his turn, as in its due place shall be cleared.

Then saith M. Homes, As other things that are natu­ral, which are brought to countenance Astrology, are not tolerated by the Encyclopaedia, and general order and Seats of all Arts and Sciences within their own Spheres, to be accounted Astrology. For instance, First, (saith he) Some urge that we know the Tides of the Sea, by the state of ☽, and Tempests by other Stars. which I am confident M. Homes cannot deny, but he will render himself more ridiculous then already, which he endeavours to do thus; These and of the like nature, are properly handled in that part of natural Philosophy, which we call Meteorology; and so likewise are all fiery Meteors, Comets, &c. and so by consequence are made an integrall part of Physicks: for if you will say, because of their external efficient cause. viz. the Starrs, they are to be handled as a part of Astrology, by the same reason there will be left no such Science as natural Philosophy, because all inferiour Bo­dies below the Moon (as saith the great Philosopher Ari­stotle) depend upon the superiour Celestial bodies of the Heavens. In all which he doth but shew his great mistake in the ground of Astrology, and his envie thereto; for how can M. Homes prove this is a meer urging, or an opi­nion [Page 19]of some, that the ☽ is the cause of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea; or that it is rather to be attributed to that part of natural Philosophy, which is called Meteo­rologie, and so consequently to be a part of Physicks; when all the World knows, that hath any experience or understanding in Astrology, that he is as far from hitting the mark, as if he had mist the Butt.

Wherefore for his better instruction, (for I see he is not so well verst in Astrology as he pretendeth, or as one that is to condemn it should be) I will make it appear to him, that the ☽ is the absolute cause of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea; and this is the opinion of all or most knowing and learned Writers, both in this Art and other Sciences; and not onely so, but it is so clear to all the Learned, that his great Friend Picus Mirandula, which was a stronger Champion (or at least more knowing in the Art then he) against Astrology, doth confess the ☽ to be the positive and sole cause thereof.

And thus, if he have any understanding in the Art (as by his writing, I must confess (as I now but said) I see none) let him take the true time of the Seas flowing first, and then observe in what part of Heaven the ☽ is acci­dentally placed by her violent diurn motion, and he shall finde it to flow till she come to an absolute □ aspect of the place she was in at the first beginning to flow; and then will continue ebbing till she come to the direct ☍ or opposite place in the Heavens &c. Still let him observe exactly when she comes to the □ or ☍ of the place of her first beginning, and he shall never err in this point. This is sufficiently well known to the learned Practitioners, and the sons of Art: yet note that ☉ and other Starrs may hasten, hinder, and alter the ☽ influence, as he may see at ☌ and ☍ of ☉, or the Change and Full; in Spring-tides, and Neap-tides, at quarters and half-quarters. I would he had not been ignorant of this, and then perhaps, (this being the beginning of his discourse) he had not undertook [Page 20]to lay Pen to Paper against this most heavenly, most ad­mirable, and most contemplative, delectable Study and Science of the Stars and Celestial Bodies. So by this time he clearly sees how inconsiderate and rash this his sophistical and fase argument is.

Secondly, saith M. Homes, Others say that by Astrolo­gie we know Eclipses and Changes of the Moon; but we say Astronomy doth challenge this as belonging to it, &c. My answer is, that I say, (what ever he telleth me others may or do say) he cannot but know that those that say so are not versed therein, and are ignorant.

And thirdly, saith he, If any one urge that Astrolo­gie handles of the Qualities and Effects of the Stars, we reply, that so doth Astronomy, of their Qualities, name­ly, of their light and colour, and natural Philosophy of their Effects, in watery, aiery, and fiery Meteors: as much as to say, Astrology is no Science at all, but will give its property to another Study; if this be not slander­ous and malicious, let the weakest in the world judge: he might as well then all this while have called it, Natural Philosophy, as Astrologie. And then he tels us, if we admit of the Title Alsted gives to Astrologie, viz. A­strologia planetaria, or Planetary Astrology, and of Doctor VVillets Titles, viz. Astromancy & Genethliaca; then saith he for conclusion by all observe, that there is no place left for Astrologie: by which he clearly renders himself the most malicious of all wretches, to deny that Art, which above 298. of the most wise of all Ages have studied and practised (their names you shall have hereafter in its place;) both before and since Christs time; whose antiquity may be derived from our first fa­ther Adam: maintained by Princes and Kings; reveren­ced by that greatest of Worthies, Alexander the Great; and not condemned by any of the Fathers; or the pra­ctice thereof prohibited by the Church, farther then that they should not hereby be drawn from the study of Di­vinity, [Page 21]as you shall see by and by. M. Homes me thinks being a wise man, should not write against, (and that in such a zealous manner) a thing which is not in rerum na­tura, or in posse, as in his first Section of his tenth Cha­pter, he studies to make Astrologie appear; to what purpose then are all his arguments against Astrologie, when he will not admit of any such thing in the world? what doth he write against then? and why doth he so much condemn the students thereof? Because he knows not the validity thereof; because he knows not the rules and fundamentals thereof; because indeed he is altogether ignorant of the same; and let him not be an­gry I plainly tell him so, (plain dealing is best among friends) for if he did, he would have been so far from writing or speaking against it, that he would have been more furious and hot with any one should have con­demned it. then I am with him. Railers are cal­led Dia­bolicall, yea De­vils. 1 Tim. 3.11. 2 Tim. 3.3. Tim. 2 3. as we shewed afore.

SURVEY. One would wonder to hear VV. Ramsey thus rail, and call the Doctour diabolicall, &c. when as the Doctour in his Treatise, gave no mans person the least ill word. Therefore whether of the twain appears to be more diabolicall, let the Reader judge. And 'tis as great a wonder to see the Doctours Treatise of Astrology so orderly digested into Sections, and VVilliam Ramsey to so leap from the one to the other, as if he were confound­ed in his apprehension; or else that he would fain rather coosen the Reader, then clear the controversie. But to the matter.

To that marked with (A) we say, It is enough to make it a speech of truth, and a true confutation of Astro­logie; that wheresoever the Scriptures mention Astrolo­gie, there the Scriptures also disallow it: which they dis­allow in more then six places of Scripture, or seven, as the Doctour hath observed (if VVilliam reckons right) al­though the Doctour reduced them all to seven heads.

To that at the letter (B) it is so weak a proof of a [Page 22]Scripture allowance of Astrology, that it is not worthy the answering; onely I am willing to make W. Ramsey see it, if I can. For the Heavens declare the glory of God (as 'tis presently there expounded) as they are Gods Handy-work. But the inference of William; The Hea­vens declare Gods glory, therefore Astrology is lawfull, is so ridiculous as that with the bare naming of it, it is confuted. For THE LANGƲAGE OF THE STARS which William saith, is in another place, I am sure is IN NO PLACE OF CANONICAL SCRIPTƲRE. For Williams Exposition on Psal. 19.3. it must give place to the Apostles, Rom. 10.18. viz. of Preaching the Gospel, not of Astrology. For the Pleiades in Job; they are answered after. The fighting of the Stars against Sisera, Jud. 5.20. Junius ex­pounds to be the Windes, Rains, Hails, Tempests, &c. caused by the heavenly Bodies, to the discomfiting and routing Sisera's Army (compare Josh. 10.11. Exod. 9.23.) which makes nothing for Judicial Astrologie. Thus with a touch it appears, that William Ramsey is deceived in his conclusion to the said proofs, that one of them were enough to convince, &c. For, nor one, nor all, nor an hun­dred such, are in any shew sufficient to convince a pru­dent man of the lawfulness of Judicial Astrologie. And therefore his hope (as he presently adds) that by them the Reader doth clearly see that the Doctours words were meerly envious, &c. is Williams meer dream.

To that of W. Ramsey marked with (C) and from thence to the end of this Section, we need onely say thus. That William is toyling at the Labour in vain, to shew the Doctour that the Moon is the cause of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea; who knew it afore ever William did, and it is granted by him in his Demonologie, (if William will see) onely he saith, other Sciences shew that, with­out the help of Judicial Astrologie.

And to that audaciousness of William Ramsey daring to say in the face of all learned men (that shall see his Pamphlet) That those that say we know Eclipses, and Changes of the Moon by Astronomy, A most grosse bold un­truth of W. R. a­bout the funda­mentals of Astro­nomy. as challenging that to belong to it, are NOT VERSED THEREIN, and are IGNORANT, &c. I will onely say, that it shews such ignorance, or worse in W. Ramsey, as for civilities sake I will not call it by its true name. Doth not famous Keckerman in his System of Astronomy, as an integrall part of the body of Astronomy handle the Eclipses of the Sun, in his Syst. Astron. lib. 1. cap. 13. very large­ly? And doth he not likewise of the Eclipses and Chan­ges of the Moon, in the same Book, 1. cap. 14. more largely? And doth not the renowned Astronomer Al­sted do the same in his System of Astronomy, very large­ly; ƲRANOSCOP. lib. 11. par. 2. cap. 5. cap. 12. cap. 13. cap. 14. with Diagrams, Figures, Pictures to present them to the eye, as well as with Theorems to present them to the ear? For how possibly can an Astronomer do his work, to handle of the measures and motions of the Starrs (which is of the definition, and so of the essence of Astronomy) and not handle of the Eclipses and chan­ged postures and Aspects of the Planets, &c.

For W. Ramsey and others quoting of Sir Christopher Heyden, we shall after in a more convenient place in our Survey, shew all men that will peruse this Survey, how they and Sir Christopher, are grossly mistaken.

I need add no more but the reprinting of the Do­ctours 1. Section of Astrologie word for word, as a full answer to the last part of this Section of W. R. from (C) to the end; and it will clear and confirm any of the things by me spoken afore; which is to a syllable (if the Printer fail not) as it here followeth.

W.R. his SECT. III. Proving Astrologie to be an Art.

ARistotle, lib. 2. cap. 2. Phys. affirmeth that Astro­logy is Scientiamedia, a Science between the Ma­thematicks and natural Philosophy, for the Principles are meerly Mathematical, and in practice are applyed to sensible matter as the Physical subject thereof: moreover he ranks it also amongst the Liberal Sciences; and annex­eth it to Philosophy in such a sort, that he seemeth indiffe­rent to use the name of a Philosopher and an Astrologer for the same. So likewise Averroës in his Commentary on the 12. of the Metaphysicks, text 44. speaking con­cerning the power of the heavenly bodies, in the procreati­on and conservation of all worldly things, and in their mutual consent, and assisting one another in their mutual operations, he resembleth them to good Governours in a Common-wealth, that joyntly concur in one unanimous consent for ordering the same: His words are, Dispositio in juvamento corporum coelestium ad invicem in creando en­tia, quae sunt hîc, & conservando ea, est sicut dispositio re­gentium bonorum, qui juvant se adinvicem in regendo bo­nam eivitatem. And in his Commentary on the second Book of Physicks, his second Chapter, sheweth that natu­ral Philosophy and Astrology have one and the same sub­ject, and yet are distinguished by a divers consideration. And in the third of the Metaph. Comment. 7. he affirmeth the knowledge of the Starrs to be a Mathematical Art; and so it hath ever in all ages by the most learned Philoso­phers been esteemed. I believe M. Homes nor no man else that knoweth any thing, will deny that it is one of the Li­beral Sciences, & if he will condemn it as none, he must be content to lose one of them, which were to render himself [Page 27]the eighth wise man; what Science I pray will he place in the room of it, since he thus indeavours to excommuni­cate it, for he tels us it is as meer a phansie as Palmestry? and yet Galen (one of his learned that he brings to con­demn Astrology with the word Sophisticum, that it is Sophisticall, page. 115. l. 11.) as Physitians them­selves report, teacheth to know the temperature of the body by the palm of the hand; and his reason is, because the mind commonly followeth the constitution of the bo­dy; thus you may see how he carpeth and catcheth at any thing that he thinks will make in the least, for his turn; as also of Alsted's and Doctour VVillets Titles of A­strology; when the question is, whether either of them knew the common rules of the Art.

SURVEY. This borrowed Axe borrowed of Sir Chri­stopher is dull: tis most true, that that of Astrology which hath any truth of BEING, is a Science not an Art; but is to be referred to other Sciences, and to be called by their name, according to the matter handled; as hath been often cleared in the Doctours Demonology. And if it be a Science, how then can it be an Art? The learned know they are Species logically opposite. Let VVilliam therefore learn it, afore he believe this grosse non-sequi­tur to be good viz. Tis a Science, ergo 'tis an Art. And if Aristotle doth say (for I can believe VVilliam in no­thing but what I see, we have found him so often tardy in notorious untruths) that Astrology is Scientia Media, and VVilliam will (as he doth) expound it, to be A Science between the Mathematicks and Naturall Phi­losophy; Sect. [...] how then doth VVilliam Ramsey agree with himself afore, where he will have Astronomy and Astro­logy to be all one? For all liberall Artists do know that Astronomy is of the pure Mathematicks. But VVilliam consents that Astrology is a Middle thing between the Mathematicks and Naturall Philosophy. But in this VVilliam goes on as he began to TELL UNTRUTHS; [Page 28]for there are no such words in Arist. Phys. lib. 2. cap. 2. in three severall editions in Greek and Latine, which I carefully read over; and some of them twice over. But this I got and William hath lost by it, in my reading that Chapter. viz. [...] (saith Arist. ibid.) [...] (alii [...] Sed o­mnes in­terpretes [...]trovis modo legentes, reddunt Mathe­matica­rum sci­entiarum vel. facul­ [...]atum.) [...]. i. e. those mathematicall disciplines or Sciences that are more the Physicks, or nearer to Naturall Philosophy are the Opticks, Musick, and Astrology. Let W. Ram. therefore cease his anger against the Doctour, for saying Astrology viz. that which can be owned, viz. naturall, is in many respects to be referred to Physicks, and to be called proportionably by the name of some parts of it, as Meteorology, &c.

That which W. R. affirms out of Averroes on the twelfth of Metaph. is nothing to Williams purpose. Nor that on the second of Physicks; but rather against, viz. for us touching the onenesse of Physicks and allow­able Astrology; more justly therefore called Naturall Astrology, if it must have any thing of the word A­strology in its name. For as for the Judiciall, 'tis in the corrupt phantasie of men and devils (according to the Scripture) rather then in nature. Nor is that on the 3. of Metaphys. to Williams purpose. We allow the know­ledge of the stars to be a Mathematicall Art, or rather a Science; yet we allow not Judiciall Astrology to be a lawfull Science. But do give that honour to Astronomy.

But cui bono, to what purpose is all this waste of Wil­liams words? For if all were yielded that William speaks to prove Astrology to be a Science, yet doth it not infer that any Astrology is a distinct Science, much lesse Judiciall Astrology to be any thing at all in rerum natura.

From W. R. endeavour to justifie Palmestry; by his confession he had received it by a report from the Physi­cians that, Galen did teach to know the temperature of the body by the palm of the hand, I inferre 1. (as I afore [Page 29]suspected) that VVilliam borrows his best Feathers (that make any better shew then railing) from other Fowles. 2. That I feel VV. Ramsey's Pulse, that he neither hath read much his Master Galen, nor understands the mean­ing of such a speech, as that it signifies no more but that by the Pulse, or by the heat, driness, coldness, or moisture of the Palmes may be discerned the temper of the Body, without Palmestries canting upon the Lines of the Hands.

Lastly, VVilliam Ramseys questioning Doctor VVillets and Doctor Alsteds knowledge of the common Rules of Astrologie, RENDERS HIM SO IGNO­RANT NOW, IN MY EYES, THAT I BEGIN TO REPENT I HAVE GONE SO FAR IN ANSWERING SO WORTHLESS A MAN, WHO KNOWS NOT THAT WHICH ALL INDIFFERENTLY LEARNED MEN DO KNOW, viz. that Doctour VVillet in his learn­ed Questions on the Pentateuch, and Daniel, touching Astrologie, and Doctour Alsted in his learned Ency­clopaedia of 27 Arts and Sciences, and particularly his System of Astrologie do manifest to the World, that they were not ignorant of the utmost of Astrologie.

W. R. his SECT. IV. Proving the lawfulness of Astrologie, being not impugned by the Scripture, nor Councils; but allowed of by the wisest and greatest men.

VVHat hath already above been said, is clear to any judicious impartial eye, that this Art is lawfull, where I say, The Heavens declare the Glory of God, &c. But to clear it more plainly, the Psalmist in his very next words saith, The Firmament sheweth the works [Page 30]of his hands, Psalm. 19.1. which is clear to me is meant thereby that he effecteth by them, (and no o­ther thing) (though I must confess there are divers in­terpretations thereof) my reason is, that otherwise, every thing which is created doth declare the handy work of God; I believe Master Homes will finde Aquinas and Hierome of my opinion: He hath heard also, that there is no speech nor sanguage, where the voice of the Starrs are not heard, Psal. 19.3. which may serve here again very well for the purpose in hand; and to speak more plainly, that God doth not prohibit mortals from the study of them; you may see how the holy Ghost by Stephen, in the 7. of the Acts, vers. 22. speaking in the commendation of Moses, giveth him (over and above the commendation that was aforesaid) that he was learned in all the wisedom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds, which is clear to any rational man, that if it had been any wise sinfull, dia­bolical, or odious in the sight of God, Moses would not have applied his study thereunto; or at least, it would never have been recorded in his praise. I might instance here Daniel, Solomon, and others, but this is so clear, that to insist longer hereon, were but vain, since there is no one place in the Scripture that can be shown to speak po­sitively against Astrology, or the study thereof, more then to remember us not to give the glory of the Creatour to the Creature, &c. as in the answer to his divine proofs shall appear. Wherefore then since it is warrantable and lawfull out of the Scripture to study this Art, nay and as we see by experience, warranted by God, in the shewing of blazing Starrs to Astrologers onely (not to the vulgar and proficient in other Arts) to forewarn the people of the danger and punishment to come; and if it were not so he might as well shew signes on earth to the illiterate, by common vulgar things; as in heaven to the learned Astrologer, who onely can judge of the effects. Where­fore [Page 31]then I say, of necessity the Art must be allowed of by Councils, being the wiser sort of people, especially by the godlier sort of Councils, whose acts and determinati­ons will be grounded on piety and the Word of God, and if otherwise; I value not what their censure is; for they are but men and (guided by their own reasons and opini­ons) are but frail subject to infirmity and errour, Huma­num est errare. He cannot but know also that even the pal­pablest truths have been condemned by Councils, either for some self-interest, or for abuse of the thing condemn­ed; as for instance, the Bacaran Councils (as well as the Roman Senate) hath condemned Astrologers, but how? not because they were Students in that heavenly Science, but for trusting in Astrology; (and who is so superstitious, may not lawfully be termed an Astrologer, for Astrolo­gers are in no sort hereof guilty) the words of the Coun­cil is in the Cap. 9. of Bacaran Councils, Si quis animas, & corpora humana fatalibus stellis credit adstringi, sicut pagani & Priscillianus dixerunt, anathema sit, Who so trusteth in the fatal necessity of the Stars, as the Heathens and Priscillianists do or say, let him be accurst. To al which, there is no Astrologer, but will willingly conde­scend; for by this, is not Astrology nor Astrologers in the least condemned, but the abuse of the Art, to give that to it, which properly belongs to God the Creatour of these heavenly bodies; the decree is against those that trust in them, or believe a fatal necessity, not that study the knowledge of them, and make a true use of them. So likewise the Council or Parliament in England, made a Law against those that multiplied Gold and Silver, why? not because they condemned that heavenly revelation, or practise of the most blessed Stone of the Philosophers, but they forbad the multiplication of Gold and Silver, in that they thought it too great a treasure for any private sub­ject, and to prevent rebellion, commotions and insurrecti­ons in the Common-wealth, like wise Pilots sitting at the [Page 32]Stern, did study to prevent the Storm which was likely otherwise to shipwrack the safety thereof. So that I say then, there is no Council, (if they have any spark of Re­ligion, Learning or Policy) that will shew themselves so ridiculous, as to decree any thing in the least, against ei­ther Astrologers or Astrology, taking it as it is in it self, and not abused; which is not the fault in the Art, but the Artist in going beyond the Art; for if under the colour of Astrology, I study Necromancy, is Astrology therefore to be condemned as unlawfull, because together with it I study unlawfull Arts? No sure, since this is a thing so far different; therefore it is good to put the Saddle on the right Horse.

And this my argument is thus confimed, for that in former ages, both the greatest and wisest sort of people were Practitioners and Students in Astrology; as first we may see by the Egyptians, amongst whom it was not law­full for any man to take the function of Priesthood on him, except he were an Astrologer; nor could any be cho­sen King, except he were of the Colledge of Priests. And Rhodiginus reporteth that for the prevention of Treason, there was none born within that Kingdom, whose Nati­vity was not brought to the King to be judged on. And Dion recordeth the same to be practised by Tiberius; and we see in Daniel, that the Monarchs of Babylon attempted nothing of importance, without first asking counsel of the Chaldeans. And the Kings of Lacedaemonia had none in their Councils neither were any suffered to sit, but who were Astrologers: and also among the Persians, none was ad­mitted to the Crown, but who were excellently skilled in Astrology; nay, to this day there is no King but hath his Mathematician about him. So then, it is cleared, that there is no Council but what is ignorant of Art and Religion, that will condemn or decree any thing against Astrology, and how it hath been esteemed amongst the wisest and great­est of the people. And that ye may be the better confirm­ed [Page 33]in what hath been already said; I will give the names of most of the chiefest Patriarks, Fathers, Kings, Empe­rours, and Philosophers, (according as that worthy and noble Sir Christopher Heyden sets them down at the latter end of his Book, in defence of Judicial Astrology) that have been Students in this noble Art.

• ASTRONOMERS and ASTROLOGERS from ADAM.
  • 1 Adam,
  • 2 Seth,
  • 3 Enoch,
  • 4 Kenan,
  • 5 Mahalaleel,
  • 6 Jared,
  • 7 Henoch, &c.
  • In all about 200.

SURVEY. 1. The Title of this Section doth ex­tremely cheat the Reader, whiles he believes to finde W. R. discourse following it, to make it good; which it doth no more do, then Chalk proves Cheese to be Cheese.

To his vain repetition, abusing the sacred Word of God in Psal. 19. hath been spoken afore; onely William adds a confutation of himself; that all the Creation shew the handy-work of God. And therefore by Williams own consequence, all the World should be the proper subject but of one Discipline, viz. of Astrology.

His BELIEF that Aquinas and Hierome is of his opinion. 1. Begets in me a belief of a report that was brought to me by a godly Scholar that hath some ac­quaintance with some of Williams way, but upon ano­ther account, THAT William was helped by some of his Brethren or their Teachers in his Christian (un­christian-like) Astrology. 2. Begets a belief in me that William cannot tell where, or what, either Aquinas or Hierome speaks for Judicial Astrology. For W. R. af­firmeth nothing, quotes nothing, either of the place, or [Page 34]their words. The Doctour hath not so dealt with W. R. and his Brethren. 3. That William mistook his infor­mation, or his informers mistook. For Aquinas hath no­thing at all, and Hierome saith nothing for Astrology, upon the Psalms. But this I can assure Will. Ram. that Aquinas in his Summes hath much against Astrolo­gy. And it were just to bid him and his Prompters go look it, because they deal so unfairly with the Doctour, and jugglingly with the Reader, either in non-quoting, or in quoting Non-ens. But to clear mine integrity to the Reader; it is in Aquinas 2 a. 2 ae. Qu. 95. where Aquinas putting the Question whether the divination that is made by the Starrs be unlawfull? 1. He saith, SED CON­TRAEST, quod Augustinus, &c. That is, That of Austin is against the lawfulness of Divina­tion by Starrs; Illos Planetarios quos Mathematicos vocant, con­sulere non desidebam; & quod tamen Christiana, & vera pietas expellit, & damnat. In 4. Confess. ‘ I did not (saith Austin) desist consulting with the PLANETARIES,’ whom they call MATHEMATICIANS, &c. which thing nevertheless Christian, and true piety expelleth, Conclusio. Contingen­tium, & casualium per certitudinem divinatio su­perstitiosa & illicica est. and condemneth. 2. Aquinas his CONCLUSION is, ‘ To divine by the disposition of heaven­ly bodies, as by a certainty, touching con­tingent and casual things is superstitious, and unlaw­full, &c.’ 3. In his RESPONDEO Respondeo, dicendum quòd sicut dictum est, di­vinationi quae ex opinione fals & vana procedit, in­gerit properatio; daemo­nis, ut hominum animos implicet vanitati, aut fal­fitati. Vanâ autem aut falsâ opinione utitur, si quis ex consideratione stellarum, futura velit praecognoicere, quae per cas praecognosci non pos­sunt. Pst ergo consideran­dum, quid per coelestium corporum inspectionem de futuris possunt pra­cognosci. Et de his qui­dem quae ex necessitate e­veniunt, manisellum est quòd per confider: tionem si ellarum possunt prae­cognosci, sicut Astrologi praenanciant Eclipses fu­turas. Non possent dispo­sitiones & motus corpo­rum coelestium reduci in unam causam communem quae sit corporali, Possunt autem reduci in unam cau­sam communem quae est providentia divina. Sed aliâ ratione disponuntur [...] divina providentia mo [...]us & situs coelestium corpo­rum, & aliâ ratione even­tus contingentium futuro­rum; quia illa disponuntur s [...]cum [...]ùm rationem neces­sitatis, ut semper & co [...]em modo proveniant; h [...]c au­tem secundùm rationem contingentiae, ut variabili­ter contingant. Unde non potest esse, quòd ex inspe­ctione syderum accipiatur praecognitio futurorum, ni­si sinut ex causis praeco­gnoscuntur effectur. Du­plices autem effectus sub­trahuntur causalitati coe­lestium corporum. 1. qui­dem omnes effectus per accidens contingentes, sive in rebus humanis, sive in rebus naturalibus. Quia, ut probatur 6. Metaph­ens per accidens non ha­bet causam, & praecipuè natualem, cujusmodi est vi [...]tus coelestium corpo­rum. Quia quod per acci­dens fit, neque est ens pro­priè, neque unum, sieut quòd lapide cadente fiat Terraemotus. Haec enim, & hujusmodi non sunt sim­pliciter unum, sed simpli­citer multa. Operatio au­tem naturae semper termi­natur ad aliquid unum, si­cut & procedit ab uno principio, quod est forma rei naturalis. 2. Autem subtrahuntur causalitati coelestium corporum actus liberi arbitrii, quod est fa­cultas voluntatis & ratio­nis. Intellectus enim sive ratio, non est corpus, nee actus corporis organici, & per consequens, nec vo­luntas quae est in ratione, [...] patet per Philosophum in 3. de anim. Nullum autem corpus potest im­primere in iem incorpore­am. Unde impossibile est, quòd corpora coelestia di­ [...]ectè imprimant in intel­lectum & voluntatem. Hoc enim esset ponere in­tellectum non differre à sensu. Unde corpora coele­stia non possunt esse per se, causa operationum li­beri arbitrii, possunt ta­men ad hoc dispositivè inclinare in quamum im­primunt in corpus huma­num, & per consequens, in vires sensitivas, quae sunt actus corporalium orga­norum, quae inclinant ad humanos actus. Quia ta­men vires sensitivae obedi­unt rationi, ut pater per Philosophum 3. de Anim. & 1. Ethic. nulla necessi­pas ex hoc, libero arbitrio imponitur, sed contra in­clinationem coelestium corporum homo potest per rationem operati Si quis ergo CONSIDE­RATIONE ASTRO­NUM UTATUR AD PRAECOGNOSCEN­DOS FUTUROS CA­SURALES, VEL FOR­TUITOS EVENTUS, AUT ETIAM AD COGNOSCENDUM PER CERTITUDI­MEM FUTURA O [...]E­RA HOMINUM, pro­cedit hoc ex falsa & vana opinione. ET SIC OPE­RATIO DAE MONIS SE IMMISCET. Unde erit divinatio SU­PERSTITIOSA & illicita. upon that Conclusion he enlargeth much against Judicial Astrology; the summ whereof (to give it you in his own words) is this. ‘ DICENDƲM quod &c. i. e. We must say, (saith Aquinas) as hath been said afore (Art. 1.2.) the operation of the Devil doth pour in it self into that divination which proceeds from a false and vain opinion, to the end that he may inwrap the mindes of men in vanity or falsehood. And if any [Page 35]man will fore-know future things by the consideration of the Starrs, which by them cannot be fore known, he is the man that follows a vain, and false opini­on. Therefore we must consider, what of future things may be fore-known by in­spection into the Starrs. And indeed as concerning those things which come to pass by necessity, it is manifest that they may be fore-known by consideration of the Stars; as Astrologers do foretell Eclipses. The dispositions and motions of the hea­venly Bodies, cannot be reduced unto one common cause which is natural; but may be reduced unto one common cause, which is divine providence. But the motions and situations of the heavenly bodies are by divine providence disposed one way, and the events of future contingencies ano­ther; because, the former are disposed according to the manner of necessity, that they always come to pass, and after the same manner. But the later, after the way of contingency, that they happen va­riously. From whence it cannot be, that the foreknowledge of future things can be ta­ken by inspection into the Starrs, other­wise then as effects are fore-known by their causes. Now there are two sorts of effects that are exempted from the efficacy of the celestial bodies. 1. All effects that happen by accident, whether in hu­mane, or natural things: because as 'tis proved in the sixth of Metaphysicks, an entity by accident hath no cause, especially natural, such as is the vertue of heaven­ly [Page 36]bodies. Because that which is by acci­dent is neither an entity properly, nor an oneness; as for example, whiles a stone is falling there is an Earthquake, &c. For these and the like things are not simply one, but absolutely many. Now the operation of Nature is always terminated unto some one thing, even as it doth flow from one principle, which is the natural form of the thing. 2. The acts of free will (which is a faculty of the will and reason) are exempted from the efficacy of the heavenly bodies. For the intellect, or reason is nei­ther a body, nor the act of a corporeal or­gan, and by consequence, neither is the will, which is within the reason; as ap­pears by the Philosopher in his third Book of the soul. Now no bodily thing can make an impression upon an incorporeal thing, Whence it follows, that IT IS IM­POSSIBLE THAT THE HEA­VENLY BODIES CAN DI­RECTLY MAKE AN IM­PRESS ƲPON THE ƲN­DERSTANDING AND THE WILL. For this were to make the under­standing not to differ from sense. From whence it follows, that the heavenly bodies cannot be a cause per se of the actings of free will, yet may they disposingly incline to this, so farr as they impress upon mans body, and by consequence, upon the sensi­tive powers, which are acts of the corpo­ral organs, which incline to humane acts. Yet because THE SENSITIVE POWERS ARE OBEDIENT [Page 37]TO REASON (as appears by the Philosopher in his 3. book of the soul, and in his 1. book of Manners) NO NE­CESSITY HEREBY IS IM­POSED UPON THE SPON­TANEOUS WILL, BUT A MAN CAN ACT CONTRA­RY TO THE INCLINATI­ON OF THE CELESTIAL BODIES, BY THE POWER OF HIS REASON. Therefore, IF ANY MAN shall make use of the CONSIDERATION OF THE STARRS to foreknow CASUAL, or CONTINGENT EVENTS, or also to know with certainty the FU­TURE WORKS OF MEN, this proceedeth from a false and vain opinion, and so the OPERA­TION OF THE DEVIL INTER­MINGLES IT SELF, from whence the divination is SUPERSTITIOUS AND UNLAWFULL.’ Thus farr Aquinas; on whom commenting we have learned, and profound Caje­tan to boot. Et ex his patet (saith Cajetan) quomodo in­telligendum est, &c. that is, ‘ By these it is apparent, how we must understand’ that celestial bodies are not over-ruling our elections or free chusings, and voluntary acts, and how the consultation of Astrologers about the Nativities of men, &c. are condemned. For if these things be applied for a certainty of knowledge of contin­gencies; or (which is the same thing) if we must use such a figure of the Nativity, &c. as a law, they are diabolical and condemned. And this Austin intends in his fourth book of his Confessions. But if they be onely to attain a con­jecture of natural inclinations, they are not evil. With all know, that albeit some truth may be had out of those things, yet THE WAY OR MANNER [Page 38] ‘OF THE CONJECTURE IS SO WEAK THAT IT IS SCARCELY A CON­JECTURE. And this because of humane igno­rance, of the greatest of Causes, both Celestial and next Causes. For the whole of that we know in these kinde of the things, doth not deserve to be called A Part (how small soever) of those things we are ignorant of concerning the same as in relation to us and still daily are so ignorant untill the whole compleat course of heavenly bodies be once gone over.’ Because the Starrs are unknown to us, how they are one towards another, and their moti­on is not compleated untill six and thirty thousand years be over. ‘I say that daily there is a new situation of the starry Heaven, which situation yet hath never been con­sidered, unto which the Planets and Starrs being re­ferred, who can tell what causality they are clothed with, or how they cause, change, or destroy. I mention not the Calculation of Motions, because perhaps it is impossible to have Instruments exactly to know the rising and setting of Starrs, as I hear it from the Astrologers themselves.’

As for W. R. alleadging Moses and Daniel, he de­serves rather a Ferula, then an answer, because the Do­ctour hath fully answered that those Saints were not judi­ciary Astrologers; so that William could not here give us any solid reply.

William Ramsey's proof in this Section, that Ju­diciary Astrology is not condemned by the Word of God, is onely his passing his Word for it, which is worth nothing, for how unable he is to keep his Word will appear after. His alleadging that God shews Bla­zing Starrs onely to Astrologers is a gross untruth, confu­ted by thousands of the vulgar yet alive in England, who saw the Blazing Starr many nights, that appeared afore the Swedish Warrs in Germany. For what hinders, but Shepheards, Sailers, Watchmen, &c. illiterates should [Page 39]perceive that which is obvious to the common eyes of mankinde; and distinguish a Comet from a Starr by his nearness, motion, and his feather or long tail.

And just as William proves here Judicial Astrology not to be condemned by the Word of God; just so (and no wiselier) doth he prove it not impugned by Councils; namely by bare facing it down with a bold forehead (whiles that Councils to the contrary are in his sight) that of necessity the Art must be allowed by Councils, yet in the same place professeth his contempt of Councils, if they be not of his minde. Is this Williams proof of the lawfulness of Astrology by Councils? To one of those Councils alleadged by the Doctour (for he alleadged two in his Demonology, and might have done more) Will. can say nothing. To the other he hoped he could; W. Ram. is shame­fully out in his LATIN. See be­fore in this Section at * but hath miserably disgraced himself in not construing a plain piece of Latin right. For the words of the Council, as Will. Ram. reports them, Si quis animas, & corpora humana fatal, bus stellis credit adstringi, sicut Pagani, & Priscillianus dixerunt, Anathema sit; are according to true Grammar, thus to be rendered; If any one doth be­leive the Souls and Bodies of Men to be bound to, or necessitated by fatal Starrs, as the Pagans and the Pri­scill [...]anists do let him be accursed. So that if you compare Will. Ram. interpretation with this, which is close ac­cording to the Latin, you shall finde that he did not onely leave out something, because it might prejudice him; but (which is the thing I mainly insist upon) he doth interpret the Latin most falsely in the main thing; which condemns any with Anathema, that shall believe that the Starrs have a necessitating power over mens Bodies and Souls; which in plain English is, to believe the Astrologers to say true, who in their practise, so teach, and by that undertake to predict humane events by their Judicial Astrology.

For the Philosophers Stone, he hath little cause to call it Blessed, seeing the attempts about it have undone Will. [Page 40]Ramseys father, Testis M. Rowl. Mini­ster. who lies in Prison by it. Though the late King bore with his father defeating him of his expectati­on, and of scores of pounds, yet other men will not, can­not bear such wrongs. Nor hath Will. Ram. so blessed himself with his father skill, and the Philosophers Stone, as to enrich themselves, and deliver him.

To his large alleadging the honour and antiquity of Astrology, a brief answer will serve; viz. 1. That till Will. Ramsey or his associates do produce some true Christians, whiles such, to have been practisers of Judi­cial Astrology, all his instances amount but to the Pro­verb, Ask my Fellows whether I be a Thief: or to a self contradiction. For the Astrologers W. R. W.L. &c. when they see their advantage, inveigh against godly and learned Ministers, with the name of Priests; and H.H. Vox coelorum, in the behalf of Astrology saith, the Roman Laws against Mathematicians and Prognosticatours did mean Chaldeans, and yet now the Priests and the Chaldeans must be alleadged for the honour of Judicial Astrology.

2. If Will. Ramsey doth not here intend a difference between Astronomers and Astrologers (contrary to his Tenet afore) in that he puts both names in the Title to his Catalogue; yet he thinks learned men may put that difference; so that if any of them should whip him for his false Scrowl, proving many of them no Astrologers; yet they may be found Astronomers.

3. W. Ram. Catalogue of them from Adam, &c. is ridiculous. We have no such thing in the Bible; and there­fore can know no such thing. For Greek Homer the Poet is the ancientest humane Authour that is extant. The man flourished about 911. years afore Christ. The onely Au­thour pretended, of the greatest antiquity, viz. concern­ing things so ancient as the beginning of the Empire of Babylon, and of Ninus the first Emperour thereof, is one Berosus; of whose writings (saith learned Sleidan) [Page 41]almost all men make a doubt, and think them counterfeit. The most judicious and true Chronologer, leaves out Be­rosus. Helvicus puts him in ad annum Mundi 3690. Lib. 7. cap. 37. which is but about 281. years afore Christ, which is but yesterday in comparison of Adam, Seth, Enoch. Pliny saith, this Berosus was an Astrologer. And of the true, and forged Berosus learned Gesner in his Bibliotheck writes thus, There are extant in our age five Books of Aniquities, ascribed to Berosus, but all the more learned judge they are not of Berosus, but feigned by I know not what Fabler, and set forth in Berosus his name. To this famous Pezelius on Sleidan adds. Josephus (saith he) cites the Histories of Berosus, l. 1. con. App. & Athenaeus l. 14. The genuine Berosus perished. There remains the Fictions of Annius Viterbiensis a Monk; neither are the fragments of Metasthen and Manethon of a better me­tall.

W.R. his SECT. V. Demonstrating the antiquity of Astrology.

VVE have seen already how Astrology hath been proved lawfull by the Scripture and reason, not condemned by Councils, but admired and honoured in all ages, by the wisest of the ancients; we come now to shew its antiquity, and from whence it had its first original: Concerning this point, there hath been much controversie amongst Writers, but most hold, that it was first revealed to man in the infancy of the World by God; Ari­stotle deriveth it from the Egyptians, Tully from the Assyrians, others from the Sidonians, Chaldeans, Persi­ans, Indians, Arabians, and Greeks; but however it is most certain, if we will believe the ancientest Historiogra­phers, that the Priests and Kings amongst the Egyptians, the Chaldeans among the Babylonians, the Magicians a­mong [Page 42]the Persians, the Gymnosophists among the Indians, the chief Philosophers of Greece and Italy, and the Druides of France were all Astrologers, and esteemed by those Nations for the wisest men. But Josephus in his An­tiquities, lib. 1. cap. 2. deriveth it from Adam and Seth: and that they taught it to their posterity, and that Seth was so well skilled therein, that foreseeing thereby the destruction of the World, first by Water, then by Fire, least the knowledge should perish by the Flood, engra­ved it in two Pillers, the one of Stone, the other of Brick; and he farther witnesseth that of Stone to remain in Syria in his own time; and in the 3. Chapter of the same Book, he affirmeth, that man lived so long before the Flood (by the permission of God) to learn Arts and Sciences, espe­cially naming Astrologie and Geometry, the which (saith he) Ediscere non potuissent, nisi sexcentis viverent annis, could not be learned under six hundred years time, for these are Studies that require much experience, and parti­cular observation, which could not be done on an instant. Again in his eighth Chapter of the same first Book of his Antiquities, he further affirmeth, that Abraham having learned this knowledge in Chaldea being the place of his birth, when he came into Egypt, he first taught the Egyp­tians the knowledge of Astrologie and Arithmetick and since the Egyptians have been most exquisite therein, so that some Historians have believed Atlas King of Egypt to be the first inventer thereof, others have thought He­noch and Atlas to be both one, but most Historiographers hold Atlas to be after the Flood. And that Astrology is derived from Adam.

SURVEY. Antiqui­ [...]as sine retitate est vetu­stas er­roris. Were it not that the Reader might suspect my leaping over something that were considerable, I would have left out this Section, it being a vain Tauto­logy. We have already answered to the antiquity of Astrology; and in particular to Josephus. The Fathers rule is excellent, Antiquity without verity is the ancient­ness [Page 43]of Errour. All that are here reckoned up to counte­nance Astrology were either the worst of men, viz. Hea­thens, or diabolical Magicians, or Idolaters; or both, or all (as were the Druides, whom some ancient Au­thours call Magos, others idolalatras) or the most uncer­tain, if not the foolishest of Traditions (as that of the two Pillars) of which Josephus hath store, and therefore not to be regarded in what he saith of such ancient times of Abraham, as we have given sufficient reason in the Survey of the former Section; or self-contradictions; as that a man could not learn Astrology under six hundred years, yet now William, and William, and I know not who will pretend great skill in it at half sixty: or Ridi­cles; For naming Adam to be an Astrologer he might well think, the Reader would judge if he was an Astro­loger he was so after the Devil had given him the fall; and if there were a derivation of Astrology from him as such, it was in the traduction of sin. For conclusion of this Section; let me deal truly, seriously, and plainly with William, that it is brought to me by good hands from his own Brethren in Astrology that they set him on work, because he was one of the silly mean ones among them, thereby to disgrace the Doctour. But I will say what others say, that William hath but blown upon the Question. Demonology stands like a Castle of Steel. The Astrologers have laid their heads, and prompt­ed Will. Ram. but nothing is done but the disgracing of their own cause.

W.R. his SECT. VI. That Astrology is the most profitable Study reveated under the Sun to mortals.

WHich I shall indeavour to make clear thus; first, that it is most profitable for the knowledge [Page 44]of Moral Philosophy, viz. of our selves and others. Se­condly, for Natural Philosophy. Thirdly, for Physick. Fourthly, for Health. Fifthly, for Husbandry. Sixthly, for giving a reason for Climacterical years (which other Arts cannot) and other things. Seventhly, and lastly, for Military Discipline.

First, that it is most profitable for the knowledge of Moral Philosophy, M. Homes will not deny (if he know any thing in the Art,) that the constitution of the body, and the disposition of the minde is by Astrology known; so that hereby we receive a double benefit, viz. First, ad­monition to refrain what may prove noxious and hurt­full to our health. Secondly, encouragement to apply our selves to that whereunto we are born apt by nature; besides we may also be warned hereby of what may cause the minde by ill government to offend others. And for felicity the chief end of Moral Philosophy; no Art or Science can compare with Astrology, for it teacheth a man what pertains to the goods of the body and minde, and so also to moderate the unruly affections, whose violence carri­eth away the minde from that golden mean wherein ver­tue dwels and keeps her place; so likewise in the external goods, it resolveth a man what hopes or likelihood by his own industry, or otherwise he hath to attain to the riches of this world; and also teacheth him how to increase the same, by what means, at what time, and in what place it wil be best for him, or most profitable to this intent or pur­pose. So that then ye see Astrology to comprehend more in one part, then all the Arts in the World put together, in any or all parts.

Secondly, for Natural Philosophy, it bringeth no less help hereunto, then to the former, for hereby the Philoso­pher cometh to know God the upholder, and immoveable Greatour of all things, by the constant inchangeable mo­tion of the Heavens; and the corruption and generation of all things, by the motion of ☉, ☽ and other Planets [Page 45]in the Zodiack; and that there is a certain prefixt time of every ones life that is born, allotted by the Starrs, and that this is divers according to the nature of every Con­stellation, and the measure of every proper revolution; as also the reason of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, by the motion of ☽. He comes also by Astrology to know the rising of Meteors, the motion of Comets, and innurnerable other things, much conducing to the fur­therance of his knowledge, experience, and skill. But this is so clear, I hasten to what is further to be said in the praise and utility of Astrology, least I spend too much time in confuting such weak stuff, as is this discourse of M. Homes, against so apparent a noble and excellent Art.

Thirdly, for Physick; for all that knows any thing in Astrology, can acquaint M. Homes, as also his great friend Galen (as most falsely he accuses him (in his 115. page) to condemn Astrology as Sophistical, when indeed he himself appears no other at the best, to wrong so wor­thy a man,) That he that shall administer Physick when the Sun comes to the Equinoctial points, or in the Cani­cular or Dog-dayes and the like, knows very little in the one or the other, viz. Physick or Astrology; and is ra­ther to be accounted a fool then a Physician; and further, Galen admonisheth men not to trust themselves with that Physician that is not versed in Astrology; and Hip­pocates also saith, that that Physician which is ignorant in Astrology, is not fully, nor can he be perfectly known in his Art; for without Astrology, he shall never be able to give Physick safely, viz. when to purge by evacuation or vomit, or Phlebotomy, or for what humours, or in what quantity, neither can he know or come to the under­standing of the chief Piller of his Art, viz. the true cause of the Malady without it, neither with it, (if well learned therein) can he err: Besides Galen further affirm­eth, that Physick given at unseasonable times, doth not [Page 46]onely little avail or help, but oftentimes prove very hurt­full, even to the endangering of the life of the Patient; and that these times are onely to be known and judged by the Starrs. Fernelius (a learned Physician) doth here­unto also condescend, as also Ficinus; for there is nothing more certain, then that Astrology doth plainly deliver Rules for all the parts of Physick abovesaid, (which M. Homes I am confident (if any whit read therein) dare not but confess) and not onely so, but also teacheth the critical dayes, without which they cannot be known with any certainty; wherefore it is, that those Physicians igno­rant in Astrology, conclude the seventh and fourteenth dayes to be dangerous, when most times they are deceived, and so consequently apply contrary Remedies to their Patients, much to their prejudice, if not absolute destructi­on: the reason is, the ☽ by her various motion cometh sometimes sooner, and sometimes later, to her □ and ☍ or quadrat and opposite part of the place she was in at the beginning of the Disease, viz. Sometimes she comes to her □ in seven dayes, sometimes not till the eighth or ninth day, other times at the sixth day; and to her ☍ sometimes at the fourteenth day, sometimes at the thir­teenth, other times not till the sixteenth day. I would fain now M. Homes, you would shew what Art in the whole earth, is more beneficial to Physick, then Astrologie &c. but I hasten to the remaining proofs.

Fourthly, for Health, which none but the most ignorant and malicious will deny, since the constitution of the bo­dy is the onely ground, wise Physicians go upon, and look first to; that that foundation being laid, they may then fall to the rebuilding of the Patient, otherwise (as you have heard) destruction (like a house founded on the sand) is to be expected. Then consequently the most en­vious cannot but confess and acknowledge it to be the most profitable thing for our health under the Sun. Wherefore then let us see whether the Husbandman will [Page 47]acknowledge it to be beneficial to him in the way of li­ving, viz. Husbandry.

Fifthly, Husbandry, and first let me ask him, whether he lops his Trees from the time the Sun declines from our Horizon, till he again re-enters the equinoctial point? or if he knows not (if he should) that it will not grow again? or whether he use to sow Pease in the increase of ☽? or if so, whether they will then ever leave blooming or blossoming? or whether therefore he doth not observe and remember to set them in the wain, or decrease of ☽. Nay, it is reported of the women in the North, both of Eng­land and Scotland, that they diligently observe a time of the Moon to set their Egges, that they may all come to good; and furthermore, let me ask the Husband-man, whether he observeth not a time to graff, and prune his Trees? but this is so common, that to spend more time hereunto were to no purpose.

Sixthly, for rendring a reason for Climacterical years, it happening by the profection of the Planets and Horo­scope, ascendant or first House (as ye may call it) to the ☍ or □ aspects or their places in Nativities, or by the moti­on of ♄ if he have power in the Nativity, for Ptolomy and the wisest in this Art, give ♄ as much power in the decree of severall years, as the Sun hath in moneths, or the ☽ in dayes; and if his course be observed, it will be found finished much about the same number of years, as the Moons is in dayes; and further, that ♄ in every seven years comes either to □ or ☍ of his place in the Radix of Nativities. And further know, that if there be no danger (as we finde by experience) of some mens lives, at these years, they have either some of the beneficial Planets in their eighth House, or the direction of the ascendant, or Aphetical places are free from all impediment and af­fliction, of the interficient and malignant Constella­tions.

Seventhly, and lastly, for Military Discipline, History [Page 48]is full of Examples herein, and for brevities sake (because I will hasten to conclude this first Chapter, that I may proceed to M. Homes his second Section) I will here con­tent my self with this one, which the Indian Histories shew forth unto us; which is, that Columbus having the Art of Astrology, and being in a straight for want of Vi­ctual, together with the whole Army of the King of Spain, Ferdinand; and foreseeing an Eclipse of the ☽ within few dayes to happen; threatned the Indians he would send infinite Plagues amongst them, if they speedi­ly relieved them not; in token whereof they should at such a time see the ☽ light taken from them, which they at first slighted, but when they saw according to the for­mer words, that the Moon began to be darkned and grew so more and more, and being ignorant of the cause there­of, did not onely send them the Victual they formerly re­tained from them, but also threw themselves at Colum­bus feet, asking forgiveness: So then ye have had (as brief as may be) shewn unto you, what Astrology is, that it is an Art, and a lawfull Art, allowed of by Scri­pture, the antiquity of it, and the utility of it; there is it may be some Arts, that may be beneficial or helpfull to another; but you see both positively and conclusively, that Astrology is generally helpfull to all Arts and Sci­ences; nay, what other Study in the whole World in this point is like it, or able to compare with it?

SURVEY. Will. Ramsey in his Title might well have excepted Divinity and Religion (if he hath any) and have distinguished of Astrology. For sure the Art pre­tending to tell that the Thieves that committed the Rob­bery about Brainsford the last Summer, that such a way the womans Cows were gone. That Mistris—his Sweet-heart would prove a Shrew, with infinite the like (that may be produced in time) do not at all conduce to Natural Philosophy, Physick, &c. which VVilliam reckons up.

Its ill a signe by VVill. Ramsey's manners that Astro­logy is profitable for Morality (unless VVilliam will de­ny he hath any Astrology.) And therefore nor our Phi­losophers, nor Aristotle the Prince of them mixed any directions out of Astrology, in their Moral Philosophy. As for the disposition of the minde VVilliam assured us in his Epistle to the Reader. That the will of man is not subject to the influence of the Starrs. And learned Huet in his EXAM. INGEN. tells us a readier way then by Starrs. And of the body, we know the temper, farr better by experience of the effect, then by conjectu­rals from causes, if Starrs were any certain cause. But VVill. Ramsey's Ptolomy in his first Book tells us among other causes of the uncertainty of Astrologicall Predicti­ons, That though bodies are affected by the Starrs, yet the seed of generation may alter the case.

As for the predicting what hope a man may have, by his own industry, or otherways to get goods, it doth little tend to Moral Philosophy, and doth less appertain to Astrology, if VVilliam be an honest man of his word, in his particulars he layes down in his Epistle to the Reader before enumerated of Natural Philosophy, I have several times shewed VVilliam, that the thing of natural Astro­logy is a part; judicial, non-ens, or worse.

And without either, thousands of people that are no Astrologers, or Philosophers excellently well know God to be the Creator and upholder of all things; whiles Phi­losophers and Astrologers have turned Atheists, or worse, Rom. 1.

To say, the Starrs alot every mans prefixed time of life, is to intrench upon Gods Decree and Providence, and to avouch a fatal necessity in the influence of the Starrs; with which VVilliam promised us in his Epistle to the Reader his Astrology should not meddle.

His great Preamble of the usefulness of Astrology for Physick amounts to thus much upon experience;

• 1. That there are in this Nation many Christian learn­ed and succesfull Physicians, who are neither well-skill'd, nor well-will'd to VV.R. his Astrology. If need be we can give him their names.
• 2. That the matter of Will. Ramsey his Judicial Astrology being humane events; as whether a man shall be rich, and, &c. as before he expressed, and his Bre­threns writings and practise do testifie; the natural judge­ment upon mens bodies is quite hereto general from it.
• 3. That thousands of English men, yea, the most of the common people, that are no Physicians, do well know; yea, feel (without the help of Ramseyan Astrolo­gy) that the Canicular dayes, &c. are not the best times for taking Physick, unless upon great extremity; and therefore are no Fools.

His great clattering together of the names of Hippo­crates, Galen, Fernelius, and Ficinus, is but a Scar-crow to scare silly birds, I mean weak-headed Youths from the truth, and a juggle to conjure them into his Circles by Charmes they cannot understand. For William (accord­ing to his manner of unfair dealing) doth neither quote their words, nor the place where they so speak, as he inti­mates. And though we have hunted after him, and beat the thickets, yet we can finde no such thing.

But this we finde.

1. That Hippocrates saith of Astronomy, (nothing of Astrology) that it is not altogether unusefull for the facul­ty of Physick. [...] (as his Dialect i [...]) [...]. But how doth he there make it out? Sure­ly onely thus; Because (saith Hippocrates) together with the times of the year, the ventricles of men receive a change; and so goes on of the difference in health the vari­ety of windes may make. Now judge, understanding Read­er, how little this makes for Judicial Astrology.

2. Gallen the Commentary upon him (to omit the Sophisticum quoted by Alsted in Astrology that doth so much anger Will. Ramsey) saith onely this to that point, [Page 51] Coelum in his verbis, &c. i. e. Hippocrates in these words doth put Heaven as the cause of all vulgar diseases: yet, De Aēere locis, & Aliquis. Sect. 3. & differt; inquit Xeno­phon, [...]: Galen in 1. l. Hip. de mor­bis vul­garibus. saith Gallen, (correcting his Master) sometimes the drinking of corrupt water may cause an universal disease. And then goes on to discourse of the severall diseases that befall men in the four quarters of the years, distinguishing those quarters by the rising and setting of severall Starrs or Constellations proper to them. Which is all the hint we have in Gallen to the point in hand. 'Tis true the Index puts high titles, and great emphasis on these places. But you see here what the matter is upon true account.

3. 'Tis true, that Fernelius saith, Purae simplicis (que) pe­stilentiae causa, &c. i. e. The cause of the meer and sim­ple Pestilence is the configutation of the Heavens by their vertue. But withall he presently avoucheth, Quae neque temporum mutatione, neque ulla manifestâ qualitate, sed solo eventu deprehendi potest. i.e. That that efficacy of the Heavens cannot be discerned, either by the change of times, or by any manifest quality, but meerly by the event.

4. Williams quoting of Ficinus was to him (to use an Astrological phrase for their use, though not approved by me) most unlucky of all the rest. For he though pro­fessing himself a Physician doth bang Judicial Astrology all over his vast works. I shall here give but a touch. In his book, in Plotin. cap. 2. the title of the second Para­graph or Head is, That for many causes the judgement concerning future things is most difficult. And then begins his discourse thus, Quod autem nec homo, nec daemon, &c. that is, that neither man nor devil is able by the sole in­spection of the Heavens to see the lesser matters accurre among us, &c. which he there proves strongly by many reasons; too long for me to epitomise in this intended breif Survey.

Now let the observant Reader judge what Will. Ram. hath got by those names he so rattled together. From [Page 52]them all not such a word as Astrology; much less Judi­cial. Least of all any inference that if there be a conside­ration of the Heavens for sickness, Physick, &c. that therefore they can tell me where is my lost Cow; who was the Thief that robbed me.

By this, my soul loathes the silly weakness of the rest in this Section, and shall kick it off for naught. By expe­rience we all know any observable effect of the Moon; as all men, Physicians, or others, are often enough de­ceived in judging the Crisis meerly by that Planet; by reason that the different natures of the Patients, and va­rious change of Windes and Weathers (to which Hippo­crates ascribes much) &c. do much alter the case. Hipp. lib. 3. Aphor. 5

And Will. Ramseys notion upon Health is to me non­ens or non sense, as I have touched afore. For Husbandry, the Clownes can tell more then the Astrologer: as pre­sently he doth intimately confess that he learned Hen­houswifry of the Northern women, not they from the Astrologer.

A very sutable observation, to usher in his Fable of the Climacterical years; unless he mean that which we have by experience, that every seventh year a man that observes shall finde a great change in his body, in regard of di­et, &c. otherwise that Scripture assures us that every man by Gods decree hath an appointed time. And for conclusion William tells us a Tale of Columbus, &c. which the Astronomer (without Astrology) can do; onely, if he be honest, he cannot tell a Lie to get Victu­als, or Money. But the story and the practise is tolerable enough in the opinion and practise of divers Astrologers about London, &c.

W.R. his SECT. I. Wherein is further shewn the legality of Astrology,

HIs first learned man (then) he begins with is To­status, who he saith in his Commentary on Levit. 19. Quaest. 28.29 &c. hath these words, the which Doctour Willet g [...]ves him viz. Of things which are (as to us) accidental as the success of business, or their causes internal, as mens will and free choice, as to undertake a journey, or to build or not build; predictions are not onely uncertain but superstitious: and the same is to be said of casting of Nativities by the conjunction of the Planets; But if he had considered what reason or ground Tostatus hath for these words, he had never thus laid them open; and I much wonder he being a Divine, he had not first himself considered and weighed the Text, which that he may now do, I will here set it down: Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards to be defiled by them; I am the Lord your God. Levit. 19.31. Where we clearly see there is no part of the Text, once in the least mentioneth or meaneth Astrology; it is against the seeking after those that have familiar Spirits and Wi­zards.

W. R. his SECT. II. Wherein is shewn that the Stars are Signes and Causes.

HE then brings Doctour Willet in these words, All manner of conjecturing (which saith he is meant by Astrology) is not unlawfull, whereof any Natural or Di­vine cause can be yielded; as first there be Natural Signes in the Heavens and Air, as of the alteration of weather, of windes, of rain, &c. This doth no whit hurt Astrolo­gy; mark but the words, all manner of conjecturing is not unlawfull, &c. and saith M. Homes, see he calleth it (meaning Astrology) but conjecturing onely; but doth M. Homes conjecture it to be no other? if he do, it is his ignorance. But let me not forget my self, and spend too much time about him. It hath been already shewn, that the Starrs have the applause of power on the natural things of this world, as also the great Ptolomy (whose word in this case I believe will be taken before Doctour Willets or M. Homes his) gives his word for it; besides experience also as above shewed; (and you know Expe­rientia docet:) there is no more to be said, but that Astro­logy is not (as Doctour Willet saith) unlawfnll; neither doth he in any wise condemn it, for in his following words he tells us, There are natural Signes in the Heavens and Air, which cause rain, winde, &c. The cause of which, is no other then the influence of the Starrs, which if he deny, all Writers on this Art are contracted, as also the Scripture to boot; if then this be not a strong Argument, let himself judge.

But to clear this point more fully: What, saith Master Homes, is the cause of Rain, alteration of Air, and the like? If his Master, Doctour Willet, did not these words shew it. me thinks he should not have left the Reader unsatisfied; and not onely so, but have proved the Starrs to have no influence thereon, nor to be causes [Page 55]of these alterations, and then his argument had been good. But they are causes; And first let me give you Moses judgement herein, who plainly tells us, The Stars are for signs and seasons, Gen. 1.14. which M. Homes will say is fulfilled in the words following, viz. And God made two great lights, the one to rule the day, the other to rule the night, Gen. 1.16. To which then I answer, by way of Quere, to what end then are these invincible, irresistable and innumerable hosts of Heaven? were they made for no other use then to gaze on? the Sun and Moon will sufficiently serve our turn for matter of light, if we look no further into their uses; but the Scripture further putteth this matter quite out of doubt if we will believe Gods own word, Job 28.31. For he speaking of his Omnipotent power, asketh his servant Job, whe­ther he, or any one else Can restrain the influence of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion: On which words S. Austin on Job, referreth all men to the study of Astro­logy, for the understanding of that place; and not onely so, but shews us that under these two constellations, the Lord doth comprehend the influence of all the Celestiall host, figuratively expressing pars pro toto; and to shew you by experience the verity hereof, if you will neither believe S. Augustine, Moses, nor God himself, except you see and feel; (not to insist long on this point, which is cleared by such strong and invincible witnesses, one whereof is able to be sufficient testimony against all Ma­ster Homes his learned Judges and condemners of Astro­logy,) for confirming and clearing hereof, then I might here again instance that palpable experience we have of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, by the influence of the Moon (as abovesaid); but to manifest it yet further, let him call to mind the increase and decrease of Shel-fish, the mutation and variation of times, and innumerable o­ther effects of the Stars, which (if time and convenien­cy would permit) migh [...] [...] recorded, and let him then [Page 56]study the cause hereof, and he will then without doubt be of another tenet; let him observe also when ♄ and ☉ is in □ or ☍ or when ♂ and [...] is in □ or ☍ or ♃ and ☿ are so posited, and let him tell me then, what altera­tions they produce in the air both by Rain, Snow, Wind, Tempests Thundering and Lightning, and the like, ac­cording to their severall positions, the nature of signs and houses and mansions they are in; (which if he be not alto­gether ignorant of the Art, he may daily see) These and the like effects, are most vulgarly known by expe­rience, so that therefore he might even as well have con­fessed those signs he speaketh of, to be the Stars, and cau­ses their influence, since he doth not nor cannot shew me any other thing they are, without wronging and slander­ing the Art, and contradicting the most learned therein, as also the Father S. Austine Moses, nay and GOD himself. D. Homes might as well then have left out that other addition of Doctour Willets, where he saith, That the Stars have not the same influence in Summer, and in Winter, Spring and Autumn, and so consequently will conclude them First not to be signs (contradicting Mo­ses, and the word of God, Gen. 1.14. as aforesaid;) Secondly, Nor causes, Quia ex unitate causae sequere­tur similitudo effectûs, Of the same cause there should follow the same effect; but there followeth not the same effect from the same signs, appears by experience. As much to say, the Stars are neither causes nor signs, be­cause they produce not fruits in Winter, as well as in Sum­mer, or because they cause not snow in Summer, or Buds and Blossoms in Winter. O rare cavill! but since he is already by what is abovesaid, confuted; I shall here adde nothing but this, that since the question is, whether they are causes and signs, because that passage in the first of Genesis manifelts they are signs, I will (if he will be con­vinced by the word of God) here give him to know they are also causes; I will hear the heavens, and the heavens [Page 57]shall hear the earth, and the earth, the corn and the wine, &c. Hos. 2.2. And in another place, the increase of the earth is referred to the Influence of the Sun and the Moon, Deut. 33.14. By all which we may clearly see (unless blinded with malice and wilfulness) that they are both signes and causes, of all our earthly injoyments and hap­pinesses; Et si Scriptura, & ipse Deus nobiscum, quis contranos.

W. R. his SECT. III. Wherein his allegations against the ground of the Art are condemned; and his bringing S. Augustine and Galen against it, proved fallacious.

SEeing then it is most clearly so, that the Stars are signes and causes as abovesaid, what need these envious car­pers or malicious gainsayers of the truth be heeded or re­garded? but let these perverse rags of paper perish with themselves, not worthy the least remembrance. And in­deed had it not been rightly to insorm the vulgar, and to make them see, that high language serveth not to con­demn truth, I had buried both them and their filthy rags in perpetual oblivion; but I hope since they must be re­membred, it will be but for their disgrace, not chronicled for their worthiness, but perpetual infamy.

But this is not all, he comes next to condemn Astrolo­gy by Keckerman, and that with as weak Arguments as he did the rest: Keckerman, (saith he) a most learned Philosopher, and Christian, although he favours some things which men now a dayes call part of Astrology, did not in all his two great Volumes in fol. of Arts and Scien­ces Jet forth any Astrology. A wise story indeed; because Keckerman writeth not of Astrology, therefore there is no such thing: but if Keckerman hath not, yet as wise and as learned, and greater Philosophers have, as if the [Page 58]being of Astrology depended on his writing hereof, Look the second Chapter of this Treatise. or it were a whit farther from being an heavenly Science and a lawfull Art, because he omitteth it: fine Logick and rare reason, if rightly understood, and the depth there­of throughly searched! because Aristotle knew not the reason of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, therefore no body else doth, neither is there such a thing in Na­ture; and because Moses writeth not of the Creation of Angels; Ergo, there is none: O profound and in­vincible reason! But to proceed, (he saith) he is sure he hath these words against it, Manent tamen, &c. The Starrs abide, as of other sublunary effects, so of effects in man, the common and remote cause, which many wayes may be hindred, not onely by the first cause, God, but also by particular causes, partly in the Heavens, partly in the Air and other Elements; so that the Predictions of Astrologers are with ifs and ands, &c. which is as much to the purpose as comes just to nothing; for first, that God can alter the course of the Starrs, there is no Astrologer but will confesse (but whether he will or no, or ordinarily uses so to do, is the question) so that Master Homes gets little by this querk, since he affirmeth nothing that any Astrologer will deny. But if Master Keckerman maketh it not appear what particular causes hinder the effects of the Stars, me thinks for the strength of his argument Master Homes should have done it; for it standeth not with any rea­son, that subordinate causes as are the Air and o­ther Elements, should predominate or rule over the first moving Causes, viz. the Starrs; this the weak­est capacity that understands the Art will affirm, and you have but now heard that the effects of the Starrs cause alteration and mutation of the Air, as we also daily see by experience; and therefore his As­sertion, that the Principles of Astrology are not con­firmed on true Principles, is here also condemned [Page 59]as erronious, false and malicious; for we see Astrologers seldome fail in their judgements, except when they swerve from the rules of Art: wherefore Alsteds assertion also is here no lesse simple then the rest, who saith, Astrologers are also often deceived; and what then? because a man that never was at London, misseth his way, once or twice, shall he conclude there is no such place? sure it should rather teach him to observe diligently his roade, and not turn on the right hand nor the left; and if the Astrolo­gers would as warily observe their rules, this objection of the ignorant had never been thought on. But Ma­ster Homes, is Divinity false and no wise to be heeded, because there is so many errours and schisms crept into the Church? or because every one attaineth not to a full perfection of the Spirit? or because humanum est errare, man is frail and subject to failings? no sure, ex­perience, reason and truth teacheth us to the contrary. Wherefore he might very well have omitted these slen­der reasons, as also that place of Galen, where he saith, sophisticum est, it is sophisticall: but how? not as ha­ving no verity therein, but in the superstitious abuse thereof, for you see clearly in the first Chapter of his Treatise, Galen holdeth that man a fool, rather then a Physician, that is not an Astrologer: and in all his works hath Astrology in great esteem and applause, and moreover testifieth his own practice hereof, especi­ally, lib. 3. de diebus decret. cap. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. and the like. So he brings Saint Austin to condemn it thus in these words, in his Treatise De Doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. cap. 21, 22. est magnus error, magna dementia, et superstitio: Astrology is a great errour, madnesse, and superstition; it is clear that Saint Austin here speaketh of the superstitious use thereof, as in attributing fatall necessity thereto, and in too much trusting and confiding therein, as may appear by what you have already heard S. Austin saith of it; but to clear [Page 60]it more fully, L. 5. c. 4. & 1.20. c. 6. contra Faustum Manich. S. Austin confesseth that before his con­version, he followed the heresies of the Manichees, who maintained the stars to be adored and prayed unto, and therefore to reclaim the multitude, which went thus a whoring after the wayes of the Heathen, this good man useth these words to recall them, and unite them to the belief of God: But I hope M. Homes will not say that Astrologers are thus superstitious and wicked; he that saith Astrology (as I said before) is any other thing then what is delivered by Ptolomy, in the second page of this Treatise, knoweth not what Astrology is; Neither will he affirm I hope, that S. Austin condemns Astro­logy, but the superstitious abuse thereof which is clear, for he delivereth five opinions concerning destiny.

First, that by destiny is understood the providence, will and power of God, and therefore he warneth the Astrolo­gers, that they continue their opinions, but correct their tongues, 1.5. c. 1. De Civ. Pei. for through custome of speech the vulgar com­monly understood nothing by the word fate or destiny, but the inevitable power of the Stars.

The second is quite contrary to the former, ascribing all to the absolute power of the Stars, without the will of God: But this opinion derogating from the omnipotent power of God, and his providence in all our actions, he saith ought to be rejected, not onely by those that pro­fesse the true Religion, but which serve or worship any gods at all, though never so false.

The third so attributeth to the decrees of the Stars, that yet they believe them to have this power in such sort derived unto them from God, that thereby they can, and do determine of us and our actions as they will themselves: which opinion he thinketh is very wrongfully held of hea­ven, to maintain such wickednesse to be, as it were, inact­ed in that most shining Senate, that were the like acted in any Court or State on earth, it were worthy to be sub­verted.

The fourth opinion is, That the Stars have neither power nor will to operate on us at their own pleasures, but as they do necessarily execute that which God imposeth upon them; which Saint Austine accounteth more into­lerable then the other, for that it teacheth us to conceive that of God, which they hold unworthy to im­pute unto the Starrs, against such he sufficiently de­clareth.

These opinions, Saint Augustine renounceth, as they rather utterly deny the power and providence of God; or, as they impute absolute rule and dominion of the Stars immediately over the will of man necessari­rily inforcing us in all our actions; or as they throw all our sinnes upon God, whilest they make him by the Stars inevitably to inforce us to evil: wherefore had Master Homes (as it had befit a learned man) first ex­amined his Authours with good observation and delibe­ration, and not so readily taken hold on every thing he finds delivered by others, that he imagineth will serve for his turn; I'm confident, he had not thus inconside­rately alledged Saint Augustine against Astrologers, for (as I defined before in the second page, what Astrology is, so the same) Ptolomy confesseth the Stars not to have any fatality, as working by or with a fatall necessity on the will or soul of man as much as S. Austine him­self; giving them no farther operation in these matters, then the most Orthodox and Learned Divines do.

The fifth opinion is, Which neither esteemeth the Stars of their own wils, (as if they were living souls) to decree future events, nor necessarily to usurp power over minds, but onely to signifie the inclinations of the ele­ments, and of all things compounded of them.

Now that Saint Austine meant not such Astrologers as deny necessity (as Master Homes would fain per­suade the vulgar to believe;) but onely ascribe power unto the Starrs to work upon sublunary bodies; is [Page 62]evident by his words, Non usque quaque absurdè dici possit, adsolas corporum differentias, afflatus quosdam valere sidereos, sicut in solaribus accessibus, & reces­sibus; videmus etiam ipsius anni tempora variari & luna­ribus incrementis, et decrementis augeri et minui quae­dam genera rerum; sicut Echinos, et conchas, et mira­biles aestus oceani, non autem, et animi voluntates positi­onibus siderum subdi: where we see nothing exempted from subjection to the Stars that is bodily, but onely our spirituall part. And he ascribeth not this power to the Stars in generall, as that their specificall virtues are not possible to be known to man, for he concurreth with A­strologers, that the quality of ♄ is cold, &c, as you may further see at the beginning of this Chapter. So that you may see how falsly and injuriously he brings in Saint Au­gustine against Astrology.

VV. R. his SECT. IV. Wherein Astrology is defended against his al­legations, from Master Perkins his words.

MAster Homes comes then to tell us Master Perkins a learned man and famous, writ a Treatise a­gainst it: so did Melancthon, a greater Scholler then he, and as knowing a Divine, write as much and more for it, then he ever did against it; what if I should tell him of some that have writ against the Scripture, is the Word of God therefore false and to be rejected? he saith Master Perkins calls it profanenesse, and idola­try; but let the Reader seriously and diligently but observe what hath been here already said, and he can­not but understand Master Perkins spake onely against the abuse of the Art, not as it is in its self; against the superstitious confidence and trust in the Starrs, not the learching and studying of the influences and effects of the [Page 63]Stars on Elementary bodies; and as much as this comes to, all that study the Art will confesse, Ergo M. Homes is mistaken to think by these words of M. Perkins to con­demn Astrology, since he saith no more then all Astrolo­gers themselves will say. Wherefore not to dwell longer here, we come now to his eighth learned man which con­demns Astrology, which he tells us is M. Geree who hath (saith he) written a Treatise against Astrology. I could if need were, cite as many, and more that have written against the Divine Word of God, then he can make appear hath written against Astrology; shall any man be therefore so impudently wicked to conclude, the word of God is not true, or not to be credited? no sure, this were altogether as impudently wicked as M. Homes his sequel or conclusion is ridiculous, sophi­sticall and envious. M. Chambers also writ a book a­gainst Astrology, which I wonder he remembred not also, but that learned Sir Christopher Heyden return­ed him such a repulse, as that none of the Antagonists or ill wishers to the Art, ever durst undertake to give a reply thereunto; for he doth not onely refute Ma­ster Chambers, but also Picus Mirandula, Melton, Perkins, and Geree to boot; wherefore I referr all those that would be further resolved herein, and desire to dis­cern between truth and falshood, to the perusall of the discourse it self, it being a piece of that exquisite wit and learning, that none can be able to surpasse it, if (in the whole World) be worthy to compare with it.

W. R. his SECT. V. Wherein his cavilling M. Briggs, and others, are convinced.

VVE now come to hear what he can tell us of learned M. Briggs, against Astrology, which [Page 64]is briefly thus much, That after an earnest desire to at­tain the perfection thereof, he seriously applyed himself unto the study, but in conclusion, when he thought to have had joy of his wearied labours, he was satisfied with nothing but uncertainty, and meeting an other A­strologer, told him how he had been deceived in the rules of the Art, who (for his comfort) concluded also as he did, that there was no certaincy therein, upon which he left off further studying thereof. Now I would very fain know of any man (which shall be all the answer I shall give to this sophisticall cavill) whether by these words Astrology be convinced as uncertain, because Master Briggs and another, (or suppose half a dozen more) could find no certainty therein; when Ptolomy, Galen, Hippocrates, Saint Austine, and thousands more, found not onely certainty therein, but concluded and agreed that it was the most beneficiall and pleasant Art under the Sun: and whereas he cites Phavorinus against Astrology in these words, Aut adversa eventura dicunt, &c. which is, They foretell either things of prosperity or adversity; if of prosperity, and they fail, then thoushalt be prosperous or happy in hoping for that good, if of ad­versity, and hit not right, then thou wert miserable in fearing in vain; &c. which agrees with what he saith M. Briggs would undertake to do, viz. To prove the rules of Astrology contradictory, viz. It shall be so, and it shall not be so, which is the meerest cavill of all the rest, to say, Ergo, Astrology is uncertain. I will un­dertake then a greater matter then M. Briggs, for let there be what Art or Science that M. Homes can devise nominated (though never so true) I will undertake to speak as much, nay and with more proof against it, then all these his learned men hath done in this his character of the present times; (he forgot to put in those that deny the truth; nay, and not onely so, but sophistically and maliciously maintain it to their utmost indeavours, think­ing [Page 65]the citing of S. Austine to be proof enough to ter­rifie the Reader from undertaking this study, or conti­nuing therein, not observing the words of his Authour, and together with the Fathers to include the Councils; but tels us not how and upon what grounds and reasons they disallowed of the Art, lest then his malice be discovered.) Wherefore let me then for a conclusion, as well to this Chapter, as his cavils, ask him these two questions; whether a man may not (if enviously disposed) speak against the most manifest truths, nay against the very word of God, and wrest the Scripture to their own in­clinations and intentions? And secondly, if he be proved hereof guilty, in the next Chapter, to wrest the Scripture sense to confute Astrology; whether he be not more fit to be brought under the lash of the Law, then Astrolo­gers? So have you his learned men against Astrology confuted; we come now to the main point of all, viz. Whether Astrology be condemned by the word of God?

SURVEY. Thus with large patience have we gi­ven long leave to Will. Ramsey to speak thus much together, without interruption; saving onely, that in his meer impertinencies, and some unmannerly jeerings and railings, these Sections of his are made by the Re-Prin­ter, in part to keep silence. But to the matter. What a huge company of Levers in one place doth he bring to break an Egg! What a many of Candles doth he light up, in another place, to shew us that the Sun shines; which we saw and acknowledged afore he lighted them up! He hath shot a great many sharp words, and with much virulency; but at Rovers, so that he doth not onely misse the mark, but also not hit the Butt. Did the Doctour in­tend in the least his Quotation of Authours that have been against Astrology, in a way of argument or proof? His words in the very beginning of his second Section (which Will. Ramsey hath all this while so puddered [Page 66]himself to confute) shew William the contrary, if he had been willing to see. Because (saith the Doctour) the Astrologers give out, that there is no body against this Astrology but one Perkins, or some one or two more, men not acquainted with Art; or in the like slighting speeches; it will be very convenient to quicken your atten­tions, as to a point considerable, by setting before you the judgement of severall learned men touching Astrology. Indeed if I do here but reprint that second Section of the Doctour, which Will. pretends to confute, it will be a sufficient confutation of all these five Sections of Willi­am's second Chapter.

W. R. his SECT. I. Wherein the Drs first Scripture proof, viz. Deut. 18.10. is convinced and cleared, no wise to condemn ASTROLOGIE.

COncerning his first proof, Deut. 18.10. I have for­merly in my Reply to Raunces Declaration against Astrology said said something and referred the Reader, to the learned Sir Christopher Heydon, to be further satis­fied in the rest of his divine proofs, in his answer to M. Chamber, and that so learned a piece may not be kept from the knowledge of the vulgar, under the cloud of si­lence, I will here along in the confutation of M. Homes his divine proofs, use his very arguments and word (as near as I can) against the same places alleadged by M. Chamber.

His first proof then is Deut. 18.10. There shall not be found among you any one that useth Divination, or an ob­server of times; which words saith he, by the common consent of the learned of all sorts, Signifie Astrology and Astrologers; and for the which sins, the Nations were driven out before the Children of Israel: Now that you shall see how far M. Homes is mistaken to think hereby to perswade the world against Astrology I will give you that learned Gentlemans words against M. Chamber hereon, where he saith, ‘ Picus urgeth that Achinas understand­eth the word in the Original, to fignifie such, as observe lucky and unlucky houres, which our English translate, A regarder of times, and Tremelius, Planetarius, and and from hence they think they have pregnant evidence to condemn Astrology by this Law.’

I may reckon up here also M. Homes his Mercer, R. Kimchy, and Schindler, who, saith he, take the words in the worst sense, viz. The curious and Diabolical Arts, [Page 91]as Magi of the Egyptians, Ergo, saith M. Homes, Astrology is not lawfull. But to proceed with Sir Christo­pher Heydon's discourse hereon, saith he, ‘But notwith­standing all this, I will make it appear, that these Translations are of small force, and being admitted, little or nothing impeach this Art.’

‘And first, [A] I incounter them with the authority of Church, even from the time of Moses untill they wrote, being wholly against them. For to begin with the Septuagint, They have translated the word Gnomen, in this place [...] which signifieth Augurare, or to divine by the voice and flying of Birds; S. Hierome and the vulgar expounded it, of such as divine by ob­servation by Dreams. Pagnine in his Translation inter­preteth it Hariolus, by a general name, or such a one, as divineth at the Altar by Sacrifices. Arias Montanus useth the word Praestigiator, that is a Jugler or Cofi­ner, that with Legerdemain deceiveth the eye-sight.’ (See that that is also confessed by M. Homes himself) ‘So that besides all antiquity, and consent of the whole Church against him, we see that divers men have di­verfly interpreted this word; and therefore I leave it to the judgement of the Reader, whether we are to give credit to the new Expositours, rather then to the ancient and learned Hebrews themselves, who best understood their own Language, or to the common understanding of the Fathers and the Church, even from the first, untill these men (which hath been long since) expounded it otherwise then all that had gone before them.’ And now to come to the English Translation, as we have it expres­sed in our English Bibles; see with what reason and sound arguments M. Homes is silenced, who is not onely thus mistaken in the signification of the word, but most slanderously intrudeth Astrologers with, or at least makes them the same with Wizards, and those that have samiliar spirits; For, saith he, so that indeed (as 'tis in [Page 92] Lev. 20.6.) to follow such kinde of Arts, (speaking be­fore of Divination, by observation of times, and juggling which he all along concludes to be Astrology, as his Inter­preters there have it) Is to go a whoring (spiritually) from Christ, and God will (saith he) set his face against such, and cut off such from among his people, weighty reasons against Astrology (saith he).

The same Sir Christopher Heydon saith, [B] ‘Concerning our English Translatours, I finde they rather leave us in doubts, then resolved; for whereas here they take the word Gnomen for a regarder of times, in other places they interpret it otherwayes, as in 2 Chron. cap. 33. vers. 6. for Witchcraft, and in the 5. of Micah. For South-sayers. So that in this inconstancy to them­slves, they must either give better reason (then any thing I know they are able) why in this place of Deut. it should not be intepeted as well a Witch, or a South­sayer, as a Regarder of times, or else such a regarder of times, as makes his election by Witchcraft and South­saying, and not by Astrology. Again, suppose the word be admitted, [C] as the English translate it; yet neither is all regarding of time prohibited, neither doth it prove that regarding of time by Astrology is unlawfull, For Solomon (the wisest of men) saith, That the heart of the wise man knows time, and that to every purpose there is a time, as to plant, to pluck up, to slay, to heal, to break down, to build, to weep, to laugh, &c. which none but the fool neglecteth.’ As in Ecclesiastes farther in the third Chapter, and more at large: ‘and he that ob­serveth not time, but shall laugh when he should weep, and sow when he should reap, is unseasonable and ma­keth himself ridiculous. Wherefore if this be the true interpretation or signification of the word, he must speak against that superstitious observation of times, which the Heathen used, and that superstitious people at present do use;’ the very same I may say to M. Homes.

But in answer to M. Homes his Expositours, take the interpretation of the word Gnonan, as the same Sir Chri­stopher Heydon delivers it by M. Edward Lively, Pro­fessour of the Hebrew in Cambridge to Queen Eliza­beth: who was solicited by Sir Christopher Heydon to deliver his opinion and judgement of the Hebrew word, because it was objected by M. Chamber, that Tremelius did interpret it Planetarius, wherefore for the Readers better satisfaction, I have here delivered it verbatim as that worthy Knight hath it.

‘I have looked in all the Hebrew Scripture, wherein that word is used, examining as well the judgements of the Hebrew Scoliastes in their Commentaries, as also many of the best Translations, Caldee, Greek, and La­tine, among whom for the signification of that word, I finde this general agreement, that it signifieth an un­lawfull and forbidden Art of South-saying, or Jug­gling, or Sorcery, or Witchcraft; but touching the cer­tain and special kinde thereof, there is such dissention and disagteement among them, as that there is great diversity of opinions, but none cometh to Tremelius his minde, for a planetary, ( or of M. Homes his Arabrick versions, which it seems he is loath, or at least ashamed to nominate.’

W. R. his SECT. II. Wherein the Drs second proof is refelled, viz. Esay. 2.6.

ANd if so, then I may with more confidence affirm his second passage of Scripture to the less material in all respects, for the blindest of people may clearly see. it doth no whit so much as either hint or mean Astrology, Esay 2.6. Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they are replenished from the East, and are Sooth-sayeers like the Philistims; where [Page 94]is Astrology in all this? The Text tells us. God had for­saken his people, because they were South-sayers. but as for their being Astrologers, I see nothing mentioned. But let us see but how he tugs to bring this farr fetcht argu­ment or proof to serve his turn; he shews us first that the word clearly signifieth South sayers, which is enough a­lone to refell all the arguments therein let them say what they will to the contrary, Vatablus in his Notes (saith he) rendreth it Diviners; and Junius, Praestigiatores, that is, (saith he) that make shew of that they cannot do: you have heard Junius opinion but now, but what of this? Vacablus saith, the word imports Diviners, must this con­sequently and infallibly be Astrologers, why not Necro­mancers, Auguries, Inchanters, Sorcerers, Auruspicers? Do not all these divine? but I need not insist longer here­on; for, he answers this point in his following words him­self, The Septuagint (saith he) rendreth it [...], (saith Budeus) saith he. A kinde of fore-telling: as [...] (saith they) signifieth Divination, and generally the Cal­dee, Syriack, Arabick; Arias Montanus, &c. ren­ders it Augurers or Auguries, Ergo, not Astrologers; but saith he, farther because antiquities tell us that that the Augurers did divine as well by the Aspects of the Heavens as by flying Birds; Authours of late times com­monly use that word to express Divination in general: O brave reason! because for brevities sake in Oration, or the like, Authours as he calleth them) perhaps use this word, therefore he will use it (being as he confesseth him­self general) to condemn particularly Astrology? and because the Text speaketh against Augurers, and they know the Aspects of the Planets, therefore, it also con­demneth Astrology? All that believe shall be saved (saith the Scripture) it is clear the Devils believe and tremble, Ergo, I shall conclude them not damned? rare Logick indeed!

W. R. his SECTION III. Wherein his third Text is convinced, viz. Esay 44.25.

THirdly, he produceth the 44. Chapter of Esay, v. 25, &c. I am the Lord thy Redeemer, which do fru­strate the signes of Wizards, making the South-sayers mad, foiling their wise men, and making their skill foolish. This is to as little purpose brought to condemn Astrology, as it is weakness in him to alleadge it or af­firm it. How can M. Homes, or any one living, prove Astrology to be signified by any of these names, when it is clear (as abovesaid) it dependeth meerly on the natu­ral influences and effects of the Starrs? which is not to foretell by the flying or voice of Birds, observation of the intrails of Beasts, and the like; nor indeed is it properly to be termed Divination, for to divine is, or doth not naturally signifie the foretelling of future events by natu­ral causes, but by some divine instinct.

But to come to the words in the Text, which he would needs inforce against Astrology; the same Sir Christopher Heydon, further faith upon these words. ‘That they are purposely uttercd to advance the omnipotency of God, so greatly diminished by Idolatry, but to imagine that God would set forth the greatness of his power, by op­poposing the same against that, which in it self is fruit­less, infirm, and of no force at all, were not onely against sense, but in truth to frustrate the words and meaning of God himself; wherefore it doth necessarily follow, that so long as it pleaseth him to suffer the course of nature to proceed without interruption. Astrological signes must be confessed effectual, and not to be frustra­ted but by miracle, and by his omnipotent power, to which that the Starrs are subject, all our Astrologers do confess, and none but an Atheist will deny. For as [Page 96]God is the Creatour of all things so is he the first cause of all causes, to whom all causes are but his instru­ments; and therefore as the instrument worketh not of it self, but when it is imployed by the hand of the Artificer, so the Heavens being Gods instruments, do not exercise their force upon these inferiour things, but as God doth use their Ministery in the Government of the world.’ And this he saith is taught us by the Prophet Hosea, (as abovesaid) Chap. 2.21, 22. where (saith he) he saith, ‘not simply the heavens shall hear the earth, but first, I will hear the heavens, to shew them the power the heavens have over the earth, and that it dependeth on God. In which sense, the Scripture saith also, God worketh all in all things, and that we live, move, and have our being in him. And therefore whether we re­spect the natural course of things, or those accidents which happen besides the order of nature, we are to ac­knowledge it to be the supereminent power of God, as the first cause of every thing, which nevertheless can be no impeachment to Astrology, because God doth go­vern ordinately, and therefore seldom perverteth or disturbeth that order, whereby in his eternal provi­dence, he doth govern his Workmanship.’

W. R. his SECT. IV. Wherein he saith the Doctour fourth proof is refelled, viz. Esay 47.12, 13, 14.

FOurthly, he brings the 47. of Esay, 12, 13, 14. Stand now with thine inchantments, and with the multitude of thy Sorceries, Let now the Astrologers, the Star-ga­zers, the monethly Prognosticatours, stand up and save thee. &c. Behold they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them, they shall not deliver themselves, &c. This very place (as I would have the Reader observe) is [Page 97]enough to confute his former injury to Astrologers, in reckoning them no other then South-sayers, Wizards, Sorcerers, and the like, when he sees clearly the Lord here makes a particular distinction between the one and the other; for you see, Astrologers, Monethly Prognostica­tours, Sorceries, and Inchanters paicicularly named.

But to come now to the clearing of the Text which he thinks doth absolutely strike the fatal blow to Astrology; inferring from thence, that Astrology is opposite to confi­dence in God, and that Astrologers are much of the same abomination, with Inchanters and South-sayers, and that they are to be derided, and no wise to be trusted in &c. But as I said before, the wit of man is not able to answer these his vain wrests and interpretations of the Scriptures, better then by that honourable Gentleman Sir Christopher Heydon, I here give you, as he hath it in his second Chapter, in answer to M. Chamber bringing in the same place of Scripture, and indeed with the same conclusions as doth M. Homes. ‘I will not deny that, because God and his Prophets were not believed by the Chaldeans, (who reposed in their Magicians, South-sayers, and Mathematicians) the Prophet here in a scorning Sar­casmus, biddeth them save their Empire from ruine, therein contemning their Power, and not their Predicti­ons, and expresly noting that it shall not be in them to save themselves from the judgements to come. This I do plainly acknowledge, although were I disposed to stand upon all advantages with M. Chamber, sith both Vatablus, and M. Calvin in their Commentaries, confess that word Chabar doth indifferently signifie such observers of Heaven as were Inchanters thereof; I could easily avoid him as not disputing ad idem, sith not Astrologers simply, but such as withall joyned Ma­gick, seems here to be mentioned. And it is manifest by the example of Moses, and the Egyptians, and of Balaam and Balack, that though they were Astrolo­gers, [Page 98]yet they reposed their safety against God and his people, onely in their Magical power, by which (as their Poets and others report) they profess themselves able to pull the Moon and the Starrs out of Heaven, and so doth Diodorus Siculus testific, Lib. 2. cap. 8. that though they were cunning in Astrology, yet they did onely prevent the cvils which they did fore-see, by In­chantments and Charmes. For in truth. Astrology pro­fesseth onely to fore see natural mutations and accidents, and not power to prevent and save. But to return to that which he most expects, I will admit as much as M. Chamber himself can desire, that the Prophet here de­rideth the trust which was put in the skill of Astrolo­gers (which is indeed M. Homes his chief drift also) now let him frame his argument, and he shall never be able to bring the proposition of this Chapter (which is, That Christianity and Astrology cannot stand toge­ther) (which indeed is M. Homes his argument also, concluding Astrology, to be opposite to confidence in God) within this conclusion. For it followeth not, that because upon some circumstance a thing may be derided, that it is unlawfull. If this were any consequence, then because confidences in Princes, Psal. 1.16. in Riches, Psal. 52. in Horses and Chariots, Esay 31. in Cities, Jer. 5. in Physicians, 2 Chron. 16. in Negotiation or Trade of Merchandise. In the last verse of this same Chapter of Esay, (where the same words and phrase are used against Merchants, that before were used a­gainst Observers of Heaven, or Astrologers, as Arias Montanus and Tremelius translate it) is prohibited, derided, and punished; we must hold the permission of Princes, Riches, Horses, Chariots, Cities, Physicians, and Merchants, to be against Christianity, and unlaw­full. He ought therefore first to have distinguished of the trust that is here derided, and not thus to deceive by any elench, â dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simplici­ter, [Page 99]as if all trust were taken away, because some trust is derided. For in these places, and the like, onely such a trust as excludeth confidence in God is understood, and no other. As in our case, where notwithstanding God by his Prophets threatned the destruction of the Baby­lonish Monarchy, it was not believed; but these Hea­then presuming rather upon their own power and skill, in contempt of God broke forth, as appeareth verse 10. into these blasphemous speeches, None seeth me. Quasi dicat (saith Tremelius) ne deus quidem novit rationes meas; Nay God himself knoweth not my wayes; and again, I am and none else; and verse 7. I shall not sit as a widow, nor shall not know the loss of Children: Thus denying both God and his power; while they presume upon their own. But is this heathenish pre­sumption and confidence to be imputed as a fault to Astrology? or is it not truly to be reputed the impiety of the Professours, and others, with whom the Prophet dealeth? who denying that to God which is due, and ascribing more then they ought to the Starrs, and their own knowledge and power, do that which Astrology never taught them, and therefore is not guilty of their ungodliness. He ought then to make a difference be­tween the Heathen, with whom the Prophet hath to do, and Christians against whom he writeth; for though it be true that Christian Astrologers do monethly progno­sticate, as is mentioned in the Text, by the consideration of the Starrs; yet is he not able to tax any of them with that derogation from God, or impiety, which is here derided. For to place confidence in Starrs, as in di­vine causes and powers, is one thing, and to esteem them but as subordinate and second causes in nature, is ano­ther; the one maketh them Gods, the other but Gods instruments, which (as our Astrologers do acknowledge with one consent) it is in his power to alter, as best pleaseth his divine will; and therefore they are very farr [Page 100]from that heathenish presumption and confidence here taxed, whereby ye may see, that the trust may be repro­ved, yet the Art unchecked. For I omit here to shew, that monethly Prognostications grounded upon obser­vation, deduced from causes in nature, have ever been permitted and suffered, in all well ordered and Christian Common-wealths, so farr as I know; and that not one­ly the Fathers, and those later Divines by me before re­membred, but even M. Calvin himself, in his admoni­tion, with others (that attribute as little as they may to this Art) do allow thereof, so farr forth as they extend to the state of the weather, of health, plague, plenty, dearth, and to the direction of the Physician, when to purge by Pill. when by Potion, when by letting of bloud; this being as farr as our Prognostications pro­ceed; which nevertheless would not have been suffered, if God by his holy Prophet had shewed any detestation thereof, or reproved the same as unlawfull, and unchri­stian. Wherefore when these adversaries condemn the Art for the abuses of Artists, it is clear that they do but play the Sophisters, deceiving by a plain fallacy, ab ac­cidente. And lastly, if it be considered what S. Hie­rome, Hugo, Aquinas, Lyra, Haymo, and other ancient Expositours, have written upon the Text, it is most cer­tain, that not one of them is so sharp sighted as to espy out any thing in this place that may prejudicat Astrolo­gy, but they all defend the same as fully as my self.’ Wherefore if in this place of Scripture M. Homes be not as farr mistaken as in all the rest of his foregoing Cavils, and maketh not himself appear to the eyes of the world to be a meer Sophister, let the impartial judge.

W. R. his SECT. V. Wherein his fifth proof is proved weak, as to his purpose, viz. Jer. 10.2, 3.

F [...]ly, he strives to condemn Astrology by the 10. of Jer. v. 2, 3. but to as little purpose as in all the rest; the words are, Learn not the way of the Heathen, and be not dismayed at the Signes of Heaven, for the Heathen are dismayed at them, &c. whereupon he inferreth. Astrology not to be lawfull, (because as he thinks God here by the Prophet prohibiteth the Jews to give credit to Star-gazers) but as I said before, Astrologers do not make the Starrs gods, but Gods instruments; Not in the least attributing fatal necessity to be in their power: wherefore then consequently he argueth not against, nor contradicteth, nor condemneth Astrologers by these his Cavils, since they are as far from being as guilty thereof as himself; nay, and I believe more. But for the farther clearing of the Text, and the manifesting of M. Homes his mistake, if not wilfull malice, let us hear what the same Sir Christopher Heydon saith in answer to the same place of Scripture alleadged by M. Chamber also to con­demn Astrology: ‘Whereupon M. Chamber inferreth, that the Prophet willeth the Jews to give no credit to the Star-gazers, (and M. Homes, trust or confidence, p. 134. opposite to the confidence and comfort in God:) But sure he that maketh this collection out of these words of the Text, never (I think) either gazed or looked upon them with half an eye: for the Prophet prohibiteth fear; M. Chamber, credit; (M. Homes, trust or confidence;) again, the Prophet speaketh of the Starrs themselves; M. Chamber, of the persons that observe them; (so M. Homes also) wherefore what difference there is between the one and the other, so farr [Page 102]ought we to be from giving M. Chambers assertion any credit (and how shall M. Homes his then take?’

‘For if he will truly inform the Reader, he knoweth there is nothing prohibited in these words, but that the Jews should not learn the way of the Heathen; which when he wresteth against Astrology, he doth both shew himself to be out of the way, and to seek to seduce o­thers, for to the creature, as in these words, Fear not the signes of Heaven; where the word Fear is not simply understood but for Religious reverence, and Divine wor­ship: for that it is often taken in this sense, is no novelty to those that are acquainted with the speech and phrase of the holy Ghost: as for example Esay cap. 29. v. 13. And their fear toward me was taught by the precept of men: where fear is (by Christ himself, alleadging this place of the Prophet, Matth. 15. v. 9.) expounded for worship, saying, in vain they worship me, teaching for Doctrines mens traditions: as likewise the very same word is used in other places, for the idolatrous worship exhibited to false gods: as 2 Kings cap. 17. v. 7. when the children of Israel sinned &c. it is said, they feared other gods. I could confirm this by infinite like testimo­nies, were it not superfluous in so clear a case: But to prove that the Prophet even here, under this word, like­wise revoketh the Jews from worshipping the heavenly bodies, is yet more evident by the words following: for after he hath in the two next verses expressed the vain customes of the Heathen, in erecting and adoring chose images which they worshipped; he likewise re­straineth them from this second Idolatry vers. 5. in the very same phrase that he did at the first: Fear them not, for they stand up as the Palm-tree, but they speak not, &c. whereby there is no colour of wrangling left to him, that disposeth not himself to be obstinately per­verse: but of force it must be confessed, that the Jews are here onely forbidden to imitate the Heathen in both these kindes of Idolatry.’

["To confirm this more fully, by the consideration of other places: the Scripture giveth us plentifull testimony, that the Jews did follow the Heathen in their Idolatry to the Starrs, but are never reprehended for learning Astro­logy of them: wherefore the Prophet Amos cap. 5. pro­phesied to them long before, even this captivity wherein the Israelites were held in Jeremies time, because they had born (that is worshipped) the Images of Siccuth and Chiun. Abenezra and with him Montanus, under­standing the Planet Saturn by Chiun: and S. Hierome expounding the word Coeab, thinketh it to be Venus whom even the Saracens in his time did worship: but S. Luke Acts 7. v. 42, & 43. following the Greek doth explain Amos, and saith, then God turned himself away, and gave them up to serve the host of Heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: and you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the Star of your God Remphaim, figures which you made to worship them, therefore I will carry you away beyond Babylon: and therefore not unaptly have some Expositours conceived the Images by which the Prophet doth here exprobrate the Heathen, to have been the images of the Signes, and that not without reason; because that after the Prophet hath restrained them from this heathenish fear of the Signes, immediately he giveth this reason, For the customes of the people are vain: and declaring wherein, he addeth, For one cutteth down a tree in the Forrest, &c. which should want sense, if this verse depended not on the former: thus also 2 Kings cap. 17. v. 15, 16. the History saith, they followed the Heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them.

W. R. his SECT. VI. Wherein (as he pretends) the Doctours sixth proof is re­felled, viz. Dan. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. hath nothing in it, but words, being left of Sir Christopher unto himself; and therefore his Section is not worth the setting down, as I dare be judged by the learned of his own judge­ment.

SURVEY. Thus with long-suffering have we wait­ed in silence, and quietly permitted William Ramsey to tell out his Tale. But I must confess, had not the most of that he hath said, been the words of Sir Christopher Hey­den. or &c. that was wiser then himself, I do not know how possibly I could have born with him thus farr. For let any wise man judge, whether whiles he speaks, he be not like Davus iste in the Comedy viz. qui interturbat omnia. Yet though he hath borrowed all the strength he could, herein is his unhappiness, that Sir Christopher wrote long since; and so his answers do not charge home to repell the impressions the Doctour, made upon the Squadrant of Judicial Astrologers. For let but an im­partial eye compare what the Doctour hath said in his third Section (which is the Troop against which the for­mer Brigade hath fought all this while) and it will appear that all this while to an an inch it hath fixedly stood its ground; which for the clearer manifesting of what I have said, I have here verbatim inserted him.

VV. R. his SECT. I. VVherein, as he saith, the Doctours fore-fold reason is convinced.

HIs first reason then is, (to prove Astrology is false) that Astrologers themselves confesse, that either the prudence of amortall wise man, or the piety of a god­ly man, or the tutelarity of Angels, or the providence of God, over-ruling all things, may prevent their predicti­ons. VVhereupon he concludes that Astrology is false; for saith he, what humane providence cannot do grace can; if not, Angels may; and where all fail, providence doth or­der according to the mind of God, &c. To answer this his most weak cavil, I shall begin with what he sets down last, viz. The providence of God over-ruling all things, which he saith himself (as well as the other three clau­ses) is the concession of Astrologers themselves, and if so, I would demand then what advantage he hath here­by, against Astrology; when he can say no more against it, then what the Practitioners in the Art do confesse themselves? there is certainly none but wretched A­theists, that will deny, that God hath not an over-ruling, and restraining power over all things, as well celestiall, as terrestriall; but whether his will and pleasure be to alter thēir naturall courses, is a question, but he hath heard that Ptolomy himself, nay and all Astrologers in [Page 151]generall, do attribute nothing (farther then naturall things, which are in sublunary elementary bodies) to the power and influence of the Stars; He weakly there­fore inferres the Stars not to have power, because God can alter, or is able to alter their motions, influences and effects. I demand then whether Astrology be Dia­bolicall, Idolatrous, the Doctrine or Language of the Devils, or wicked, as these two seeming zealous blades, most falsely, maliciously, inconsiderately, and ignorantly traduce it? and then I demand, since as the Philosopher saith, ignorance is the enemy of all good learning, whe­ther they deserve not exemplary punishment, to condemn so noble, so profitable to the Common-wealth, so excel­lent, so divine, and so pleasing a study, as Astrology is teaching and traducing their vile ignorance to the world; and truly as one of them most wisely said, if he should make appear what he knoweth of some Astrologers, the Parliament would make a Law against it, as sometimes was done in the Senate of Rome; but would he becon­tent all Divines should be silenced, because some are Knaves, and prate non-sense, and so consequently con­clude no verity or truth in Divinity? Truly might I be worthy to advise that High Court; in the stead of con­demning and prohibiting this most worthy study, they would do well to prohibit all such Pamphleters, which without either fear or wit, undertake to condemn what they are ignorant of; and that none should be suffered to condemn, or falsely undertake to traduce any Art or Science whatsoever, without first before the publishing of their writings, to make appear to the world, that they are throughly verst and read in the Art they undertake to condemn. The verity whereof, as also its legality, I dare undertake to defend, not onely against what they can say against it; but also all the Divines in England (put together to help them) can imagine or contrive to say. But to return to our businesse in hand, Master Homes on [Page 152]his fore-fold argument, brings this conclusion, that God worketh not by the stars as secundary causes, but Eph. 1.11. he ruleth all things after the counsell of his di­vine will. If because God ruleth all things after the coun­sell of his own will; he worketh not by causes: then, to what purpose I pray you are Armies, and the successe sometimes this way, sometimes that, till in conclusion the victory is fully obtained on one side or other? will he say, (notwithstanding the various successe of the busi­nesse in time of the war) that it was not concluded in the counsell of Gods own will, that the victory should be given on that side?

SURVEY. Now what will this youngling do to go on high-lone, Sir Christopher having left him: and what shall I do with this Junior-Sophister, his modera­tour being gone? For, from hence forward there is no­thing almost to be found in him alone, but as at first; viz. either Cretensian untruths, or Thrasonicall vapourings, or sophisticall impertinencies, or self-contradictions. For that at (A) is VVils. UNTRUTH. For Doctonr Homes said not Astrologers, but the Friends of Astro­logy. For such onely were they that spake to the Doctour. That at (B) is also VVill. UNTRUTH, For the Doctours conclusion is there in that Argument, That there is no certrinty in predictions from the starres. That at (C) is VVill. sophisticall IMPERTINENCY. For though Astrologers confesse one thing in words, yet they professe clean another in the practise of their Art (as they call it) as we have heard by comparing VV. R. Epistles and his Book together, and shall see more pre­sently. That also at (D) is a meer CONTRADI­CTION of himself. For he confesseth at (C) for him­self, and all Astrologers that they grant that the provi­dence of God over-ruling all things, may prevent the pre­dictions of Starres, &c. of the particulars at (A) and [Page 153]yet now at (D) makes it a question whether his plea­sure and will be to alter their naturall courses. That at (E) touching Ptolomy &c. of Astrologers, attributing nothing to the power of Stars farther then naturall things; is VV. R. grosse untruth. For VVill. undertakes by vir­tue of stars to predict other matters, in his Schemes fi­gures &c. in this his Pamphlet, and at the end of his dis­course about the Eclypse. And Ptolomy saith in his Qua­drip. lib. 1. cap. 1. that by the stars may be foretold mo­res animi tales, & tales eventus secuturas, &c. id est, the manners of mens minds, and their events; with infinite more to the same tune, if worth the hearing. That also at (F) is VV. R. UNTRUTH and impertinency. For the Doctour confesseth the thing they call naturall Astrology, and therefore the power of stars; who though he asserts that God alters their effects, is far from infer­ing that therefore they have nopower at all. To clear all this the better, see the Doctours Daemonol. chap. 10. Sect. 4. (which is that VV. R. here would have con­futed) word for word, Section 4. ‘ Conteining reasons or arguments against Astrology. The first is from the concession of the friends of Astrology. They grant that either of these foure may prevent the predictions of Astrology; namely, either the prudence of a mo­rall wise man, or the piety of a godly mun, or the tu­tellarity of Angel, or the providence of God, over­ruling all things; much more all four concurring may anticipate. Now these four swallow up, and gripe within their sphereall things, especiall arbitrary things: what humane prudence cannot do, grace can; if not, Angels may: and where all fail, providence doth order according to the mind of God, who worketh All things according to the counsell of his own will, Ephis. 1.11. Tis said, All things; for, not a Sparrow falls to the ground without his will. And all the hairs of our head are numbred, Math. 10.29, 30. Which our [Page 154]Saviour speaks to comfort Believers against bodily dangers, and corporall causes of fears. And on the o­ther side, tis not said in that Ephes. 1.11. He work­eth all things according to the Stars; which are visible things, and naturall necessary causes; but according to the counsell (which is secret and invisible) of his own will (which is arbitrary and free.) And to expresse it more significantly and emphatically, that God doth not rule by a deputation committed to Stars, especial­ly in things either humane and arbitrary, or spirituall; tis said he ruleth all things after the counsell of his own Will. Which being set over against the many soar invectives the Lord makes against Astrologicall observers of the Stars demonstrate sufficiently to them that will understand, that there is no certainty in pre­dictions from the Stars. This argument might be much enlarged to good purpose; but a word to the wise is suf­ficient.’

Thus far the Doctour. By which it appears not onely that VV. R. did most falsely report him; but also that VVil. did never rightly apprehend the dint of the Do­ctours argument from Ephes. 1.11. which was, that see­ing all humane future events were ordered according to Gods own secret will: that therefore we could not by vision of Stars, or inspection into constellations find visible signs of such humane future events, which before their fulfilling are hidden in the secret counsell of God. And therefore VVilliams quibbles on Ephes. 1. are meer­ly impertinent, shooting at a Butt the Doctour never set up. As his frequent comparison of Astrology and A­strologers, with divinity and Divines; is grosse enough of it self, to render it selfe odious without a confutation. Divinity is the Judge of Astrology, therefore the offen­der at the Barre must not compare with it. And Calvin (we heard afore) called Astrologers KNAVES, that pretended Astrology for their Knavery; but if any Di­vines [Page 155]be Knaves, it is not as they are Divines. And there­fore if VVilliam had his wish, I believe few Astrology-books, much lesse his Fustiano-bumbastico-cretian-ru­bulisticall would ever attein the honour of the Presse. For VVilliam (poore passionate ignorant young fellow) is an unfit peece, the Lord knows, to write confutations; and more unfit to give counsell to a Parliament, and in a mystery of iniquity wherein he is a party. Tis true he doth [...] bellow out his high Throsonicall Braggs verbis sesquipedalibus without measure, That he dares to undertake to defend Astrology against all the divines in England put together. But such an expression (if he meant not onely to dare but to do it) never came out of the mouth of one that was a Scholar indeed, and mo­rally in his sober wits, upon any dispute whatsoever. But if he mean to dare to undertake it, but not to do it. Then I confesse I am brought in part to believe him, by that story of the man, that did dare to undertake to take his flight from the top of Paul's Steeple, and to fly; though he did it not, but fell down and brake his neck, But I may not forget to satisfie the Reader in one thing; how neatly VV. R. calls some of his Astrologicall Bre­thren (whom he cries up in this Pamphlet) by the name of Knaves. For the Astrologicall misdemeanours deser­ving a law of the Parliament against that Art, were com­mitted by his admired Astrologicall friend.

To those interrogatories at (G) whether Astrology, be Diabolicall, Idolatrous, Knavery, deserving a law to be enacted in England against it, &c. Master John Mel­ton shall answer in his book called the Figure Caster, which is as follows.

Thus farr Milton.

W. R. his SECT. II. of CHAP. IV. wherein he saith, the Doctours Objection touching the di­versity of Twins, is refelled. As also some other quirks against Astrology examined and convinced.

HIs second Argument or Reason against Astrology is, A saith he, from clear experience in Twins conceived at the same instant, and born in the same hour or less. Now M. Homes had done well to have made this his clear experience, as clear to his Reader, by demonstration or example, and not to content himself with his bare word, this is but one Doctours opinion; but will he say, B that all Twins are conceived at the very same instant of time? Sure he will not; but admit some are, yet will he not affirm they are therefore born in the same instant of time; I will appeal to any one of discretion and under­standing in such matters, if it hold with reason, that two Children should be born both together; C and to make it more clear, that all Twins are not conceived at one and the same instant of time, I refer him to the perusal of Aristotle, D Pliny, Cardanus, Dodoneus, &c. But let me ask him what he thinketh of the Story of Proconesia, who as the story goes, lying with her Master, and his Man her Fellow­servant, both in one day; conceived by both, C and brought forth one Childe like the Master, and the other like the [Page 218]Man. Wherefore the first part of his Argument is not a­vailable; neither (upon good consideration) will his fol­lowing words; F for he confesses himself that the nearest time of their Birth is, in the same hour or less, when all that knows any thing in Astrology, knows that four mi­nutes of time in the Birth, gives near upon a years time in directions; G wherefore certainly when he made such clear experience in the Birth of Twins, they were not born in the same instant, but at least four and four and four mi­nutes difference, for the nearest time he confesses, may be somewhat less then an hour; H which certainly must breed very much difference indeed; wherefore except he could have proved that they were born both at an instant, or give us an example of any such that he hath made clear experience of, I his Argument and Reason is a meer sophi­stical Cavil. And whereas he alleadgeth, that Pharez and Zara did put forth themselves interchangeably in one hour; but how he can prove it was in one hour, is I be­lieve too hard a Task for him to do, he having no War­rant therefore, from the Word of God. But all this is no­thing to the point, for though Zarah put forth his hand first, and for distinction had a red Thread tied about it, yet he plucked it back again, and Pharez was born before him, Gen. 38. v. 29. He brings the Example of Jacob and Esau to condemn Astrology, K which is far weaker: For all that is acquainted with that story in the Scripture, knows that Esau was born first, and after him came his Brother Jacob; and that this is clear, the Scripture fur­ther saith, The Younger shall serve the Elder, Ergo, they were not born at one instant of time, and therefore I may very well conclude, that this Cavil serveth no whit to the condemnation of Astrology; since for ought he can prove to the contrary, (or any one can tell) they were born ma­ny hours distant, and so consequently they must needs have severall Significatours at their Birth, which will cause ve­ry much diversity of manners, fortunes, form, and shape, [Page 219] &c. But if he will tell me there was so small difference in the time, as that Jacob had hold on his Brothers heel; I say, that yet notwithstanding, doth this prove them to be born at one and the same time; but that there was so much time betwixt their Births, as may cause much difference in most matters of their Lives: but admit this Objection, any understanding man knows it could no wise stand ei­ther with the safety of the Mother or Childe, that he should be thus born with one hand before all the body. And again, since it is no wise possible in nature, that Twins should be born both at the same instant of time; this his frivolous Cavil is of no use, unfitly brought for the mat­ter in question; and altogether inconsistent with reason.

But this by the way; we come to his example of Jacob and Esau, which he saith, by reason of their Differences, confuteth Astrology: but if he could prove all the dif­ference that possibly could be imagined, yet is not this a sufficient ground for him to condemn Astrology, sith it hath nothing to do with Divine providence, L or matters be­yond the common course of Nature; which may evidently appear, that this Birth of Jacob and Esau is, by the story of their Conception, which you may see was absolutely a thing beyond the power of Nature; for their Mother Rebecca (the Scripture telleth us) was barren: where­fore this being so, this I say alone, is enough to silence all that he can say against Astrology, M by this Example of Jacob and Esau. But sure, notwithstanding, if one should particularly examine their lives, one should hardly finde such great difference between them as could justly be al­lead ged to condemn Astrology; N for if we look to their qualities, they were both Princes, if to the number of their Wives and Children, look into the Antiquities of the Jews, viz. Philo, and you will finde their Children were alike in number within one, and we know that Jacob had Leah, Rachel, Billa, and Zilpah, to his Wives, four: and Esan, Bathshemah, Mahalah, Adah, and Aholiba­mach, [Page 220]four: also, if we again look to their Riches or Wealth, O they were both so abundantly wealthy, as that one Country was not able to contain them both: but if any one say, they differed in the matter of their birth-right: I answer, P that this simple Objection is of no validity; for, Astrology is not to decide or premonstrate, or foreknow the cause of Divine matters, neither the secret will of God, which that this was Gods secret will, there is none but knows; Q for, as he was chosen to be the root or founda­tion of God's people; so by the obtaining of the birth-right of his Brother, did clearly premonstrate, both this his Election, and the power of his Seed, to exceed the power of the others Seed, being the Elder: And here I may also add, they were both roots and foundations of two great Nations: but as this maketh neither for, nor against Astrology, It may be (saith he) they will reade us a Lecture of difference from magnitudes and motions, which Answer I must confess sutes just well enough with the Question, R neither of them both being fully to any purpose; but to be farther satisfied herein, let him look Ptolomy, lib. 3. cap. 7. of his Quadripartite, where he shall be clearly taught the Reasons of Differences in Twins, and convinced of his erroneous Cavil, that they are born at the same instant of time; it is not from magnitudes or motions, though somewhat might be said thereon, and that so much, as that I believe would trouble him to answer; S but let that pass, and hear how he questi­ons and answers for and against Astrology, if so (saith he) if the ☽ be less then the Earth according to Kecker­man at least twenty times, and the rest of the Planets be­low the ☉, as ♀ twenty seven times less then the Earth, and ☿ twenty two times, how then shall these at any po­sture, at one and the same time effect or signifie any thing to all the world? It is the opinion indeed (and with very much reason) of all the Mathematicians and Astrolo­gers that ever writ, that these three Planets under the Sun [Page 221]are less then the Earth, but amongst the most learned of them there is much dispute of the certain magnitude there­of; but how equivalent this Quirk is against Astrology is wonderfull! A Candle is not able to give light to a Bowl, T or any thing as big as a Peck, because it is so much bigger then the Candle; when we know and commonly see that it will give light to a great spacious Room, a thou­sand times bigger then it self; we know and see, that the influence of a Planet extends it self ten thousand times be­yond its visible light to our sight; but to come closer to the matter, hath not the ☽, ☿ and ♀, their ⚹, □, △ dexter and sinister, and ☌, to all and every part or ut­most parts of the Heavens (that are millions of times bigger then both them and the Earth) according to their severall motions? And hath not these Aspects as much power and influence, as a perpendicular ☌? and whereas he asketh, what is the difference of Natures in Twins? when the superiour Planets are proportionably bigger then the Earth, but sure he never read that part of Ptolomy, which I before cited, concerning the severall Significatours in Twins, which is the onely cause and reason that can be given for his frivolous Quirk: but as he questions to bring his bald Arguments about, so he answers his own Questi­ons in hopes to confirm them; If (saith he) this is because of the swift external violent motion of the Stars; why then I again demand how the Stars can have time to make any distinct impression by any particular influence on one born, especially on one who perhaps may lie in the mouth of the womb partly born, partly unborn; for a quarter or half an hour, or many hours; when the motion of the Zodiack is sixty times sixty miles in an hour, which is sixty miles compleat in one minute.

But to answer to this weak Cavil, I shall say no more, but that though the Heavens be so swift, yet in compari­son of us it is not so much as an inch is to ten thousand Miles; for we see by daily experience, that the ☉ (who is [Page 222]also by the same violence (contrary to his own natural course) carried in like manner) doth not as to us move at all in two or three hours; V for mark how small a thing in a Diall gives this sixty Miles in a minute; so that this doth no whit at all hinder the influence of the Stars, if they should be hurried ten times swifter; for this great course is in relation to the circumference of the Heavens, not of the Earth: besides we know that those Signes that are of longer ascensions, as are ♋, ♌, ♍, ♎, ♏, ♐, are some­times an hour and a half, nay, perhaps two hours ascend­ing or in the first House, and so consequently may be in any House.

And for his long continuance of the Infant in the mouth of the womb, VV this may somewhat refell, but there is no Astrologer that will take that part of a Birth, or the be­ginning of the Mothers Travell, to be the Ground or Radix of the Infants Nativity; but that instant in which He or She is perfectly seperated from the womb, and entred the elementary world, since no man can pro­perly call that a Birth, which is but half expelled, or but half perfected, when also sometimes the Infant may draw back again.

Saith he, If Astrologers will plead any thing to help themselves herein from the slowness of other motions of the Stars, that are natural to them, viz. that the fixed Stars, move with so slow a motion from North to South back a­gain, as that their courses are not finished in less then seven thousand years; Now I would very fain know of any ra­tional man, how this Answer of his in the behalf of Astro­logers, is able to avail them a rush, or himself in his pur­pose, X since they are also hurried with the like violence a­foresaid, every twenty four hours once about the Earth? But as all these his Quirks are brought into his advantage (as he thinks,) so the advantage he strives to gain hereby, he may brag of, as much as of the former; for all this his gain is but the opportunity of this Question, viz. How [Page 223]then can any age since the beginning of the world have experience, what the conjunction of the Stars may pro­duce? This is a great Conquest indeed, but how slender an Artist he herein renders himself, let the judicious judge, since it is most certain that these stars we call fixed, move not at all; Ergo, are nominated fixed, for they move unanimously together in their sphere, which is about seven thousand years finishing its course, not the Stars; but suppose they do move, yet they move not by several motions, as the one being slower or swifter then another, for they are all alike distant each from other continually, and if these come not to aspect nor conjunction of the Pla­nets; yet the Planets come to configuration with them, as Saturn commeth in configuration of them once in 29. years some odd moneths and dayes; Jupiter in twelve years, Mars in three years, Sol in one year or twelve moneths, Venus and Mercury in the like time or there abouts, the Moon in twenty eight dayes and some odd houres. I hope then this experience may be learned in a far shorter time then seven or eight thousand years; and since these is so apparently and vulgarly known, it is suf­ficient ground for any one to take the exact position of the heavens, either in Twinns births or any others, with­out the errour that these motions he speaketh of can cause, which indeed is none at all.

SURVEY. The annexing of the Doctours second Argument will be a sufficient reply to these extravagan­cies of Will. Ramsey. The Doctours second Argument was word for word, thus.

The second Argument is from cleer experience of Twins conceived at the same instant, and born in the same houre, or lesse, and it may be, put forth themselves in part, at the womb interchangeably in that houre, (as Pharez. and Zara did, Gen. 38.) yet before God put any diffe­rence by any inward change by grace, the Twinns may be [Page 224]of an apparent vast difference of complexion as we see in Jacob and Esau. And experience knowes of other Twins, either both naturall or both spirituall, that far different events in the world have befallen them. Where then is the certainty of Star-predictions? Where is the verity of Astrology? It may be they will reade us a lecture of dif­ference from magnitudes and motions of Stars; that some are bigger then the earth some lesser; again, that some fi­nish some motions in 24. hours; others not other moti­ons in so many scores of years, or more. But if this be their defence, the matter of predicting Astrology is there­by made to be more incredible. For if (as they say with Keckerman) the Moon be lesse then the earth, at least twenty times, and the rest of the Planets below the Sunne proportionably, as Venus twenty seven times lesse then the earth, and Mercury twenty two; how then shall these at any posture, at any one and the same time, effect or si­gnifie any thing to all the world? For all the Astrologers in the World will undertake to prognosticate from these Planets upon all men on Earth, born at one and the same houre. If the Sunne as they confesse, be about an hun­dred and sixty times bigger then the Earth; and all the Planets above the Sun proportionably; as that Saturn is fourscore and eleven times bigger then the Earth; Jupiter fourscore and fifteen times; Mars one time bigger, with one third; how then is it that there is difference of na­tures and events in thousands born at the same hour, and especially n Twins, as we said afore. If they say that this is because of the swift externall violent motion of all the Stars Planets, and Fixed; that they are hurryed round the Earth by the first moveable from East to West, &c. in twenty four hours; which is to run sixty times sixty miles in every houre, then we demand how can the Stars have time to make any distinct impression by any particular in­fluence on one houre, cspecially on one who perhaps may lie in the mouth of the womb, partly born, partly un­born, [Page 225]sometimes in the head and foreparts, sometimes in the hinder parts, for a quarter or half an houre, or many hours. Or what Astrologer upon the swiftnesse of those motions, and the slownesse of the birth, which cannot be born in an instant, but at best gradually, shall be able to prognosticate punctually that such Stars, with such in­flnence, did so complexionate such an Infant at such a Mi­nute of time? For by the computation aforesaid, the Stars run in the said motion, in every minute of the houre sixty Miles. If Astrologers will plead any thing to help themselves herein, from the slownesse of other motions of the Stars, that are naturall, and internall to them; as that all the fixed Stars (which are known by their twinck­ling to our sight) move from North to South (as they say, so Alsted) in three thousand five hundred years, and back again in three thousand five hundred years, so that they finish not that motion under seven thousand years; how then can any Age since the beginning of the World have experience what the Conjunction of the Stars may produce? So for the motions of the seven Pla­nets: If they say (as Keckerman, &c. affirm) that the Sun hath three Orbs: First, that in which the Sun it self is fixed, and is the middle Orb, and is excentricall to the World; that is, The World, or Earth is not just in the middle of it; by reason whereof the Sun is sometimes in the Perige, namely nearer the Earth for some moneths; and sometimes in the Apoge, to wit, more remote from the Earth, for other moneths. And in this Eccentrick Orb the Sun moves, as they say, according to the succes­sion of the twelve Signs from West to East, not finishing that motion under three hundred sixty five dayes, and a­bout six hours. And withall as they assert, that by rea­son of this Orb the Sun moves as in relation to the centre of the earth, one while swifter, another while slower; that is to say, it moves slower whiles it is on the Northern part of the World, lingering there an hundred eighty six [Page 226]dayes, eight hours, and twelve minutes; but runs swift­er on the Southern part of the World, dispatching its race in an hundred seventy eight dayes, one and twenty hours, and twelve minutes; and so stay es longer with some of the Signs (as they say) and lesse while with others. And that secondly, The Sun hath, as they say, a supreme Orb contiguously adjoyned above to the aforesaid Orb. Thirdly, an inferiour Orb, in like manner adjoyned be­neath to the said middle Orb, both partly Concentrick, partly Eccentrick (the use of which two Orbs, as held forth by Astronomers, I shall not here stay to relate.) And the motion of those two extreme Orbs, is, as they confesse, very slow, so that they finish not their course, which is like some motion of the eighth Sphear, under fourty nine thousand of years (as Keckerman affirms.) All which makes me again demand, how any men could ever attain to a certain experience of Conjunctions of Stars, seeing this number of fourty nine thousand extends it self to an age above seven times older then the creation of the Stars.

It would be two tedious to recite all the severall Orbs and motions of all the other Planets, according to the common opinion; as, that the Moon hath five Orbs, some of which move swifter then those of the Sun, put­ting her twice every moneth in her Apoge or exaltation, and twice in her Perige or descention, with differences in both, that in the same Apoge it is sometimes higher and sometimes lower, and so in the same Perige; and hath one motion that is not finished under eighteen years, seven moneths, and about twelve hours.

That Saturn hath a motion whose course takes up thir­ty years; Jupiter one of twelve, Mars one of two, Ve­nus of one. And Mercuries motion (as Ceckerman af­firms) Est admodum varius imo magna parte adhuc in­cognitus; that is, It is wonderfull various, yea for the most part yet unknown. Now lay all these varieties and [Page 227]uncertainties together, and then judge what certainty of experience there can be had of the conjunctions of Stars, just so long and so much, as to make such a sure impressi­on of such influences and efficacies on men in the birth, as may duly and truly prognosticate, that so shall such a man be, and do; but so another, especially in Twinnes. Thus the Doctours second Argument. By which it is apparent that Will. Ramsey did neither rightly take, nor truly report the dint of the Doctours Argument, but runnes out into many extravagancies; which notwith­standing, for the better clearing the coasts round about the Argument, we will a little take into consideration.

To that at (A) about the Doctours not bringing of an Example touching Twins; we say, that the Doctour did bring examples; See the Doctour second Argument (afore inserted) at the mark (**); which if need be might be named; though he then forbare in civility to the persons and their generations.

To that he adds of one Doctours opinion; it is sufficient for me to shew Will. false tongue, by minding the Reader that Doctour Homes did shew Doctour Austins opinion touching Twinns, that the consideration of the diversity of them, born so near at the same time is a great Argu­ment against Astrology; as is to be seen in the Doctours Demonology Chap. 10. Sect. 5.

At the end of that Section, in answer to the Ob­jection, that Austin should say Astrologia perscrutanda est, &c. inserted after in this Treatise. See also in this Chapter following. And if it hath not been enough to give Will. Ramsey Austin by retale, yet by this time in this Reply he is given him in whole-sale, with his large discourse upon that Argument of Twinns, against Astro­logy, (in answer to Will. Ramsey Sect. 3. of chap. 2.) the said Will. Ramsey will have his belly full of two Do­ctours opinions, jumping in the same truth.

In that at (B) in asserting that Twinns are not con­ceived [Page 228]at the same instant of time, and his Ʋtopian Quo­tations of Aristotle, Pliny, Cardan, Dodon at (D.) in tending to make us believe what he could not shew, Will. Ramsey shews his ignorance, though he pretends to be a Physician (a sucking one). For in reason the formative part of the womb must needs be most tenaciously shut up for cherishing the conception as soon as the semen is clasp­ed within it. And ancient experienced Physicians have demonstrated it to the eye by corporeall diagrammes. Add the authority of that universall great Scholar in all Arts, Sciences, and Divinity, Augustine, and the learned whome he quotes. Possidonius a Stoick (saith Austin de Civit. Dei cap. 2.) and one much affected to Astrology, ‘laboureth to prove that the two Brethren whom Hippo­crates supposed to be twinns, by the samenesse of their diseases, at the same time, were both not onely born, but also conceived under one and the same constellation,’ which must needs be in the same moment, or else the con­stellation is altered, in regard of the swift motion of the heavens, running (as the Astrologers confesse) sixty miles in a minute of an houre. And Austin in his sixth cha­pter saith expressly and peremptorily, That it is mani­fest, that in conception there is but one generative act con­current. For natures power is such, that a woman ha­ving once conceived, cannot Second any conception, untill she be delivered of the child. And therefore it is necessa­ry that the Twinns conception fall both in one moment.

To that at (C) and (K) of Will. Ramsey contend­ing that Twinns are not born together, or at the same in­stant; it will be sufficient to say, no man did affirm it, and therefore Will. Ramsey doth but fight with his own phantasie.

For Will. Ramsey his Legend of Proconesia, at (E) it comes to nothing, if we dare believe Learned pious Au­stin, afore Will. Ram. his ignorance. Austins very words are these, de Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 2. ‘Twins cannot pos­sibly [Page 229]have diversitie of Fathers.’ And learned Lemnius a Physician, shews other reasons of the different faces of children of the same Father,

To that at (F. G. H.) of the difference of a few minutes, and the impossibility of the same instant to fi­nish the birth of Twinns, as if the Doctour had forgot that all Locomotive motion is in time; Austin shall an­swer; Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 5. c. 2, & 3. whose very words are these ‘Neither Possidonius, nor any Patron of this Fate in the Stars, can tell what to say in this case of Twinns, if he will not illude the simple, and ignorant, with a discourse of that they know not. For, that they talk of the Space of Time, between that point they call the Horoscope in both the Twins Nativities; it is either not so significant, as the diversity of will, acts, manners and fortunes of the Twinns born do require; or else it is more significant then their difference of honours, state, nobility, or meannesse will permit; both which diversities they place onely in the figure of Nativities. And if they should be both born ere the Horoscope were fully varied, then would I require a Ʋnity in each particular of their fortunes, which cannot be found in any two Twinns that ever yet were born. But if the Horoscope be changed, ere both be born, then for this diversitie I will require a difference of Fathers, which Twinns cannot possibly have. Frustrate therefore is that notable fiction of the Potters wheel, which Nigidius (they say) answered one that plunged him in this con­troversie, whereupon he was called the Potter. Turn­ing a Potters wheel twise, or thrise about as fast as he could, he took ink, and in the turning made two marks (as it seemed) in one place of the wheels edge, and then staying the wheel, the marks were found far asun­der one from another upon the edge of the wheel: Even so (saith he) in the swift course of heaven, though one child be born after another in as short a time as I gave [Page 230]these two marks; yet in the heavens will be passed a great space, And that (quoth he) is the cause of the di­versity of conditions, and fortunes betwixt two Twins. here is a figment now farr more brittle then the pots that were made by the wheel. For if there be thus much power in heaven (and yet cannot be comprehnnded by the constellations) that one of the Twins may be an heir, and inherit, and not the other; how dare those Astro­logians give such presages unto others that are not Twins, when, as they are included in those secret points in Nativities, which none can comprehend? But if they say they do prognosticate this to others, because they know it belongeth unto the known, and discerned spaces that passe in Nativities, and that those moments that may come between the births of two Twins, do but con­cern slight things, and such as the Astrologian useth not to be troubled with: For no man will ask the calcula­tour, when he shonld sit, walk, or dine?’ how can this be said, when we shew such diversity, in the manners, states, actions, and fortunes of two Twins.

To that at [I] touching Pharez and Zara, the reply is easy and home: that what space soever was between their births, and which soever was born first; yet being they did in part interchangeably put forth themselves at the womb, which was the exposing of themselves to the influence of the heavens according to the Astrologers doctrin, (putting so much weight upon mens births) as likewise Jacobs continued successive birth after Esau; Jacobs hand holding Esau's heel; so that the first is not wholly born, till the other be born in part, is argument enough, to prove that the Aspect of Constellations upon the birth of such Twinnes, is exceeding uncertain; and so the Astrologicall prediction as groundless. Which Austin doth notably argue out, (which may serve for a full answer to W. Ram. his frabble about Jacob and Esau) thus: Aug. de Civi. at. Der lib. 4. ‘In the ancient memory of our forefathers (to [Page 231]speak of them of note) were two Twinnes born, so near together, that the second held the first by the heel; yet in their lives, manners, and actions, was such disparitie, that that very difference made them enemies, one to another. I mean not this, that the one sat when the other stood; nor that the one slept, when the other waked; these belong to those first marks and moments, which they cannot comprehend, who erect those figures of nativi­ty for the Astrologers to judge upon. One of them bound himsef to serve for wages, the other served not at all: the one was loved by his mother, so was not the o­ther: the one lost his honour, and inheritance (a matter of great moment among them) the other obtained it. And how great a difference was there in their marriag­es, wives, children, and goods?’ Exceeding much. Thus Austin, whom we have reason to believe farr before false tongu'd W. Ram. [at L. M. N. O. P. R.] or his Forged Philo (as the learned call him) whom W.R. there quotes; or his Ptolomy quoted at [S] At [T] Wil. Ram. consuteth himself. For if as a Candie being lesse then a Bowl, cannot shine light round about that Bowl, so the Planets that are less then the Earth, cannot shine round it; how then, can they pour down any influence at the same minute on the whole round of the Earth, in which many thousands of infants are born, whose nativities all Astro­logers will cast, and from them all, undertake to predict? And for his intimation that the dexter and sinister, that is, the oblique and indirect Aspects of Starrs have as much power and influence, as those that are direct and perpen­dicular; it is contrary to plain sence. For the sun doth not so enlighten or heat with its oblique aspect, as when it is perpe ndicular over us. And the Moon comes to her loss of light, and to be of less operation, by the oblique aspect of the sun on it, and of it on the Sunne; in comparison of the Moon at full; ut which time (as Wil. confest afore) the powerof the Moon is greater on things below,

But because there hath been such oft mention of Astra­logical influences: The dan­gerous­ness of Astrogi­call do­ctrins and in­fluences. let us enquire of the Astrologers them­selves, what these influences are. For by their vote, they seem to be no less then a part of Magic and Incarnation, or the appertenance thereof. Agrippa in his book of Oc­cult Philosophy tels us, that ‘ Omnia inferiora esse Idea­ta a superioribus Ideis &c. that is, H. Cor. Agri. Oc. Phil. I. 1. c. 11. That all inferiour bodies are Ideated or exemplified with inferiour Idea's, by the superiour idea's. An Idea is a form above bodies, souls, minds, and to be but one simple, part immutable, indivisible, incorporeal, and incorporeal, and eternal. And that the nature of all Idea's is the same. They say that Idea's are first in God himself, by way of cause, and that they are distinguished among themselves, by some relative considerations onely, lest whatsoever is in the world, should be one thing without any variety; and that they agree in essence, lest God should be a compound essence. In the second place, they place them in the very Intelligible it self, that is, in the Soul of the world, differing the one from the other by absolute formes. So that all the Idea's in God indeed are but one forme; but in the soul of the wold, they are many. They are placed in the minds of all other things: whe­ther they be joyned to the body, or separated from the body, by a cetain participation, and now by degrees are distinguished more and more. They are placed in nature, as certain small seeds of formes infused by the I­dea's. And lastly they place them in matter as sha­dowes.’ Hereunto may be added, ‘that in the soul of the world, there be as many Scienciall Formes of things, as Idca's in the mind of God, by which Formes she did in the Heavens, above the Starrs, frame to her self shapes also, and stamped upon all these some properties; Therefore, on these starres, shaps, and properties, all vir­tues of inferiour species, as also their properties do depend: so that every; species hath it's celestiall shape or figure [Page 233]that is sutable to it, from which also proceeds a wonderful power of operating, which proper gift it receives fromit's own Idea, through the seminal formes of the soul of the world. &c. The same Agrippa in the same book, cap. 13. hath these words Provenit ergo virtus primò ab Ideis &c. i.e. The form therfore and virtue of things come's first from the Idea's, then from the ruling and governing Intelligences, then from the Aspects of the Heavens disposing, and Lastly from the tempers of the Elements disposed, answering the influences of the hea­vens, by which the elements themselves are ordered, or disposed. These kinds of operations therefore are per­formed in these inferiour things, by express formes, and in the heavens by disposing virtues, in Intelligencies, by mediating rules, in the originall cause by Idea's, and ex­emplary formes, all which must of necessity agree in the execution of the effect, and virtue of every thing.’ And the same Agroppa in the same Treatise lib. 2. cap. 53. (whose title is, That no divination without Astrology is perfect) writes thus. ‘We have spoken (saith Agrippa) in the foregoing Chapters, of diverse kinds of divinati­ons, but this is to be noted, that all these require the use, and rules of Astrology, as a key most necessary for the knowledge of all Secrets, and That all kinde of divinati­ons whatsoever, have their root and foundation in Astro­logy, so as without it they are of little or no use. There­fore whether the Physiognomists look upon the body, or countenance, or forehead, or head, or the Southsayer serch­eth by Dreams or Auspicy, that the judgement may be right the figure of heaven is also to be enquired into &c.’ And in his next chapter, he sheweth how Astrology con­curs to help divination by lotts. He that will have more of this, let him read Cornelius Agrippa his occult philosophy, of which we have here given you a tast: by which you may evidently perceive the diabolicalness of Judiciall Astrolo­gy and the abominable meaning of Judiciall Astrologicall [Page 234]influencies. And therfore we had little need affore to be­stow the pains to answer W. Ram. about the signification of the words, Augurate, inchant, witchcraft, &c. when Cornelius Agrippa one of Wil. Ram. Astrologicall tribe openly confesseth that Astrology concurs to All Divinati­ons of what Sort soever.

But to go on with W. R. silly discourse at [T] whereas (saith Wil.) the Doctour asketh what is the difference of natures in Twinnes, when the superiour places are propor­tionably bigger then the earth, but sure he never read that part of Ptolomy, concerning the several significato rs in Twins which is the cause of his frivolous Quirck.

Now Reader, is this an answer to the Doctous. I pray thee read afore, that marked with *⁎* (where the Do­ctours words do fitlyer put the question that W. Ram. here reports) and then judge. Surely thou mayest easily con­clude that as W. Ram. cause is astrologicall Inchaut­ment; so his defence is base jugling. He tels us the Do­ctour hath not read Ptolomy; and before, at [S] he tels us that Ptolomy l. 3. cap. 7. of his Quadripartit. shews us the reasons of the differences of Twins. But nor here nor there doth he produce a line out of Ptolomy to convince the Doctour, or to clear the mind of the Reader. He tels the Doctour afore quoting the words of Keckerman and &c, he should have made good the matter of those quota­tions: But W. Ram. here neither gives us the words of his quotations, nor his own applications, that we might have an hint to what to give an answer. And therefore I must pass from this, leaving onely a story with William; but I think I must be fain to apply it for him. One M ^r. F. C. of H. in Hartford-shier, a rich Gentleman, and a Schollar of much reading, but greatly affected with a re­tired life, was wont to say unto me; ‘I might (said he) have been a Justice of Peace, and have had offenders brought afore me, and when I had wanted wit, what to do with them, I might have bound them over to the [Page 235] Quarter-Sessions.’ So W. Ram. undertakes to be a judge in this great Question of Judiciall Astrology, (too heavy for his infant shoulders) and when he finds he wants wit what to answer to many objections, then he referres the Reader to Ptolomy, or to Sir Christopher Heyden.

To that at [V] Will. shall answer Will. here he saith, though the heavens be so swift, yet in comparison of us it is not so much as an inch to ten thousand Miles: and backs it with a lie apparently against sense, viz. we may see (saith W. R.) that the Sun doth as to us move at all in two or three hours. And but a little afore at [F] quite contrary he hath these words, All that know any thing in Astrology, know that four minutes of time in the Birth, gives near up­on a years time in directions. Let them reconcile this with that, who can. 'Tis no help for Will. to talk of Quo­ad nos, as to us, when he is to answer quoad rem to the nature of the thing.

Romae Tybur amat, vento sus Tybure Romam. He shoggles in the socket of his principles: when he is non-plussed with the swifnesse of the heavens: then to us their motion is but slow, viz. not so much as an inch to ten thousand miles: (which is a grosse untruth. For according to our ordinary sun-dials on walls, and towres, the sun runnes a degree, that is three thousand six hundred miles in an hour, which is an inch upon the Dial.) And when Ill-Will is confounded with the slowness of the mo­tion of others of the heavens, then four minutes difference of time, gives near a years time in direction: Which is also a gross untruth quoad veritatem rei, if we speak ac­cording to the truth of the thing, and not according to the Diabolicall traditions, received by Judiciall Astrolo­gers. For not any of the Planets, much less the fixed Starrs, do finish their daily motions in four or four hund­red minutes, as we heard but now; but in each hour con­teyning sixty minutes, run three thousand six hundred miles. And none but the Moon wholly finisheth any other [Page 236]motion, in a Moneth. And in every minute, the whole constellation of all the Starres, is quite different, the hea­vens running in their daily motion in each minute, sixty miles. Therefore strong must the principles of Judiciall Astrology be, that lay the stress of their certainty of their Astrologicall predictions upon the Aspect of the heavens; yet will now (suppose at this pre sent minute) prognosticate from an aspect that is passed three minutes after, that is, is gone ninescore miles off; for W. Ram. (if we follow his words) takes in four minutes, into one and the same consideration. And who can truly tell the exact time of his Birth so near as four, or fourteen minutes? And though the great swiftness of the Heavens were (as Will. Ram. saith) in relation to the circumference of the Hea­vens, and not of the Earth: why then doth Will. and his Fellow Astrologers consider their motion such as it is in re­lation to earthly Bodies here below? Why do they distin­guish of their Motions by minutes? Do they not confess (that which they cannot deny) that every half, yea quarter of a minute, by the Conjunction of other Stars (how slow soever the Ascensions of some may be) there is a new, specifically different beam of influence, radiated up­on the Earth, all taking their circular turns to dart their efficacy, though upon the same Centre-point, if the Earth aad its Bodies were so small? So that let the Heavens be never so swift, their varieties of influences doth touch by turn the things below. Onely here is the Knot (which the Doctour put) not yet solved; how such suddain touches of influences, coming on, and going off, as in a moment, should make any change on the Complexions of men on Earth, so as to specificate them to such a temper by pro­portion to the temper of the Heavens at such a minute, if the temper of the Constellation of the Heavens at that minute could possibly be known?

To VVill. Ram. [instant] of seperation of the Infant from the Womb, to be the Radix of the Infants Nativi­ty; [Page 237]we need say no more: but 1. That locomotive moti­on is the time, not in an instant, Tempus est mensura mo­tus. Arist. 2. That if a minute is in reason (as hath been argued) too short, by reason of the swift motions of the Heavens, to make, or make known any specifical different impression upon the Infant, how then shall an instant (that is too small to be any part of time) be long enough to be the Radix of a Prognostication from the Nativity.

To VVill. Ram. his [I would fain know, the non-mo­ving of the fixed Stars, and the Planets consiguration with them] noted with [X, Y, Z] a few words will serve. He needed not have been so fain to know, if he had ob­served the Doctours Argument afore; or to have put the Quere, he would fain know, if like an Artist he had given the Doctour a Logical distinct Answer. His poor sug­gestion of the fixed Stars motion, once round the Earth. every four and twenty hours, adds nothing but confusion to the solution of the Argument, to Astrological Predicti­ons, and to William his own words. For presently at [Y] he saith, that the Stars we call fixed, move not at all, &c. Surly Will. Ram. would fain tell us some News if he could: but we cannot gather up any thing but Contra­dictions. For 1. do not the Planets as well move in and together with their Spheres, as well as the fixed in theirs. 2. If the eighth Sphere be about seven thousand years fi­nishing its course, then of necessity so long are the Stars fixed in that Sphere, finishing their course. 3. That if some Planets and some fixed Stars should come into con­figuration in less then seven thousand years, yet perpetual­ly in every minute many other Stars successively inter­mingle themselves so, that a distinct and certain Progno­stick, or experience touching humane Events cannot be ga­thered from any posture of the Heavens.

W. R. his SECT. III. of CHAP. IV. Wherein the Doctour indeavours to prove Astrology of no truth or certainty, as also its Rules and principles, are themselves of less truth, or ground, nay and indeed sensless.

HIs third Argument against Astrology is, to prove the Maximes, Theorems, Axiomes, and Canons of the Art, inconsistent with truth or foundation; but first he denieth absolutely any such ( viz. Ground or Princi­ples) at all to be in the Rules of Astrology, but with what apparent falsehood, that is done, shall appear to the World by these Examples following, being some few Questions and Resolutions, which by my own experience I can against all malicious Adversaries affirm to be most punctually true; wherefore I have thought good here to divulge them to the World, that such envious Carpers at this most true Art, may be for ever silenced, or at least that their perversness may be apparently and vulgarly known in their colours; but see how in veterately they tra­duce it, notwithstanding millions of the like Examples, which they know not otherwise what to say for them­selves, unanimously (this surpassing the natural capacities of their profound judgements, when they so clearly see themselves by experience convinced) they presently say, It is impossible this should be true! Sure this is very strange? Nay, I am confident this could not be done by Art! this is a plain dealing with the Devil! It is Witchcraft! and the like simple and malicious Censures, or rather Scandals hereon, X but to the business intended. Where Will. Ram. draws three Schemes or Figures. One to shew a Gentle­man, whether he should receive some Money from his Ʋn­cle which he expected. The second, to resolve a Gentle­woman (that said no Astrologer would undertake to re­solve [Page 239]an unbelieving Quaerent) whether she should receive any Money from the Parliament? The third, to resolve an incredulous Gentlewoman also: viz. Where her Hus­band was, and when he would return? And in all these Will. Ram. saith the Prognostications proved true. And he brings them to confure the Doctour's third Argument. For besides these, all the rest in this his third Section, hath no shew of an Answer; and therefore not worthy the transcribing, or reprinting.

SURVEY. We will give you in Answer to this Section.

• 1. The Doctour's third Argument word for word.
• 2. We will shew you Will. Ram. juggling in the said Schemes or Figures.
• 3. We will give you Proofs that under Astrology is couched the Assistance of the Devil; and the Quaerents or Consultours confidence in that diabolical Art, as ne­cessarily concarring to have a true Prediction.
• 4. The summ, or main Heads of M. Perkins Resolu­tion to the Countryman; shewing the wickedness of Astro­logy.

1. The Doctonr's third Argument. The third Argument. All Rules of Sciences & Arts (by the fundamental Position of Artists) are Axiomes, Maxims, Theorems, Canons, &c. that is, Most worthy, and most special Principles, I experiments, or Rules, for their verity and certainty. But such are not the Rules of Astrology. First, because of the for said various varieties and uncer­tainties of Stars, both in their own motions, and in comparison with others, Secondly, because no man knoweth the particular qualities or essicacies of all the Stars. No Artist yet ever undertook to speak of more then the seven Planets, and some few nominated Fixed Stars of some few several magmtudes; leaving out milli­ons that are neither named nor knewn. Yea Thirdly, thou­sands of Stars cannot be so much as seen a minute toge­ther; [Page 240]as the Philosophers confess in their Discourse of Via lactea, the Milkie way in the Heavens, to be seen in a most starry Night, especiall in Winter. Fourthly, because all the Stars do shine upon the Earth at once, joyntly and promiscuously; so that they that are under them cannot by any Rule from Nature know what influences shall be predominant in their Effects. Fifthly, they have more time to alter the Complexions of young People from the Cradle to Manhood, carried and walking abroad. I say, to alter their Complexion by radiation and influence; then to stamp an unchangeable impression up­on them in the secret Chamber of their Birth; as we see many natural Men and Women, not differenced by grace, much altered from Melancholly to chearfulness &c. So that if some Stars in one Position, in an instant at Birth have a power to imprint; other Stars, and perhaps more prevalent, have likewise a power to blot out that in many years, and to instill a new one. Sixthly, there are many Causes below between us and the Stars to alter the influ­ence of the Stars, or interrupt their native operation; as the various Complexion of the Air, diversity of Windes, the different postures and situations of men, as sometimes under a direct, sometimes under an oblique radiation, &c. Seventhly, Astrologers depend on Clocks and Dials, to know the posture of the Heavens at the hour of their prognosticating; which Dials and Clocks often are false, which may make a wide difference in a minute, in which, as we heard, some motions of the Heavens run sixty Miles. Eighthly the Astrologer cannot be able to allow exactly for the exaltation in the Apoge and descension in the Perige of the Planets, with their swifter motion in the one then in the other, so as [...]o determine justly how much po­wer of prevalence they may be in their influences at such changes. Ninthly, man can never certainly conclude of a particular Event from a Cause that is most universal, most remote, and [...]o but a partial Cause of the thing pre­dicted. [Page 241]But the Stars are no other but such a kinde of cause of mens Complexions and Actions; and theresore are no sure Grounds of Prediction concerning the future affairs of men. The Parents Complexion, divine Dispensa­tions, occasions, and opportunities among men, and a mans own obedience or disobedience to God, have far more influence into man to dispose him to be, or do this or that, then all the myriads of Stars. Tenthly, Astrology contending for such a power of Stars over the Soul of man (which is the Principle of all Actions) infers as if the Soul of Man were ex traduce, generated by the Pa­rents.

First, contrary to many Scriptures, Psal. 102.18. The people that shall be Created shall praise the Lord. Eccles. 12.7. The spirit returns to God that gave it, whiles the Body returns to Earth. Hebr. 12.9. VVe have had Fa­thers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of Spirits?

Secondly, contrary to the Rules of Art. Reason, and Experience, Coelum non agit in animam, &c. The Hea­vens cannot act directly upon the Soul; nor can a mans Body complexionate, alter, or master his natural spirit. So that the [...], intelligere, and [...], velle, the Acts of Reason and Will do not depend on Sense. For in sleep, we have strong Actings of Reason: and when awake, in the time of deepest rational meditations, the Senses are useless, and their Acts suspended, as if we did neither see nor hear.

2. Will. Ram. his juggling in his Figures.

It is well worth our observation to see VVill. Ramsey juggling in these his Schemes or Figures, compared with his Epistle to the Reader, and some Passages in his Book. In that Epistle he hath these particulars: 1. That Astrology doth not meddle with Contingences. 2. Mans will is not subject to the influence of Stars. 3. Neither doth Astrology meddle with the providence of God. In his [Page 242]first Chapter, Section, he defines Astrology to be that which teacheth to prognosticate by the Stars of Natural Effects, &c. But here by his Figures in this Section, he un­dertakes to tell of Events purely humane, and altogether depending on God's providence in the acting of Man's will; viz. whether the Gentleman should receive his Money from his Ʋncle; the Gentlewoman receive hers from the Parliament; & the other woman know where her Husband was, and when she should see him again? Now let all the World judge whether Astrologers do not juggle with us; professing one thing, but practising another, in the way of their pretended Art?

3. Proofs of the concurrence of wicked Magick, or In­chantment, and of mans confidence or desire, and conse­quently of the Devils assistance with and in Judicial Astro­logical predictions.

H.C. Agrippa an Astrologer, in his second Book of Occult Philosophy: cap. 60. hath these words, Non ab aliâ causâ, quàm à coelesti, terrem orbis virtutes prove­munt. Hinc Magus, &c. that is, ‘The virtues of the terrene Orb. proceed from no other cause then celestial. Hence the Magician that will work by them useth a cunning Invocation of the Superiours, with mysterious words, and a certain kinde of witty Expression, drawing the one to the other, &c. Hence saith Aristotle, in the sixth Book of his Mistical Philosophy, that when any one by binding or bewitching, doth call upon the Sun, or other Stars, praying them to be helpfull to the thing de­sired, the Sun, and other Stars do not hear his words, but are moved after a certain manner by a certain Con­junction, and mutual series, whereby the parts of the World are mutually subordinate the one to the other, &c.’ And though the said Agrippa did in some shew re­tract some of his devilish Inchamments, or Superstitions; yet in that Retraction he retracteth not this, but there af­firmeth it, viz. Magna cum Astrologia sic conjuncta, [Page 243]atque cognita est, &c. that is, That Magick and Astrolo­gy are so conjoyned, and of near kin, that he that pro­fesseth Magick without Astrology, doth nothing, but wholly errs from the way.

The Book named the Centiloquy asserteth, that No Astrologer is able by meer Art, without the help of a fa­miliar Spirit, to foretell any particular Event.

Ficinus proveth, that Judicial Astrological predictions are managed not by Art, but by instinct.

Jamblicus boldly affirmeth, (Lib. de Myst.) Est im­possibile judicare certos, &c. that is, It is impossible to judge of certain Events, when as we cannot comprehend the concurrence of all Causes, unless we attain it by inspi­ration, &c. and disputing against Porphyry, saith, that The Lord of the Figure is a Devil.

Philostratus writing the life of Apollonius lib. 3. c. 13. (the most famous Magician and Astrologer) saith, that Arcanas libationes per quas Astrologicam facultatem, &c. that is, Jarchas (the chief of the Indian Wizards called Brachmanae) did privately communicate to Apollo­nius the secret sacrificings by which they did finde out the Astrological faculty, and skill of divining.

Touching elevation of minde (either in confidence or desire) hear Cornelius Agrippa in his second Book of Oc­cult Philosophy. and his 22. Chapter, Nihil materiales, &c. that is, Material Numbers and Figures can do no­thing in the Mysteries of hid things, but representatively, by formal Numbers and Figures, as they are governed, and informed, by Intelligences, and divine Numerations, which unite the extremes of the matter, and spirit to the will of the Elevated Soul, receiving through great affecti­on by the celestial power of the Operatour, a Power from God applied through the Soul of the Universe, and obser­vation of celestial Constellations, to a matter fit for a Form, the mediums being disposed by the skill and indu­stry of Magicians. And in the same Book, Chapter 54. [Page 244]the same Agrippa hath these words, Now, that there is in Man's Soul a sufficient power and virtue to direct such kindes of Lots (of Divination) it is hence manifest, be­cause there is in our Soul a divine virtue, and similitude, and apprehension, and power of all things, and all things have a natural obedience to it, and of necessity have a mo­tion and efficacy to that which the Soul desires with a strong desire; and all the virtues, and operations of the natural, and artificial things, obey it when it is carried forth into the Excess of Desire, and then all Lots of what kinde soever are assisting to the appetite of such a minde, and acquire to themselves wonderfull virtues of passages, as from that, so from the Celestial Opportunity in that hour in which the excess of such a like Appetite doth most of all exceed in it. And this is that ground and foundation of all Astrological Questions, wherefore the minde being elevated into the excess of any desire, taketh of it self an hour and opportunity most convenient and efficacious, on which the figure of Heaven being made, the Astrologer may then judge in it, and plainly know concerning that which any one desires, and is inquisitive to know.

Thus you see how the Mathematicians themselves cast great Blots and Blurrs upon Judicial Astrology; and that in relation to the particulars afore mentioned, viz. of the concurrence of Magick, of the desires and confidence of Clients and Actours, and of the Devil himself. And therefore well may all ingenious men for ever be ashamed to speak in the behalf of Judicial Astrology.

4. Hear what Master Perkins saith, concerning the un­lawfulness of Astrology in his Book intituled his Resolu­tion to the Countryman.

Thus far M. Perkins.