Section. I. The Definition of Astrologie.

THat the Reader may the better judge of the controversie between Doctor Homes and my self, I think best here before I enter upon any part of his discourse, to set down what this Art of Judici­al [Page 2] Astrologie is, which I undertake to defend. Ptolomie Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Of his Quadripartite, defines it thus, Astrologie is that Art (joyning it with Astronomy, as making no difference betweene them, though Mr. Homes and other Adversaries thereunto do) which teacheth by the motions, Configurations and Influences of the Signes, Starres and Coelestial Planets, to judge and prognosticate of the natural 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 it's due place shall be made to appeare) by the chiefest and noblest of the people. Though Doctor Homes would faine perswade the vulgar and ignorant sort of peo­ple that it is a Doctrin of Devils, & unlawfull, which shall in it's due place be made to ap­peare (as also the rest of his weake arguments and cavils,) that they are meerely malicious, ignorant, weake, 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, I doe here more plainly rehearse by way of Quere, viz.

First, whether Astrologie or fore-telling, [Page 3] or Prognosticating by the Starres, be a law­full Art, free from all Diabolical practises and devices.

Secondly, Whether Astrologie 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 concur with the rules of the Scripture) which is the full matter in controversie, and to be in this following discourse discussed, handled and cleered; and if so, then certainly the malici­ous ignorant condemners of this Noble and most profitable Art studied by mortals, (as in it's due place shall appeare) ought to be severely pu­nished, and that with examplary infliction, that posterity may take warning how they condemne what they are ignorant of; and likewise be incouraged to apply their minds to the contemplation and knowledge of all Arts and Sciences, especially this most heavenly and divine study of Astrologie, or the language of the Stars.

Now you have heard the distinction of Astro­logie the subject intended, by it you may not onely see the causes which concur 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 Starres in the Ele­ments and their bodies, dependeth of the mo­tions, [Page 4] Configurations, and Influ­ences of the Coelestial bodies, Astronomy and Astrology both are one Art. A­stronomy or Astrologie (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 theorical, 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 Astrologie) the other is meerly vaine and of no use, or to none or lit­tle purpose; the former viz. Astronomy furni­sheth the Astrologer with matter and stuff where­in to exercise himselfe; 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.

SECT. II. In answer to some cavels of Mr. Homes his, where­in be denyeth Astrologie to be warranted by Scripture, proved erroneous and false.

HAving thus painted forth the matter and forme of the thing intended to be insisted [Page 5] on, I come now to shew you what Mr. Homes his utmost power and malice against it is: and first his blind zeal begins to shew it self, in per­swading the Reader it is condemned by the Scripture, and no wise thereby tollerated; his words are, It is no where allowed in the Scrip­ture, under the notion of Astrologie, 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, which is farre from being worthy of the Title of a generall con­demnation, when there is none but knowes the extent of the Scripture to consist of many halfe dozen Chapters, nay of books, Ergo not envy where condemned, and those places nei­ther, but imagined by him to condemne Astro­logie, when indeed they serve no whit at all for his purpose, as in it's due place shall be made appeare. But he thinks these words to be of force enough, to astonish and discomfort the ignorant, from the study thereof; and there­fore as a warning peece, or that his other win­dy reports may better take, and be more hee­ded and beleeved, he prefixeth this slanderous and most false and wicked saying; and truly for his pollicy he is worthy applause, for mis­trusting his words should be little regarded, he colours them with a preface (as it were) of Religion; Astrologie al­lowed of by Scripture. yet this will not keepe him from be­ing [Page 6] ridiculous to the wiser and more learned sort of people. But by the way, 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 Astrologie [...] the language of the Stars; and is it not allowed any where in Scripture under the notion of Astrologie?) Is heard over all the earth, or the ut­most parts thereof, Psal. 19.3. as if he had sayd, there is no part free from the power of their Influences; for their power hath a general ex­tent over all Nations, Kingdomes, Countries, Provinces, and Languages. I pray, who can restraine the sweet influences of the Pleiades? Job 38.31. And did not the Starres 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 Astrologie; 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, Mr. Homes himself rather to be imputed a teacher of the Devils Doctrin, then Astrolo­gers. and that he teach­eth rather the Doctrin of Devils, for the Devils Doctrin is false­hood; and if he preacheth such [Page 7] gross lyes as these, he is the De­vils preacher, and not Astrolo­gers, neither is Astrologie a Do­ctrin of Devils (as shall be 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 envyous, slanderous, and malicious, (or at the best) most ignorant; for it will puzzle all his braines; and Mr. 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 condemne Astrologie) to serve in the least for his turn, as in it's due place shall be cleared.

Then saith Mr. Homes, as other things that are naturall, which are brought to countenance Astro­logie, are not tollerated by the Encyclopedia, and general order and seales of all Arts and Sciences, within their own spheres, to be accounted Astrologie. For instance, First, (saith he) Some urge that we know the tydes of the Sea, by the state of ☽ and tempests by other Stars, which I am confident Mr. Homes cannot denye, but he will render himselfe more ridiculous then already, which he indeavours to do thus; these and of the like nature, are properly handled in that part of natural Philosophie, which we call Meteorologie; and so likewise are all fiery Meteors, Comets, &c. and so by [Page 8] consequence are made an integral part of Physicks, for if you will say, because of their external efficient cause, viz. the Starres; they are to be handled as a part of Astrologie, by the same reason there will be left no such Science as natural Philosophie, because all in­feriour bodies below the Moon (as sayeth 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 Astrologie, and his envy thereto; for how can Mr. Homes prove this is a meer urging, or an opinion 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 Philosophie, 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 condemne 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 [Page 9] stronger Champion (or at least more knowing in the Art then he) against Astrologie, doth confess the ☽ to be the positive and sole cause thereof.

And thus, The ☽ the cause of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea. if he have any under­standing in the Art (as by his writing, I must confesse (as I but now sayed) 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 diurne mo­tion, and he shall find it to flow till she come to an absolute □ aspect of the place she was in at it's 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 erre in this point; this is sufficient­ly well known to the learned Practitioners, and the sonnes of Art; yet note that ☉ and other Starres 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 to lay pen to Paper against this most heavenly, most admi­rable, and most contemplative, delectable stu­dy [Page 10] and science of the Stars and Coelestial bo­dies. So by this time he clearly sees how in­considerate and rash this his sophistical and false argument is.

Secondly, saith Mr. 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 as ignorant to ap­ply or attribute this part of the practick, viz. Astrologie to the Theoricall part, viz. Astro­nomy; as he is to make a distinction between the one and the other, as two distinct Arts, when Ptolomie whom the most learned follow, in his book, chap. 1. of his Quadripartite (as above said) defining Astrologie, maketh no distinction between the one and the other, but that the one is Theoricall, the other Practicall. And thirdly, How doth he define (by all his rabble) the Art of Astrologie? saith he, If any one urge that Astrologie bandles of the qualities and effects of the stars, we Reply, that so doth Astronomie, of their qualities namely, of their light and colour, and naturall Philosophie of their effects, in watry, ayrie, and fiery meteors: as much as to say, Astrologie is no Science at all, but will give its property to another study; if this be not slanderous and malicious, let the weakest [Page 11] 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 Astrologie, and of Doctor Willets titles, viz. Astromaney & 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. The learned and famous Sir Chri­stopher Hey­don recordeth them, which you have verbatim by and by. of the most wise men 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, as you shall see by and by; Mr. 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, [Page 12] 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; for he that will speak against what he knoweth not, and bring false, scandalous and sophisti­call arguments to maintain his opinion; he I say, would certainly terme that man no bet­ter then a fool, or at the best a knave to write against what he knows, and can also prove to be true; but I will not be so hot with him.

But now that he may see his errour in offer­ing to undertake to put men out of conceit with this heavenly study, I will shew him here (before I begin to answer his second Section, in that which I have to say to it, though this will sufficiently refel it.)

First, that Astrologie is an Art.

Secondly, the lawfulness of it, being not impugned by Scripture nor councels, but al­lowed of by the wisest and greatest men.

[Page 13]Thirdly, the antiquity of it.

Fourthly, that it is the profitablest study under the Sun.

SECT. III. Proving Astrologie to be an Art.

ARistotle, lib. 2. chap. 2. Astrologie is proved an Art. Phys. affirmeth that Astrologie is Scientia media, 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 Averroes 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 mutuall consent and 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 jura­mento [Page 14] corporum coelestium ad invicem in creando en­tia, quae sunt hic, & conservando ea, est sicut disposi­tio regentium bonorum, qui juvant se ad invicem in regendo bonam civitatem. And in his Commen­tary on the second book of Physicks, his se­cond Chapter, sheweth that natural Philoso­phy and Astrologie 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 Stars to be a Mathematical Art; and so it hath ever in all ages by the most learned Philoso­phers been esteemed. I believe Mr. Homes nor no man else that knoweth any thing, will de­nie that it is one of the liberal sciences, and if he wil condemn it as none, he must be con­tent to lose one of them, which were to ren­der himself 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 meere a phansie as Palmestry, and yet Galen (one of his learned, that he brings to condemn Astrologie with the word Sophisti­cum, that it is Sophistical, 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 [Page 15] wil make in the least for his turne; as also of Alsted, and Doctor Willets Titles of Astrolo­gy, when the question is, whether either of them knew the common rules of the Art. So then, this being made clear to him that it is an Art, and not onely so, but a Science, and hat one of the liberal Sciences; I come now to the se­cond lesson I promised him. viz.

SECT. IV. Proving the lawfulnesse of Astrologie, being not im­pugned by Scripture, nor Councels; but allowed of by the wisest and greatest men.

WHat hath already above been sayed, is clear to any judicious im­partial eye, The lawfulnesse of Astrologie. that this Art is law­ful, where I say, The heavens de­clare the glory of God, &c. But to clear it more plainly, the Psalmist in his very next words sayeth, The Firmament sheweth the works of his hands, Psal. 19.1. which is clear to me is meant thereby that he effecteth by them, (and no o­ther thing) (though I must confesse there are divers interpretations thereof) my reason is, that otherwise, every thing which is created doth declare the handy work of God; I be­leeve Mr. Homes wil find Aquinas and Hierome [Page 16] of my opinion: He hath heard also, that there is no speech nor language, where the voice of the Stars are not heard; Psal. 19.3. which may serve here again very wel for the purpose in hand; God prohibiteth not the study of Astrologie. and to speak more plainly, that God doth not prohibite mortals from the study of them; you may see how the Holy Ghost by Stephen, in the 7. of the Acts, verse 22. speak­ing in the commendation of Moses, giveth him (over and above the commendation that was aforesaid) that he was learned in all the wise­dome of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds, which is cleare to any rational man, that if it had been any wise sinful, diabolical, or odious in the sight of God, Moses would not have applyed 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 vaine, since there is no one place in the Scripture that can be shown to speak posi­tively against Astrologie, Astrologie noe wise condemned by the word of God. or the study thereof, more then to re­member us not to give the glory of the Creator to the Creature, &c. as in the answer to his divine proofes shall appeare. Wherefore then since it is warrantable and lawful out of Scripture to study this Art, nay [Page 17] and as we see by experience, warranted by God, in the shewing of blazing Stars to Astro­logers only (not to the vulgar & proficient in other Arts) to forewarn his people of the dan­ger and punishment to come; Looke my reply to Raunce his Declaration a­gainst Astrology and if it were not so, he might as wel shew signes on earth to the illiterate, by common vul­gar things; as in heaven to the learned Astrologer, who onely can judge of their effects. Wherefore then I say, of necessi­ty the Art must be allowed of by Councels, be­ing the wiser sort of people, especially by the godlier sort of Councels, whose acts and de­terminations wil be grounded on piety and the word of God, Nota. and if otherwise, I value not what their cen­sure is; for they are but men, and (guided by their own rea­sons and opinions, How farre the Councels in for­mer ages hath or may lawfully con­demn Astrologie.) are but fraile, subject to infirmitie and error, humanum est errare, he can­not but know also that even the palpablest truths have been condemned by Councels, either for some self interest, or for abuse of the thing condemned; as for instance, the Bacaran Councels (as wel as the Roman Senate) hath condemned Astrologers, but how? not because they were students in that heavenly science, but for trusting in Astrology [Page 18] (and who is so superstitious, may not law­fully be termed an Astrologer, for Astrologers are in no sort hereof guilty) the words of the Councel is in the Cap. 9. of Bacaran Coun­cels, Si quis animas, & corpora humana fatalibus stellis credit astringi, 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 all which, there is no Astrologer, but wil wil­lingly condescend; for by this, is not Astro­logie nor Astrologers in the least condemned, but the abuse of the Art, to give that to it, which properly belongs to God the creator of these heavenly bodies; the decree is against those that trust in them, or beleeve a fatal ne­cessity, not that study the knowledge of them, and make a true use of them. So likewise the Councel 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, This is the A­nima mundi, Adrop. ☿ Philosopho­rum, leo veri­dus, the life of the world, which that learned Agrip­pa saith, is actu­all and animal, created by na­ture, found every where, knowne by few, expres­sed by none under it's proper name, but in figures and riddles. 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 [Page 19] wise Pilots sitting at the sterne, did study to prevent the storme which was likely otherwise to shipwrack the safety thereof. So that I say then, there is no Councel, (if they have any spark of Religion, learning or policy) that will shew them selves so ridiculous, as to decree-any thing in the least, against either Astrolo­gers or Astrologie, 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 Astrologie, I study Necromancie, is Astrologie therefore to be condemned as unlawful, because together with it I study unlawful 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 confirmed, for that in former ages, both the greatest and wisest sort of people were Practitioners and Students in Astrologie; The great esti­mation Astrolo­gie was in in for­mer ages. as first we may see by the Egyptians, a­mongst whom it was not lawful for any man to take the functi­on of priest-hood on him, ex­cept he were an Astrologer; nor could any be chosen King, except he were of the Colledg, of Priests. And Rodiginus reporteth that for [Page 20] the prevention of Treason, there was none borne 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 Mo­narks of Babylon attempted nothing of impor­tance, without first asking Counsel of the Caldeans. And the Kings of Lacedaemonia had none in their Councels, 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 Astrologie; nay even at this day there is no King but hath his Mathematitian about him. So then, it is cleared, that there is no Councel but what is ignorant of Art and Religion, that wil condemn or decree any thing against Astrologie, and how it hath been esteemed amongst the wisest and greatest of the people. And that ye may be the better confirmed in what hath beene already sayed; I wil give the names of most of the chiefest Pa­triarks, Fathers, Kings, Emperours and Phi­losophers, (according as that worthy and Noble Sir Christopher Heydon sets them downe at the latter end of his Book, in defiance of judicial Astrologie) that have been students in this noble Art.

1 ADam.

Anno 3032

2 Seth.

Anno 2930

3 Enoch.

Anno 2923

4 Kenan.

Anno 2625

5 Mahalaleel.

Anno 2617

6 Jared.

Anno 2520

7 Henoch.

Anno 2074

8 Zoroaster.

Anno 2142

9 Methuselah.

Anno 2366

10 Lamech.

Anno 2311

11 Noah.

Anno 2155

12 Sem.

Anno 1803

13 Arphaxad.

Anno 1875

14 Sale.

Anno 1835

15 Heber.

Anno 1875

16 Peleg. Pheleg.

Anno 1966

17 Regu.

Anno 1935

18 Sarug.

Anno 1922

19 Nachor.

Anno 1965

20 Therach.

Anno 1878

21 A raham.

Anno 1839

22 Isaac.

Anno 1731

23 Jacob.

Anno 1706

24 Albion Anglus.

Anno 1704

25 Joseph.

Anno 165 [...]

26 Ninus rex assyriorum

Anno 1679

27 Prometheus.

Anno 1802

28 Orion.

Anno 1802

29 Atlas.

Anno 1792

30 Mercurius Trisme­gistus.

Anno 1532

31 Hyas Atlantis filius.

Anno 1500

32 Aesculapius.

Anno 1462

Annubis rex Aegypti.

Anno 1457

34 Petoseris.

Anno 1420

35 Necepsus.

Anno 1400

36 Melampus.

Anno 1357

37 Orpheus.

Anno 1300

38 Linus.

Anno 1252

39 Aristeus.

Anno 1250

40 Musaeus Eleusinus discipulus Orphei.

Anno 1250

41 Endymion Latmius.

Anno 1240

42 Phineus Phaenicus.

Anno 1220

43 Chirion.

Anno 1202

44 Hercules.

Anno 1185

45 Homerus Chius.

Anno 1072

46 Phidon Arginus.

Anno 812

47 Homerus.

Anno 742

48 Hesiodus.

Anno 642

49 Epimenides.

Anno 592

50 Thales milesius.

Anno 582

51 Solon.

Anno 580

52 Anaximander milesius.

Anno 572

53 Aristeus.

Anno 552

54 Theognis Megarensis.

Anno 544

55 Xenophon.

Anno 542

56 Pythagoras.

Anno 520

[Page 22]57 Anaximenes milesius.

Anno 521

58 Democritus.

Anno 506

59 Heraclitus Ephesius.

Anno 503

60 Zamolxis Seytha, Pythagorae discipulus.

Anno 490

61 Lucippus.

Anno 482

62 Anaxagoras.

Anno 480

63 Empedocles.

Anno 458

64 Democritus Abderita.

Anno 456

65 Empedocles Agre­gentinus.

Anno 452

66 Aristarchus.

Anno 452

67 Archelaus.

Anno 450

68 Melissus.

Anno 442

69 Meton Atheniensis.

Anno 432

70 Criton.

Anno 432

71 Protagoras.

Anno 430

72 Helicon Cizicenus.

Anno 420

73 Euclides Megarensis.

Anno 420

74 Theetaetus Atheniensis.

Anno 412

75 Antisthenes Atheniensis.

Anno 412

76 Eudoxus.

Anno 398

77 Polymarchus.

Anno 398

78 Parmenides Eleates.

Anno 382

79 Dicaearchus.

Anno 342

80 Heraclides.

Anno 340

81 Zenocrates.

Anno 330

82 Conon Samius.

Anno 330

83 Calippus Cydonius.

Anno 330

84 Calisthenes.

Anno 329

85 Theophrastus.

Anno 320

86 Polemon.

Anno 318

87 Timocharis.

Anno 292

88 Euclides.

Anno 292

89 Aristillus.

Anno 290

90 Aratus.

Anno 284

91 Cleostratus.

Anno 282

92 Ptolomeus Philadelphus.

Anno 280

93 Callimachus.

Anno 480

94 Theocritus.

Anno 280

95 Bion.

Anno 280

96 Pletades vel septem­poetae.

Anno 270

97 Aristarchus ut alii volunt hoc tempore floruit.

Anno 267

98 Dionysius.

Anno 261

99 Eratosthenes.

Anno 213

100 Archimedes.

Anno 210

101 Sulpitius gallus Consul Romanus.

Anno 160

102 Aristotherus.

Anno 160

103 Colophonius.

Anno 140

104 Nicander.

Anno 140

105 Hipparchus Rhodius.

Anno 126

106 Publius Nigidus.

Anno 58

107 Theodosius.

Anno 56

108 Theagenes.

Anno 50

109 Vitruvius.

Anno 50

100 Lucius Tarucius.

Anno 50

111 Achoreus.

Anno 49

112 C. Julius Caesar.

Anno 47

113 Sosigenes.

Anno 47

114 Sulla.

Anno 47

115 M. Flavius.

Anno 47

116 M. Manilius.

Anno 30

117 Maternus Firmicus.

Anno 5

1 C. Julius Higinus.

Anno 5

2 Artemedorus.

Anno 6

3 Germanius Augusti filius.

Anno 10

4 Thrasillus.

Anno 17

5 Gamaliel Christi discipulus Astro­logus inclitus.

Anno 34

6 Columella.

Anno 50

7 Marinus Tyrius.

Anno 60

8 Andromachus Cretensis.

Anno 67

9 Agrippa Agris in Bithynia.

Anno 90

10 Menelaus Romanus.

Anno 90

11 Ascletarion.

Anno 90

12 Proclus Licius.

Anno 90

13 Mileus.

Anno 96

14 Apollonius Tyraneus.

Anno 98

15 Hermippus Beritius.

Anno 120

16 Theon Alexandrinus.

Anno 130

17 Claudius Ptolomeus.

Anno 139

18 Ammonius.

Anno 135

19 Antigonus.

Anno 135

20 Cornelius fronto,

Anno 150

21 Abidas.

Anno 170

22 Apollinaris.

Anno 170

23 Plotinus.

Anno 160

24 Amelius Apanteus,

Anno 270

25 Porphyrius.

Anno 280

26 Jamblicus.

Anno 290

27 Sopater Apameus.

Anno 290

28 Dorotheus.

Anno 290

29 Julius firmicus.

Anno 320

30 Syrianus Alexandrinus.

Anno 320

31 Eusebius Caesariensis.

Anno 320

32 Theon Alexandrinus.

Anno 360

33 Theon e Museo Aegyp.

Anno 380

34 Apollonius Pergeus.

Anno 380

35 Pappus.

Anno 380

36 Procus Lycius.

Anno 390

37 Isodorus.

Anno 391

38 Ammonias.

Anno 400

39 Heliodorus.

Anno 400

40 Rufus festus Anienus.

Anno 410

41 Cleomenes.

Anno 427

42 Cyrillus.

Anno 427

43 Possidonius Apher.

Anno 470

44 Victorinus Aquitanus.

Anno 470

45 Phyloponus.

Anno 490

46 Dionysius Abbas Romanus.

Anno 532

47 Proclus Byzantius.

Anno 500

48 Hero Mathematicus.

Anno 500

49 Olimpiodorus.

Anno 500

50 Boetius.

Anno 520

51 Marimes Neopolitanus.

Anno 525

52 Victor Campanes

Anno 540

53 Artuillus Scotus.

Anno 710

54 Adelmus Balduinus Anglus.

Anno 710

55 Beda.

Anno 730

[Page 24]56 Albumaser.

Anno 844

57 Albategnius.

Anno 879

58 Arzahel Hispanus.

Anno 879

59 Abbo floriacensis caenobii Abbas.

Anno 1004

60 Campanus.

Anno 1030

61 Hermanus Contractus.

Anno 1040

62 Almeo Arabs.

Anno 1048

63 Azophi Arabs.

Anno 1061

64 Robertus Lotharin­gus Anglus.

Anno 1091

65 Rodulphus Brughensis.

Anno 1140

66 Abram Auenezre.

Anno 1145

67 Aboali.

Anno 1145

68 Jo. Hispalensis.

Anno 1146

69 Thebit.

Anno 1195

70 Hali Abanragel.

Anno 1202

71 Alkindus.

Anno 1235

72 Jo. de Sacrobusto Anglus.

Anno 1240

73 Alphonsus rex Castiliae

Anno 1252

74 Vitellia.

Anno 1274

75 Rogerus Bacon Anglus.

Anno 1280

76 Guido Bonatus.

Anno 1284

77 Guilielmus de S. Godialdo.

Anno 1293

78 Michael Scotus Anglus.

Anno 1293

79 Jo. de Dacia.

Anno 1300

80 Jo. Dank de Saxo ia.

Anno 1300

81 Jo. de Ligneriis.

Anno 1300

82 Rich. Walingforth S. Albani abbas, An­glus.

Anno 1326

83 Jo. Estuidi. Anglicus.

Anno 1340

84 Leupoldus de Austria.

Anno 1340

85 Jo. Eligerus de Gondostenen.

Anno 1350

86 Rober. de Lecestria Anglicus.

Anno 1350

87 Jo de ginunden.

Anno 1400

88 Petrus de Aliaco.

Anno 1400

89 Henricus de Haffia.

Anno 1400

90 Jo Blanchinus.

Anno 1440

91 Georgius Purbachius.

Anno 1462

92 Nicholaus de Cusa.

Anno 1462

93 Io Iovinianus Pontanus.

Anno 1462

94 Jo. de Monte regio.

Anno 1467

95 Eherhardus Schlu­singer Tygurinus.

Anno 1470

96 Abraham Zacuti.

Anno 1470

97 Georgius Trapezuntius.

Anno 1480

98 Marsilius Ficinus.

Anno 1490

99 Bernardus Warterus.

Anno 1490

100 Dominicus Maria Bononiensis.

Anno 1490

101 Jo. Lucilius San tritte [...].

Anno 1500

102 Jo. Ganivetus.

Anno 1500

103 Omer Astronomus.

Anno 1503

104 Jo. Muniz.

Anno 1503

105 Lucius Bellantius Senensis.

Anno 1503

106 Jo. Schreterus.

Anno 1504

107 Jo. Warnerus.

Anno 1512

108 Jo. Angelus.

Anno 1512

109 Jo. Esizer.

Anno 1514

110 Jo Stopherus.

Anno 1530

111 Jo. Carion.

Anno 1530

112 Lucas Gauricus.

Anno 1530

113 Joachimus Rin­gelber gensis.

Anno 1530

114 Achille P. Gassarus.

Anno 1530

115 Aegidius Tischudus.

Anno 1530

[Page 25]116 Orontius Fineus.

Anno 1530

117 Andreas Stiborius.

Anno 1534

118 Jo. Stabius.

Anno 1534

119 P. Appianus.

Anno 1534

120 Vitus Minshemius.

Anno 1536

121 Albertus Pighius.

Anno 1536

122 Hieronymus Fra­castorius.

Anno 1540

123 Jo. Virdungus Halfurtus.

Anno 1540

124 Subastiames Mansterus.

Anno 1540

125 Jo. Dryander.

Anno 1540

126 Franciscus Mau­rolicus.

Anno 1540

127 Jo. Schonerus.

Anno 1540

128 Georgius Joach Rheticus.

Anno 1540

129 Gualterus Riffe.

Anno 1540

130 Nicholaus Copernicus.

Anno 1540

131 Michael Angelus Blondus.

Anno 1544

132 Nicholaus Sophianus.

Anno 1458

133 Angerius Ferrerius.

Anno 1548

134 Casparus Penserus.

Anno 1551

135 Erasmus Rheinholdus.

Anno 1551

136 Jo. Roias.

Anno 1551

137 Cyprianus Leovicius.

Anno 1551

138 Jacobus Millichius.

Anno 1551

139 Michael Nostradamus.

Anno 1553

140 Nicholaus Simus.

Anno 1553

141 Hier. Cardanus.

Anno 1553

142 Genema Frisius.

Anno 1556

143 Christoph. Stathmio.

Anno 1556

144 Chonradus Dasypodius.

Anno 1556

145 Jo. Stadius.

Anno 1560

146 Petrus Nonnius.

Anno 1560

147 Thomas Boderius.

Anno 1560

148 Samuel Syderocrates.

Anno 1560

149 Jo. Ʋrsus.

Anno 1570

150 Joffrancus Officius.

Anno 1570

151 Valentinus Nabod.

Anno 1573

152 Jo. Garcus.

Anno 1573

153 Gerardus Mercator.

Anno 1573

154 Erasmus Scieckenfussius.

Anno 1573

155 Nichodem. Frischrinus.

Anno 1580

156 Cornelius Gemma.

Anno 1580

157 Henricus Ranzovius.

Anno 1582

158 Chistoph. Clevius.

Anno 1582

159 Hier. Wolfius.

Anno 1582

160 Bartholom. Scultetus.

Anno 1582

161 Blundevil.

Anno 1582

162 Jacob. Christmannus.

Anno 1582

163 Jo. Henricus Rothmannus.

Anno 1582

164 Sextus ab Heminga.

Anno 1482

165 Franciscus Iunctinus.

Anno 1590

166 Gerardus Mercator.

Anno 1590

167 Peucerus.

Anno 1590

168 Bartholomeus Petiscus.

Anno 1600

169 Henricus Buntingus.

Anno 1600

170 Adrianus Romanus.

Anno 1600

171 Origanus.

Anno 1600

172 Thomas Finxius.

Anno 1602

173 Enerartus.

Anno 1602

174 Tycho Brache.

Anno 1602

175 Aslacius.

Anno 1602

176 Jo. Maginus.

Anno 1602

177 Wright.

Anno 1602

178 Mestlin.

Anno 1602

[Page 26]These are it seemes, as many as this good man could hear of, before his time that were remarkeable; yet let us not forget learned Cornelius Agrippa, and himself. Blagrave au­thor of the Mathematical Jewel, Hartgil, re­verent (both for learning and industry) Ar­gol of Rome, and many innumerable others there are, which if I should undertake to ex­presse, this whole volume would not be able to containe half of them, besides those that have privately studied it in all ages, which ne­ver made their names vulgarly known.

And let us not forget those of our times, here in our own Nation, (though we know not those that are in others.) viz. Mr Lilly who hath put our Astrological rules (for the better instruction of our Nation) into English. Doctor Phiske, Mr. Booker, Capt. George Whar­ton, and Mr. Vin. Wing, and many others which for brevity sake I omit, and hasten to shew you the antiquity of the Art, since you have already seene the lawfulnesse there­of, being allowed of by the Scripture, and the wisest and religiousest of men.

SECT. V. Demonstrating the antiquity of Astrologie

WE have seene already how Astrologie hath been proved lawful by the Scrip­ture and reason, not condemned by Councels, but admired and honoured in all ages, by the wisest of the ancients; we come now to shew it's Antiquity, and from whence it had it's first originall; 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, other from the Sydonians, Calde­ans, Persians, Indians, Arabians and Greeks; but how ever it is most certain, if we will believe the ancientest Historiographers, that the Priests and Kings amongst the Egyptians, the Caldeans among the Babylonians, the Magicians among the Persians, the Gymnosophists among the In­dians, the chief Philosopers of Greece and Italy, and the Druides of France were all Astrolo­gers, and esteemed by those Na­tions for the wisest men. The antiquity of Astrologie. But Jo­sephus in his Antiquities, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. deriveth it from Adam [Page 28] and Seth: and that they taught it to their po­sterity, and that Seth was so wel skilled there­in, that foreseeing thereby the destruction of the world, first by Water, then by Fire, lest 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 remaine in Syria in his owne time; and in the third Chapter of the same booke, 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 yeares time, for these are studyes that require much experience, and particular observation, which could not be done on an instant. Again in his eight Chapter of the same first booke 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, How the Egyp­tians learned Astrologie. 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 [Page 29] hold Atlas to be after the Flood. It is vaine longer here to remaine, since generally Astro­logie by most (especially the most judicious) Historyographers hold it to be derived from God to Adam, and that it is the most ancient of all Arts and Sciences, except Arithmetick; wherefore lest this discourse swel to a bigger bulk then I would willingly have it, I hasten to the fourth and last lesson I promised to shew Mr. Homes, and that is to shew him.

SECT. VI. That Astrologie is the most profitablest study reveal­ed under the sun to mortals.

WHich I shal indeavour to make cleare thus; first, That it is most profitable for the knowledge of morall Philosophie, viz. of our selves and others. Secondly, For na­turall Philosophie. Thirdly, For Physicke. Fourthly, For Health. Fifthly, For Husband­dry. Sixthly, For giving a reason for Climacte­ricall yeares (which other Arts cannot) and other things. Seventhly, and lastly, For Mile­tary Discipline.

First, Astrologie pro­fitable for mo­ral Philosophy. that it is most profitable for the knowledge of moral Philosophy, Mr. Homes will not [Page 30] deny (if he know any thing in the Art,) that the constitution of the body, and the dispo­sition of the minde is by Astrologie known; so that hereby we receive a double benefit, viz. First, admonition to refraine what may prove obnoxious and hurtful to our health. Second­ly, incouragement 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 Astrologie, for it teacheth a man what pertaines 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 meane 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 other­waies he hath to attaine to the riches of this world; and also teacheth him how to increase the same, by what meanes, 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 Astrologie to comprehend more in one part, then all the Arts in the world put together, in any or all parts.

For naturall Philosophy.Secondly, For natural Philoso­phy, it bringeth no lesse helpe here­unto, [Page 31] then to the former, for hereby the Phi­losopher commeth to know God the upholder and immoveable Creator 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 in the Zodiack; and that there is a cer­tain prefixt time of every ones life that is born, allotted by the Stars, 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 Astrologie to know the risings of Meteors, the motion of Comets, and innumerable other things, much condu­cing to the furtherance of his knowledge, ex­perience and skil. But this is so clear, I hasten to what is further to be said in the praise and utility of Astrologie, lest I spend too much time in confuting such weak stuffe, as is this discourse of Mr. Homes, against so apparent a Noble and excellent Art.

Thirdy, For Physick, for all that knows any thing in Astro­logie, can acquaint Mr. Homes, Astrologie pro­fitable for Phy­sick. as also his great friend Gallen (as most falsely he accuses him (in his 115. page) to condemn Astrology as Sophistical, when indeed he himself appeares no other at [Page 32] the best, to wrong so worthy a man.) That he that shal administer Physick when the Sunne comes to the equinoctial points, or in the Ca­nicular or Dog-dayes and the like, knowes ve­ry little either in the one or other, viz. Phy­sick or Astrologie; and is rather to be accoun­ted a foole then a Physitian; and further, Gal­len admonisheth men not to trust themselves with that Physitian that is not versed in Astro­logie; and Hippocrates also sayeth, that that Physitian which is ignorant in Astrologie, is not fully, nor can he be perfectly known in his Art; for without Astrologie, he shal never be able to give Physick safely, viz. when to purge by evacuation or vomit, or Phlebotomie, 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 wel learned therein) can he erre, besides Gallen further affirmeth, that Physick given at unseasonable times, doth not onely little availe or helpe, but often times prove very hurtful, even to the indangering of the life of the Patient; and that these times are onely to be known and judged by the Starres. Fernelius (a learned Physitian) doth here­unto also condescend, as also Ficinus; for there is nothing more certain, then that Astrologie doth plainly deliver rules for all the parts of [Page 33] Physick abovesaid, (which Mr. Homes I am confident (if any whit read therein) dare not but confesse) and not onely so, but teacheth also the critial dayes, without which they can­not be known with any certainty; wherefore it is, that those Physitians ignorant in Astro­logie, 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, The reason of Critical dayes. if not absolute destruction: The reason is, the ☽ by her various motion commeth sometimes sooner, and sometimes latter, to her □ and ☍ or quadrat and opposit 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 eight or ninth day, other times at the sixth dayes; and to her ☍ sometimes at the fourteenth day, sometimes at the thirteen day, other times not till the sixteenth day. I would faine now Mr. 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, Astrologie pro­fitable for health. which none but the most ignorant and malicious wil deny, since the constitution of the body the on­ly [Page 34] ground, wise Physitians go upon and look first too; that, that foundation being layd, 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 confesse and acknowledge it to be the most profitable thing for our health under the Sun. Wherefore then let us see whether the husband-man will acknowledge it to be be­neficial to him in his way of living, viz. Hus­bandry.

Astrologie pro­fitable for Hus­bandry.Fifthly, Husbandry, and first let me aske him, whether he lops his Trees from the time the Sun declines from our Horizon, till he againe reenters the equinoctial point? or if he knows not (if he should) that it wil not grow again? or whether he use to sow Pease in the increase of ☽? or if so, whether they wil then ever leave blooming or blossoming? or whether therefore he doth not observe and re­member to set them in the waine, 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 aske the Hus­band-man, whether he observeth not a time to graffe, and prune his Trees? but this is so [Page 35] common, that to spend more time hereunto, were to no purpose.

Sixthly, For rendrin a reason for Cli­macterical years For rendring a rea­son for Climacterical yeares, 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 any pow­er in the Nativity, for Ptolomie and the wisest in this Art, give ♄ as much power in the de­cree several of yeares, as the Sunne hath in months, or the ☽ in dayes; and if his course be observed, it will bee found finished much about the same number of years, as the Moones 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 find by experience) of some mens lives, at these yeares, they have either some of the beneficial Planets in their eight House, or the direction of the ascendant, Looke Ranzo­vius on this sub­ject. or Aphetical places are free from all impediment and affliction, of the interficient and malignant constellati­ons.

Seventhly, and lastly, Astrologie pro­fitable for mi­litary affaires. for mi­litary Discipline, History is full of examples herein, and for bre­vities [Page 36] sake (because I will hasten to conclude this first Chapter, that I may proceed to Mr. Homes his second Section) I will hear content my self with this one, which the Indian Histo­ries shew forth unto us; which is, that Colum­bus having the Art of Astrologie, and being in a straight for want of Victual, together with the whole Army of the King of Spaine Ferdi­nand; and foreseeing an Eclipse of the ☽ with­in few daies 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 darkened, 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 forgivenesse: So then you have had (as brief as may be) shewn unto you, what Astrologie 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 helpful to another; but you see both positively and conclusively, that Astrologie is generally helpful to all Arts and Sciences, nay what other study in the whole [Page 37] world in this point is like it or able to com­pare with it? and seeing it is so, very indis­creetly and unfitly, doth Mr. Homes joyn it or compare it with Augury, Auruspicie, Auspicie, Pullarie, Necromancy, Sortelegie, Onieroman­tie or Palmestry, which are no Arts, as he clearly seeth this is; and that by the judgement of the wisest men and greatest Philosophers; wherefore if he will be wiser then all these he hath been shewn, by my consent, he shall be elected the 8th wise man; wherefore seeing truth and authority of these, as well as Scri­pture, standeth with it, and distinguisheth it from these sortelegies, haphazards and chan­ces; it mattereth not what either he doth or can say, or do, against it.

SECT. I. Wherein is further shewn, the legality of Astrologie.

HIs first learned man (then) he begins with, is Tostatus, who he saith in his Commen­tary on Levit, 19. Quest. 28, 29, &c. hath these words, the which Doctor Willet gives him, viz. Of things which are (as to us) accidental, as the successe of businesse, 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 [Page 39] wonder he being a Divine, he had not first him­self considered and weighed the text, which that he may now do (Nunquam sera est ad bonos mores via) I will here set it down: Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seeke 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 Astrologie; it is against the seeking after those that have familiar Spirits, and Wizards; Looke what A­strologie is, pag. 2. now that Astrologie doth not in the least savour hereof, is clear in what hath been already said, and the definition thereof, see Ptolomies own words at the beginning of my discourse in the second page: So that except the rest of his learned men (as he calleth them) can bring better proof or reason then this first, he had better have been silent, then thus to be overshot.

SECT. II. Wherein is shewn that the Stars are signes and Causes.

HE then brings Doctor Willet (to cast his squib also at this strong Tower, viz. A­strologie) in these words, all manner of conjectu­ring [Page 40] (which saith he is meant by Astrologie) is not unlawful, whereof any Natural or Divine cause can be yielded, as first there be Natural signs in the heavens and ayre, as of the alteration of weather, of winds, of raine, &c. This doth no whit hurt it, and is onely a flash that at the most doth but whiz about it, and at the last after a great crack, vanisheth in smoke: mark but the words, all manner of conjecturing is not unlawful, &c. and saith Mr Homes, see he calleth it (meaning Astrologie) but conjecturing onely; but doth Mr Homes conjecture it to be no other? if he do, it is his ignorance; I hope the reader sees by this time what Astrologie is and be­gins to be as much in love with it againe, as ever before by him discouraged, as also out of love with his cavils; but this is not all, when you see him stript of his Scripture proofs, you will tell me something then; when you see him as naked left, as my naile, of all his sophistications, you will tell me then you are worse in love with him, (I'm confident) when his ugly malice is discovered against this most apparent truth: But let me not forget my self, and spend too much time about him, but re­turn to the discourse in hand; which is, that since there hath been already shewn, that the Stars have the applause of power on the natu­ral things of this world, as also the great Pto­lomie [Page 41] (whose word in this case I believe wil be taken before Doctor Willets, or Mr. Homes his) gives his word for it; Astrologie no way unlawfull. besides ex­perience also, as above shewed, (and you know experientia docet) there is no more to be said, but that Astrolo­gie is not (as Doctor Willet sayeth) unlawful; neither doth he in any wise condemne it, for in his following words he tels us, There are na­tural signes in the heavens and aire which cause raine, winde, &c. The cause of which, is no o­ther then the influence of the Stars, which if he deny, all Writers on this Art are contradict­ed, 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 sayeth Mr. Homes, Nota. As anon shall appeare. is the cause of Raine, alteration of Aire, and the like? if his Master Doctor Willet did not in these words shew it, me thinks he should not have left the Reader unsatisfied; and not onely so, but have proved the Stars to have no Influence thereon, nor to be causes of these alterations, and then his argument had been good; but certainly he that wil carpe at such trivial words as these, would not have omitted that, could he but sufficiently have proved it, which since he could not, or did not; he must give me leave to prove [Page 42] they are. The Stars signes and causes. And first let me give you Moses judgement herein, who plainly tells us, The Stars are for signes and seasons, Gen. 1.14. which Mr. Homes will say is fullfilled in the words following, viz. And God made two great lights, the one to rule, the Day, and 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 hostes of Heaven? were they made for no other use then to gaze on? the ☉ and ☽ will sufficiently serve our turne for matter of light, if we looke no fur­ther into their uses; but the Scripture further putteth this matter quite out of doubt if we will beleeve Gods own word, Joh 28.31. For he speaking of his Omnipotent power, asketh his servant Job, whether he, or any one else Can restraine the influence of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion: Saint Austine on Job. On which words St. Austine referreth all men to the study of Astrologie, 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 Celestial host, figurative­ly expressing pars pro toto; and to shew you by experience the verity hereof, if you wil nei­ther beleeve Augustine, Moses, nor God himself, [Page 43] except you see and feele; (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 Mr. Homes his learned Judges and condemners of Astrologie) 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 ☽ (as above­said) but to manifest it yet further, let him call to mind the increase and decrease of shel­fish, the mutation and variation of times, and innumerable other effects of the Stars, which (if time and conveniency would permit) might be recorded, and let him then study the cause hereof, and he will then without doubt be of an other tenent; 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 aire both by Raine, Snow, Wind, Tempests, Thundering and Lightning, and the like according to their several positions, the nature of signes and houses and mansions they are in; (which if he be not altogether igno­rant of the Art, he may dayly see) these and the like effects, are most vulgarly known by experience, so that therefore he might even as well have confessed those signes he speaketh of, to be the Stars, and causes their influence, since [Page 44] 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 Fathers, St. Austine, Moses, nay and GOD himself; and if this ap­pears not then to all the judicious, an apparant Doctrin of Devils; Mr. Homes proved rather to be a teacher of the Doctrine of Devils, then Astrologers. let the mean­est of capacities judge, but who could indeed looke for better stuff in so vile a meane ware­house; or that beast not to be a monster, or at least to be shun'd as very obnoxious, that hath HELL written in it's fore-head? for the title of his Bell and Dragon, (which he hopeth shal devour Astro­logie, with other frivolous and indeed unlaw­ful Arts, like an unconscionable judge, con­demneth the good with the bad) is DEMO­NOLOGIE, OR THE DOCTRIN OR LANGUAGE OF DEVILS; I say, is not this most wickedly, or else most ignorantly done of Mr. Homes, to deny these effects and operations of the Starres above­sayed, to proceed from the Stars? and seeing it is so, of necessity then must Mr. Homes's Clerks in this point faile, who have so pal­pably the word of God against them; he might as wel then have left out that other ad­dition of Doctor Willets; where he saith, that the Stars have not the same influence in summer, and [Page 45] in Winter, Spring and Autumne, and so consequently will conclude them. First, not to be signes (contra­dicting Moses, and the word of God, Gen. 1.14. as abovesaid.) Secondly, Nor causes, quia ex unitate causae sequeretur similitudo effectus, of the same cause there should follow the same effect; but there followeth not the same effect from the same signes, appeares by experience. As much to say, the Stars are neither causes nor signes, because they produce not fruits in Winter, as wel as in Summer, or because they cause not Snow in Summer, or Buds and Blossoms in Winter. O rare cavil! but since he is already, by what is abovesaid, confuted; I shal here add nothing but this, that since the question is, whether they are causes and signes, because that passage in the first of Gen. manifests they are signes, I wil (if he wil be convinced by the word of God) here give him to know they are also causes, I will heare the heavens, and the heavens shall heare the earth, and the earth the corne 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 (unlesse blinded with malice and wilfulnesse) that they are both signes and causes, of all our earthly injoyments and happinesses; Et si scriptura, & ipse deus no­biscum, quis contra nos.

SECT. III. Wherein his allegations against the ground of the Art is condemned; and his bringing St. Augustine and Galen against it, proved fallacious, injuri­ous and malicious; and how far we ought to at­tribute to the power of the Stars.

SEeing then it is most clearly so, that the Starres are signes and causes as above said, what need these envious carpers or malicious gainsayers of the truth be heeded or regarded; but let their perverse rags of paper perish with themselves, not worthy the least remembrance; and indeed had it not been rightly to inform 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 worthinesse, but per­petual infamy.

But this is not all, he comes next to con­demn Astrologie 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 daies call part of Astrologie, did not in all his two great Volumnes in fol. of Arts and Sci­ences, [Page 47] set forth any Astrologie; a wise story in­deed, because Keckerman writeth not of Astro­logie, therefore there is no such thing, but if Keckerman hath not, yet as wise and as learned and greater Philosophers have, Looke the se­cond Chapter of this Treatise, Sect. 2. as if the being of Astrologie de­pended on his writing hereof, or a whit farther from being an heavenly Science and a lawful 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 it savoureth so little of reason, that it is rather rime-Dogril, Brains and Staires, or hot and block, I had almost said head, that I might make (at least) sence thereof, if neither rime nor reason. But to proceed, (he saith) he is sure he hath these words against it, Manent tamen, &c. the Stars a­bide, as of other sublunary effects, so of effects in man, the common and remote cause which many wayes may be hindered, not only by the first cause, God, but also by particular causes, partly in the Heavens, partly in the Ayre and other Elements; so that the Predictions of Astrologers are with ifs [Page 48] 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 Stars there is no A­strologer but will confesse (but whether he will or no, or ordinarily uses so to do, is the question) so that Mr Homes gets little by this querk since he affirmeth nothing that any Astro­loger will deny: But if Mr Keckerman maketh it not appear what particular causes hinder the effects of the Stars, me thinks for the strength of his argument Mr Homes should have done it; for it standeth not with any reason, that subordinate causes as are the Ayre and other Elements, should predomi­nate or rule over the first moving causes, viz. the Stars; this the weakest capacity that un­derstands the Art will affirme, and you have but now heard that the effects of the Stars cause alteration and mutation of the Ayre, as we also daily see by experience; and therefore his assertion, that the principles of Astrologie are not confirmed on true principles, is here also condemned as erronious, false and mali­cious; Carelesnesse in Astrologers cause errour. for we see Astrologers seldome faile 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 [Page 49] 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 Mr Homes, is Divinity false and no wise to be heeded; because there is so many errours and schismes crept into the Church? or because every one attaineth not to a full perfection of the Spirit? or be­cause humanum est errare, man is fraile 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 sophi­stical, 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 Phy­sitian, that is not an Astrologer: and in all his works hath Astrologie in great esteeme and applause, and moreover testifieth his own pra­ctice hereof, especially, lib. 3. de diebus decret. chap 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. and the like: So he brings St. Austin to condemn it, thus in these words in his Treatise De Doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. chap. 21, 22. est magnus error, & magna demen­tia, [Page 50] superstitio: Astrologie is a great error mad­nesse, and superstition, it is clear that St. Austin here speaketh of the superstitious use thereof, as in attributing fatal necessity thereto, and in too much trusting and confiding therein, as may appear by what you have already heard St. Austin saith of it; but to clear it more ful­ly, St. Austin confesseth that before his con­version, he followed the heresies of the Mani­chees, who maintained the Stars to be adored and prayed unto, Lib. 5. chap. 4. & lib. 20. ch. 6. contra Faustum Manichaeum. and therefore to reclaime the multitude, which went thus a whoring after the waies of the Heathen, this good man useth these words to recall them, and unite them to the belief of God: But I hope Mr Homes will not say that Astrologers are thus superstitious and wicked; he that saith Astrologie (as I said before) is any other thing then what is delivered by Pto­lomy, in the second page of this Treatise, know­eth not what Astrologie is; Neither will he affirme I hope, that St. Austin condemns Astro­logie, but the superstitious abuse thereof, which is clear, for he delivereth five opinions con­cerning destiny.

First, that by destiny is un­derstood the providence, Lib. 5. chap. 1. De civitate Dei. will and power of God, and therefore he warneth the Astrologers, that [Page 51] they continue their opinions, but correct their tongues, 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 maintaine 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, 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 St. Au­stin accounteth more intolerable then the o­ther, for that it teacheth us to conceive that of God, which they hold unworthy to impute [Page 52] unto the Stars, Lib. 2. de Gen. cap. 17. against such he sufficiently declareth.

These opinions, St. 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, necessarily inforcing us in all our actions; or as they throw all our sins upon God, whilest they make him by the Stars inevitably to inforce us to evil: where­fore had Mr Homes (as it had besit a learned man) first examined his Authors 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 turne; I'm confident, he had not thus inconsiderately alleadged St Augustine against Astrologers, for (as I defined before in the se­cond page, what Astrologie is) so the same Ptolomy confesseth the Stars not to have any fatali­ty as working by or with a fatal necessity on the will or soul of man, as much as St. 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, How farre we ought to attribute to the power of the Stars. (as if they were living souls) to de­cree future events, nor necessarily to usurpe power over our minds, but onely to signi­fie [Page 53] the inclinations of the elements, and of all things compounded of them.

Now that St. Austine meant not such Astro­logers as deny necessity (as Mr Homes would faine perswade the vulgar to believe;) but onely ascribe power unto the Stars to worke upon sublunary bodies; is evident by his words, Non usque qua (que) absurde dici possit, Lib. 5. cap. 6. De civitate Dei. ad solas corporum diffe­rentias, afflatus quosdam valere si­dereos, sicut in solaribùs accessibus, & recessibus, videmus etiam ipsius anni temporae va­riari & lunaribus incrementis, & decrementis angeri & minui quaedam genera rerum; sicut Echinos, & conchas, & mirabiles aestus oceani, non autem, & animi voluntates positionibus syderum subdi: where we see nothing exempted from subjecti­on to the Stars that is bodily, but onely our spirituall part: St. Austine concurreth with Astrologers. lib. 2. cap. 5. De Gen. And he ascri­beth not this power to the Stars in generall, as that their specifical vertues are not possible to be known to man, for he concurreth with Astrologers, that the quality of ♄ is cold, &c. as you may farther see at the beginning of this Chapter. So that you may see how falsely and injuriously he brings in St. Augustine against Astrologie; by which (I will onely add this) the Reader may clear­ly see the envy and malice of Mr. Homes, how [Page 54] he studieth (by the learned and Fathers) to perswade his reader against this most apparent truth, viz. ASTROLOGIE.

SECT IV. Wherein Astrologie is defended against his allegati­ons, from Mr. Perkins his words.

MAster Homes comes then to tell us Mr 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 Mr Perkins cals it prophane­nesse, and idolatry; but let the Reader seriously and diligently but observe what hath been here already said, and he cannot but under­stand Mr Perkins spake onely against the abuse of the Art, not as it is in its self; against the superstitious confidence and trust in the Stars, not the searching and studying of the influ­ences and effects of the Stars on elementary bodies; and as much as this comes to, all that study the Art will confesse, Ergo, Mr Homes is mistaken to thinke by these words of Mr Per­kins [Page 55] to condemn Astrologie, since he saith no more then all Astrologers themselves will say; wherefore to dwell longer here, were but vain and superfluous; and to as little purpose as to bring a man a bag-pudding when he hath fil­led his belly with pie. We come therefore now to his eighth learned man which condemnes Astrologie, which he tels us is Mr Geree, who hath (saith he) written a Treatise against Astro­logie, 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 Astrologie; 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 Mr Homes his sequel or con­clusion is ridiculous, sophistical and envious. Mr Chamber also writ a booke against Astrolo­gie, which I wonder he remembred not also, but that learned Sir Christopher Heydon return­ed him such a repulse, as that none of the An­tagonists or ill willers to the Art, ever durst undertake to give a reply thereunto; for he doth not onely refute Mr Chamber, but also Picus mirandula, Melton, Perkins, and Geree to boote; wherefore I refer all those that would be further resolved herein, and desire to dis­cerne between truth and falshood, to the per­usal of the discourse it self, it being a piece [Page 56] 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; it was never as yet undertaken to be answered, neither I beleeve wil it ever be attempted by any of these cavilling punies, that gain-say indeed what they know not, but by tradition or Theorically, and if practically, it is so slen­derly known by them, that they imagine the Art to be no better then meere Conjuration, and the Artists Conjurers.

SECT. V. Wherein his cavilling Mr. Briggs, and others, are convinced.

WE now come (not to be too tedious) to heare what he can tel us of learned Mr. Briggs, against Astrologie, which is brief­ly thus much, That after an earnest desire to at­taine the perfection thereof, he seriously applyed him­selfe unto the study, but in conclusion, when he thought to have had joy of his weried labours, he was satisfied with nothing but uncertainty, and meeting an other Astrologer, told him how he had beene deceived in the rules of the Art, (who for his comfort) concluded also as he did, that there was no certainty therein, upon which he left off further [Page 57] studying thereof. Now I would very faine know of any man (which shal be all the answer I shal give to this sophistical cavil) whether by these words Astrologie, be convinced as uncertain, because Mr. Briggs and another, or (suppose halfe a dozen more) could find no certainty therein; when Ptolomy, Galen, Hippocrates, St. Austine, and thousands more, found not on­ly certainty therein, but concluded and a­greed that it was the most beneficial and plea­sant Art under the Sunne; and whereas he cites Phavorinus against Astrologie in these words, Aut adversa eventura dicunt, &c. which is, They foretel either things of prosperity or ad­versity; if of prosperity, and they faile, then thou shalt be prosperous or happy in hoping for that good, if of adversity, and hit not right, then thou wert miserable in fearing in vaine, &c. which agrees with what he sayeth Mr. Briggs would under­take to do, viz To prove the rules of Astrologie con­tradictory, viz. It shal be so, and it shal not be so, which is the meerest cavil of all the rest, to say, Ergo Astrologie is uncertain. I wil under­take then a greater matter then Mr. Briggs, for let there be what Art or Science that Mr. Homes can devise nominated (though never so true) I wil 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 [Page 58] put in those that denie the truth; nay, and not onely so, but sophistically and malici­ously maintaine it to their utmost indeavours, thinking the citing of St. Austine to be proof enough to terrifie the Reader from underta­king this study, or continuing therein, not observing the words of his Au­thor, Looke the first Chapter of his treatise. and together with the Fa­thers to include the Councels, 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 wel to this Chapter, as his cavils, aske him these two questions; whether a man may not (if envi­ously disposed) speake against the most mani­fest truths, nay against the very word of God, and wrest the Scripture to their owne incli­nations and intentions? And secondly, if he be proved hereof guilty, in the next Chapter, to wrest the Scripture sence to confute Astro­logie; whether he be not more fit to be brought under the lash of the Law, then Astrologers? so have you his learned men against Astrologie confuted; we come now to the maine point of all, viz. whether Astrologie be condemned by the word of God?

SECT. I. Wherein his first Scripture proofe, viz. Deut. 18 verse. 10. is convinced and cleared, no wise to condemne Astrologie.

COncerning his first proof, Deut. 18.10. I have formerly in my reply to Raun­ces Declaration against Astrologie sayed some­thing, and referred the Reader, to that never to be enough honoured and remembred, the lear­ned Sir Christopher Heydon, to be further satis­fied in the rest of his divine proofs, who in his answer to Mr. Chamber, hath so excellently and learnedly handled, that the wit of man is not able to performe better, and that so learned a piece may not be kept from the knowledge of the vulgar, under the cloud of silence, I wil here along in the confutation of Mr. Homes his divine proofs, use his very arguments and words (as neare as I can) against the same places alleadged by Mr. Chamber.

His first proofe of Scripture refelled.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 Astro­logie [Page 61] and Astrologers; and for the which sinnes, Look the seventh page of my re­ply to Raunce his Declarati­on against Astro­logie. the Nations were driven out before the Children of Israel: Now that you shal see how farre Mr. Homes is mista­ken to think hereby to per­swade the world against Astro­logie (as I sayed before) I will give you that (learned, and never enough remembred) Gentle­mans words, against Mr. Chamber hereon, viz. Sir. Christopher Heydon Knight, Chap. 2. page 41. and for­ward of his peece in defence of Astrologie against Mr. Chamber. where he saith, ‘ Picus urgeth that Achinas understandeth the word in the Original, to signifie such, as observe lucky and unlucky houres, which our English translate, a re­garder of times, and Tremelius, Planetarius, and from hence they think they have preg­nant evidence to condemne Astrologie by this Law.’

I may reckon up here also Mr. Homes his Mercer, R. Kimchy, and Schindler, who, saith he, take the words in the worst sence (which I may very wel say indeed, and shall appeare by and by) viz. The curious and Diabolical Arts, [...]s Magi of the Egyptians, In the second page of this treatise, you have it defined. Ergo saith Mr. Homes, Astrologie is not lawful, but what affinity astrologie hath with Diabolical [Page 62] practises; I desire the Reader to remember what Astrologie is. But to proceed with Sir Christopher Heydons discourse hereon, saith he, ‘But notwithstanding all this, I wil make it appeare, that these Translations are of smal force; and being admitted, little or nothing impeach this Art.’

‘And first, I incounter them with the authority of the Church, even from the time of Moses until they wrote, being whol­ly against them. For to begin with the Septuagint, They have Translated the word Gnonen, in this place [...] which signifieth Augurare, or to divine by the voice and flying of Birds; St. Hierome and the vulga [...] expounded it, of such as divine by observation by Dreames. 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 [...] Jugler or Cosiner, All these inter­pretations Mr. Homes him­selfe confesses is given to the word. that wi [...] Legerdemaine deceiveth the eye-sight. (See that that [...] also confessed by Mr. Hom [...] himselfe) So that besides a [...] antiquity, and consent of the whole Church against him, we see that divers men have diversly interpreted the word; and therefore I leave it to the judgement [Page 63] of the Reader, whether we are to give credit to the new Expositors, 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, until 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 Bibles; see with what reason and sound arguments Mr. 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 fa­miliar spirits, for saith he, So that indeed (as 'tis in Levit. 20.6.) to follow such kinde of Arts, (speaking before of Divination, by observa­tion of times, and jugling which he all along concludes to be Astrologie, as his interpreters there have it) Is to goe 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 Astrologie (saith he) when the words of the Text are meerely wrested by him, not having in the least any mention of this Art, or Artists; but of those that have familiar spirits, and Wizards, and how he wil prove Astrologers to be any of [Page 64] these, I know not. Yet I can tell him when he wil doe it, though I never see him, and that is when he can make the 18. of Deut. to con­demne the legality of Astrologie; but to come to our english Translation, the same Sir Christopher Heydon sayeth, ‘Concerning our english Translators, I find they rather leave us in doubts, then resolved; for whereas here they take the word Gnonen for a regar­der of times, in other places they interpret it otherwaies, as in 2. Chron. Chap. 33. vers. 6. for Witchcraft, and in the 5. of Micah For South-sayers. So that in this inconstan­cy to themselves, they must either give a better reason (then any thing I know they are able) why in this place of Deut. it should not be interpreted as wel a Witch, or a Sooth-sayer, as a regarder of times, or else they must understand such a regarder of times, as makes his election by Witchcraft and Sooth-saying, and not by Astrologie. Againe, sup­pose the word be admitted as the English Translate it; yet neither is all regarding of time prohibited, neither doth it prove that regarding of time by Astrologie is unlaw­ful. For Solomon (the wisest of men) say­eth, That the heart of the wise man knowes time, and that to every purpose there is a time, as to Plant, to pluck up, to slaie, to heale, to breake downe, to build, to weepe, to laugh, &c. which [Page 65] none but the foole neglecteth.’ As in Ecclesiastes farther in the third Chap. 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, according to that of the Poet Virgil.’

‘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 this present do use;’ the very same I may say to Mr Homes, if he know any practitioner of the Art that maketh any superstitious use thereof, let him be brought forth and condemned, I'le assure him, he shall see me as ready to assist him therein, and be as forward as himself: ‘But that it can be applyed against observing of such times as depend upon evident causes and reasons in nature, which onely Astrologie prescri­beth (as abovesaid) none but that man that hath no judgement can ima­gine: Looke the 2 chapter of this Treatise where Astrologie is helpful o hus­bandry. And you have heard before Ptolomy himself as well as St. Augustine, and all the best learned Astrologers do absolute­ly neglect the superstitious and [Page 66] sortilegious elections of the Heathen: where­fore the Reader seeth that this text (were the interpretation admitted) impugneth them no­thing at all.’

But in answer to Mr. Homes his expositors, take the interpretation of the word Gnonan, as the same Sir Christopher Heydon delivers it by Mr Edward Lively, professour of the Hebrew in Cambridge to Queen Elizabeth; ‘being a man (for his singular knowledge in all kind of good learning, but especially in Divinity, and the tongues) of great estimation and authority in that University; who was so­licited by Sir Christopher Heydon to deliver his opinion and judgement of the Hebrew word, because it was objected by Mr Chamber, that Tremelius did interpret it planetarius, where­fore for the Readers better satisfaction, I have hear 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, Greeke, and Latine, among whom for the signification of that word, I find this general agreement, that it signifieth an unlawfull and forbidden Art of Soothsaying, or Juggling, or Sorcery, or Witchcraft; but touching the certaine [Page 67] and speciall kind thereof, there is such dis­sention and disagreement among them, as thereby it may sufficiently appear, the very proper and clear signification thereof in spe­cie, to be utterly unknown: for Aben Ezra in his Commentary upon the 19. Chapter of Levit. ver. 26. deriving it from the word Gnonan, which signifieth a cloud; under­stood those thereby who by the formes and movings of the clouds, foretold things to come: Avenarius from the same root under­stood Juglers which cast a cloudy mist before their eyes, to cover and hide their deceitful slights. R. Solomon on the same place referreth it to a word Gnonah, which noteth time, sup­posing such to be meant, as took upon them to define times of good or bad luck for the doing of things; others fetching it from the word Gnanath, which signifieth to answer, understood Soothsayers, which be­ing asked of secret matters, answered ac­cording to their skill; as by like reason ba­rioli were so called, quasi farioli, a fando, as some of the ancient learned have observed: some from gnajin, signifying an eye, thought Juglers to be noted, which do perstringere oculos, that their legerdemaine may not ea­sily be espied: here is great diversity of opi­nions, but none commeth to Tremelius his mind, for a planetary,’ ( or of Mr Homes his [Page 68] Arabrick versions, which it seems he is loath or at least ashamed to nominate, yet he might as well have wronged them as Moses, who, he saith, bringeth five strong arguments against the A­strological Art, when al the world cannot shew that in all those verses, viz. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16. of the 18. of Deut. nor indeed in the whole chap. that Astrologie is so much as men­tioned) ‘yet some for a Jugler have agreed with him, which signification of this word, even Tremelius himself retaineth in the 19. Chap. of Levit. ver. 26. and in the 2. of Esay, ver. 6. and divers other places, thereby shewing the vanity of his own planetarius: for if it pro­perly and truly signifieth Prestigiatorem in any place, I dare boldly say, that it signifieth Pla­netarium in no place; I may here omit anota­ble place in the 57. chap. of Esay, ver. 3. where this word is taken for Witchcraft, beni gno­nenah Witches children: So it is interpre­preted in our Geneva translation; so like­wise expounded by the Hebrew Doctors on that place, Jarchi and Chimchi; so transla­ted by Mr Calvine (a man for understand­ing of the Scripture, indued with an admi­rable gift of judgement) filii veneficae, which by Kimchy is pro­ved to be true by this reason, Yet Mr Homes affirmeth Kim­chy maketh mention of attri­buting good to one time and bad to another. that the word Gnonenah [Page 69] there used is for the foeminine gender, pertain­ing to a Woman; because women (saith he) for the most part are given to the pra­ctising of this devillish Art, it were madness to thinke women should have given them­selves to the study of Astrologie, or Planetary aspects (a thing never used in any Common­wealth that ever I heard of) but for Witchery, every where to be found in them rife and common. Here therefore I end, for this matter confidently affirming, that neither Tremelius if he were alive, nor Junius, nor any for them can prove that Planetarius is the clear and sure signification of Gnonen, in any place of Scripture.’ Thus far Mr. Lively. And I may conclude this point with Sir Christopher Heydons words next ensuing, viz. ‘Wherefore I do conclude, that if that which is before spo­ken be indifferently considered, there is no man able demonstratively to argue to the condemnation of Astrologie out of this text.’

SECT. II. Wherein his second proof is refelled, viz. Esay 2.6.

ANd if so, or rather, seeing it is so, then I may with more confidence affirme his se­cond [Page 70] passage of Scripture to be lesse materiall in all respects, for the blindest of people may clearly see, it doth no whit (by his owne words, nay and argument) so much as either hint or mean Astrologie, Esay 2.6. Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, be­cause they are replenished from the East, and are Soothsayers like the Philistims; where is Astro­logie in all this? the text tels us God had for­saken his people because they were Soothsay­ers, but as for their being Astrologers, I see nothing mentioned: is not this a pretty scare­crow? thinking any passage of the Scripture enough to condemn Astrologie, whether it spea­keth of it or no? what does he thinke Astro­logie to be Soothsaying? then he should prove it so, and I will assure him I shall endeavour then to speake as much against it as he can; but if it be not first proved so, this wrest of Scripture and sophisticall cavill is already re­felled; but he begins to make up the matter with the interpretations of some men, but all will not do, they are at least a mile short of the marke, yet if I should see any of them with­in an inch thereof, I should conclude him to be as fas from hitting it, as he that is a yard wide; but let us see but how he tugs to bring this far fetcht argument or proof to serve his turne; he shews us first that the word clearly signifieth Soothsayers, which is enough alone [Page 71] to refell all his Interpreters therein, let them say what they will to the contrary, Vatablus in his notes (saith he) rendreth it Diviners; and Junius, Praestigiators, that is (saith he) that make shew of that they cannot do: you have heard Ju­nius opinion but now, but what of this? Vo­tablus 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 [...], that is (saith Budeus) saith he, a kind of foretelling: as [...] (saith they) signifieth Di­vination, and generally the Caldee, Syriacke, A­rabicke, 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; Authors of late times commonly use that word to expresse Divination in general: O brave reason! because for brevi­ty sake in Oration, or the like, Authors (as he calleth them) perhaps use this word, there­fore he will use it (being as he confesseth him­self general) to condemn particularly Astro­logie? and because the text speaketh against Au­gurers, and they know the aspects of the Pla­nets; therefore, it also condemneth Astrolo­gie? [Page 72] 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! which is as affirmative, I'm confident, as his argument in every parti­cular; so that you see then I hope by this time, the infatigable pains Mr Homes taketh to swim against the streame, and when reason and truth will no wise support him, he laies hold just as he is sinking, on the rushes and weak props and supporters of logick, which neither is suffici­ent to save him, but together with him they sink down with perpetual shame and silence, into the pit of forgetfulnesse: Alas poor Do­ctor Homes; I must confesse this would make any one Pitty the poore Pastor. A pretty jest, of a zealous Priest.

SECT. III. Wherein his third text is convinced, viz. Esay 44.25.

THirdly, he produceth the 44. Chapter of Esay, verse 25, &c. I am the Lord thy redee­mer, which do frustrate the signes of Wizards, ma­king the Soothsayers mad, foiling their wise men, and making their skil foolish: This is to as little [Page 73] purpose brought to condemn Astrologie, as it is weaknesse in him to alleadge it or affirme it: but before I begin to meddle with the words, I thinke meet here first to remove his injurious wrong he doth impose upon Astro­logers, to reckon them Soothsayers and Wi­zards, Diviners, or Augurers, &c. But I de­sire here the reader to observe that Mr Homes in his book, studieth to condemn those that professe Astrologie here in England, and this City of London, and yet he will needs intrude Astrologie, or rather perswade the vulgar, that Astrologie is the same with these above na­med; from all which Astrologie is as far, as black from white, or Mary-stainings from Bred-street, or as different as a A very Religious sto­ry (if rightly under­stood) of a Divine and one that should with such zeal set forth the sins of the times. sick bodie is from one that's well: which because he can bring some proof against them, will there­fore terme Astrologers, by the same to be understood; when all Astrologers will not deny to condemn (in as much as in them lies) these aforesaid studies as well as he. But to the purpose, how can Mr Homes, or any one living, prove Astro­logie 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 Stars? which is not to foretel by the flying or [Page 74] voice of Birds, observation of the intrals of Beasts, and the like; nor indeed is it proper­ly to be termed Divination, for to divine is not, or doth not naturally signifie the foretelling of future events by natural causes, but by some divine instinct. Wherefore Mr. Homes might have discharged his duty much better both to God and his Country, if he had im­ployed his pen to vent all the Gall both in his Inckhorn, heart and brain, against those ene­mies of the truth, that maintain their owne opinions, before the word of God, and make no Conscience of perjury, professing the form of Godlinesse, but (in effect) denying the power thereof. And not against Astrologers (nor the Art) who attribute all their know­ledge, and the power of the Stars to the Om­nipotent Creator of them; and in all points of Religion, shew themselves conformable both to the discipline of the Church, and obe­dient to the Laws of the Land.

But to come to the words in the Text, which he would needs inforce against Astrologie; the same Sir Christopher Heydon, further sayeth upon these words. ‘That they are purposely uttered to ad­vance the omnipotency of God, Page 32. Chap. 2. of his defence of Astrologie. so greatly diminished by Idolatry, but to imagine that God would set forth the greatnes of his power, by op­posing [Page 75] the same against that, which in it's self is fruitlesse, infirme, and of no force at all, were not onely against sence, 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 Starres are subject, all our Astrologers do confesse, and none but an Atheist wil deny. For as God is the Creator 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 Artificer, so the heavens being Gods instruments, doe not exercise their force upon these inferiour things, but as God doth use their ministery in the Go­vernment of the world.’ And this he sayeth is taught us by the Prophet Hosea (as above­said) Chap. 2.21.22. where (saith he) he sayeth, ‘not simply, the heavens shall heare the earth, but first, I wil heare the heavens, to shew them the power the heavens have over the earth, and that it dependeth on God. In which sence, the Scripture sayeth also, God worketh all in all things, and that we live, [Page 76] 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 neverthelesse can be no impeachment to Astrologie, because God doth govern ordinately, and therefore seldome perver­teth or disturbeth that order, whereby in his eternal providence, he doth govern his workmanship.’

Wherefore seeing he can not properly make the words above-said to signifie Astrologie, and seeing the Text doth not in the least ex­presse Astrologers, but onely Sooth-sayers, and Wizards; I may confidently affirme and conclude this Text no whit at all to impeach Astrologie; and then consequently his argu­ment to be meerely sophistical, rash, and in­considerate, malicious, weak, and inconsistent with either reason, sence or honesty. This may sufficiently serve to refel this his wrest of Scripture, but if the Reader desireth further the discussion hereof, and how it is in every point cleared and handled, let him peruse the 2 Chapter of Sir Christopher Heydons defence of Astrologie against Mr. Chamber, to whom (for brevities sake) I refer him, where you shall not onely finde these his owne reasons and [Page 77] words, but likewise the opinions and judge­ments of as wel the Ancient as latter Divines; all which could never pick any thing in the least, justly to be objected against Astrologie. Ye see clearly therefore Mr. Homes his palpa­ble mistake, or at least wilful wrest of the Text; to serve his owne turne, to condemne Astrologie, but all wil not do, which is a most pittiful case, and doth almost perswade me al­so, to Pitty the poore Pastor.

SECT. IV. Wherein his fourth proofe 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 monthly Prognosti­cators, stand up and save thee, &c. Behold they shal 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 enough to confute his former injury to Astrologers, in reckoning them no other then Sooth-sayers, Wizards, Sorcerers and the like, when he sees clearly the Lord here makes a particular di­stinction between the one and the other; for [Page 78] you see, Astrologers, Monthly Prognosticators, Sorceries, and Inchanters, particularly named, here I may also put the Reader in mind, Mr. Homes his craft in wresting the Scripture. that he take him as he is, viz. a Sophister, in wre­sting the Scripture to his own purpose, and interpreting it to maintaine these his arguments, which he cannot otherwise in the least support with either reason or truth.

But to come now to the claring of the Text, which he thinks doth absolutely strike the fa­tal blow to Astrologie; inferring from thence, that Astrologie is opposite to confidence in God, and that Astrologers are much of the same abo­mination, with Inchanters and Sooth-sayers, (which you may see is false, and as for Sooth-sayers they are not in the least mentioned in the Text, where you see he againe hath his owne interpretation) and that they are to be derided, and no wise to be trusted in, &c. But as I sayed before, the wit of man is not able to answer these his vaine wrests and interpretations of the Scriptures, better then by that Honourable Gentleman, Sir Christopher Heydon, I heare give you, as he hath it in his 2. Chapter, in answer to Mr. Chamber, bringing the same place of Scripture, and indeed with the same conclu­sions as doth Mr. Homes. ‘I wil not deny that, because God and his Prophets were not beleeved by the Chaldeans, (who reposed in [Page 79] their Magicians, Sooth-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 Mr. Chamber, sith both Vatablus, and Mr. Cal­vin, in their Commentaries, confesse 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, seemes here to be mentioned. And it is ma­nifest by the example of Moses, and the E­gyptians, and of Balaam and Balacke, that though they were Astrologers, yet they reposed their safety against God and his peo­ple, onely in their Magical power, by which (as their Poets and others report) they professe themselves able to pull the Moon and the Stars out of Heaven, and so doth Diodorus Siculus testifie, Lib. 2. Cap. 8. that though they were cunning in Astrologie, yet they did onely prevent the evils which they did fore-see, by Inchantments and Charmes. For in truth, Astrologie professeth [Page 80] onely to fore-see natural mutations and accidents, and not power to prevent and save. Nota bene. But to returne to that which he most expects, I will admit as much as Mr. Chamber himself can desire, that the Prophet here derideth the trust which was put in the skil of Astrologers, The true mean­ing of the Pro­phet in this fore going Text. (which is in­deed Mr. Homes his chief drift also) now let him frame his argument, and he shall never be able to bring the propo­sition of this Chap. (which is, That Christi­anity and Astrologie cannot stand together) (which indeed is Mr. Homes his argument al­so concluding Astrologie, to be opposite to confidence in God) within his conclusion. For it followeth not, that because upon some cir­cumstance a thing my be derided, that it is unlawful. 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 Physitians, 2 Chron. 16. in Negotiation or trade of Merchandize. In the last verse of this same Chapter of Esay, (where the very 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, [Page 81] Riches, Horses, Chariots, Cities, Physitians and Merchants, to be against Christianity, and unlawful. He ought therefore first to have distinguished of the trust that is here deri­ded, and not thus to deceive by any elench, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, 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 had threatned the destructi­on of the Babylonish Monarchy, it was not believed; but these heathen presuming ra­ther upon their owne power and skil, in contempt of God broke forth, as appear­eth verse 10. into these blasphemous spee­ches, None seeth me. Quasi dieat (sayeth Tre­melius) ne deus quidem novit rationes meas, nay God himselfe knoweth not my waies, and a­gain, I am and none else, and verse 7. I shall not sit as a Widow, nor shall not know the losse of Children: Thus denying both God and his power, while they presume upon their owne. But is this heathenish pre­sumption and confidence to be imputed as a fault to Astrologie? or is it not truly to be reputed the impiety of the professors, and others, with whom the Prophet dealeth? who denying that to God which is due, and [Page 82] ascribing more then they ought to the Stars, and their own knowledge and power, doe that which Astrologie never taught them, and therefore is not guilty of their ungod­liness. This had beene well done of Mr. Homes also. He ought then to make a difference between the hea­then, with whom the Prophet hath to doe, and Christians against whom he writeth; for though it be true that Christian Astrologers do monthly prognosticate, as is mentioned in the Text, by the consideration of the Stars; yet is he not able to tax any of them with that de­rogation from God, or im­piety, The difference between Astro­logers and those that are condem­ned in the Text. which is here derided. For to place confidence in Stars, as in divine causes and powers, is one thing, and to esteeme 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 doe acknowledge with one consent) it is in his power to alter, Nota bene. as best plea­seth his divine will; and therefore they are very far 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 show, that [Page 83] monthly prognostications grounded upon observation, deduced from causes in nature, Nota. have ever been permitted and suffered, in all wel ordered and Christian Common­wealths, so far as I know; and that not on­ly the Fathers, and those latter Divines by me before remembred, but even Mr. Calvin himselfe, in his admonition, with others (that attribute as little as they may to this Art) do allow thereof, so far forth as they extend to the state of the Weather, of Health, Plagues, Plenty, Dearth, and to the direction of the Physitian, when to Purge by Pill, when by Potion, when by letting of blood; this be­ing as far as our prognostica­tions proceed; Nota. which never­thelesse 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 cleare that they do but play the sophisters, deceiving by a plain fallacy, ab accidente. And lastly, if it be considered what St. Hierom, Hugo, Aquinas, Lyra, Haymo, and other ancient Expositers, More you may read in the second Chapter of his booke. have written upon this Text, it is most certain, that not [Page 84] one of them is so sharp sighted as to espie out any thing in this place that may prejudicate Astrologie, but they all defend the same as fully as my self.’ Wherefore if in this proof of Scripture Mr Homes be not as far mistaken as in all the rest of his fore-going cavils, and maketh not himself appear to the eyes of the world to be a meere sophister, let the impar­tiall, judge: for I dare confidently affirm, that by the conclusion of this his cavill con­cerning this text, he is as ignorant in the Art of Astrologie, as from the true sense and mean­ing of the Prophet; or from the art of administring Physick to sick women, He is known to be a spiritu­all Doctor. nay I am most confident he is herein farther a great deal out of the way, then it is from Mary-stainings to Bred-street, wherefore I cannot chuse but Pitty the poor Paster, both for his mistake, and absolute misse of his plot and purpose, both of the one, and the other: I proceed there­fore to his next Scripture proof.

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

FIfthly, he strives to condemn Astrologie by the 10. of Jer. v. 2, 3. but to as little pur­pose as in all the rest, but with no less craft and deceit, Juglar-like, he indeavours to cast the mist of errour and mistake before the eyes of his reader, that so he may carry on his design with more dexterity and agility: the words are, Learn not the way of the Heathen, and be not dismaied at the signes of heaven, for the Heathen are dismaied at them, &c. whereupon he infer­reth, Astrologie not to be lawful, (because as he thinks God here by the Prophet prohibiteth the Jewes to give credit to the Star-gazers) but as I said before, Astrologers hold no fatal neces­sity in the Stars. Astrologers do not make the Stars gods, but Gods instruments; not in the least attributing fatall 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 guilty thereof as himself, nay and I believe more; for certainly he that will wrest the Scripture to condemn what he understandeth not, meerly to shew himself a Time-server, (as it is known suffici­ently [Page 86] Mr Homes is) is a hypocrite, and much to be feared whether he is not altogether as ig­norant of God, as of this Art: But for the farther clearing of the text, and the manife­sting of Mr 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 alledged by Mr Chamber also to condemn Astrologie: ‘Whereupon Mr Cham­ber inferreth, that the Prophet willeth the Jews to give no credit to the Star-gazers, (and Mr Homes, trust or confidence, page 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, Mr Chamber, credit, (Mr Homes trust or confidence;) again the Prophet speaketh of the Stars themselves, Mr Chamber of the persons that observe them, (so Mr Homes also) wherefore what diffe­rence there is between the one and the other, so far ought we to be from giving Mr Cham­bers assertion any credit (and how shall Mr Homes his then take?)’

‘For if he will truly informe the reader, he knoweth there is nothing prohibited in these words, but that the Jews should not learn the way of the Heathen; The meaning of the text. which when he wrest­eth [Page 87] against Astrologie, he doth both shew him­self to be out of the way, and to seeke 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 sence, is no no­velty to those that are acquainted with the speech and phrase of the holy Ghost: As for example, Esay chap. 29. verse 13. And their fear towards me, was taught by the precept of men: where fear is (by Christ himself, alleadging this place of the Prophet, Mat. 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 chap. 17. verse 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 those Images which they worshipped; he like­wise restraineth them from this second Ido­latry, [Page 88] ver. 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 Jewes are here onely forbid­den to imitate the Heathen in both these kinds of Idolatry.’

This may clearly satisfie any juditious im­partial eye, for the clearing of this proof of Scripture, and that notwithstanding it, Astrologie doth stand in its full force no whit more eclipsed, (if so much) then the Sun, by being overcast with a cloud: where­fore let all Astrologers proceed in their study in this heavenly and most lawful Art, except there could be more palpable witnesse against it, then hath been hitherto produced. But to confirm what hath been already said concern­ing this text, let us hear what this worthy man further saith. ‘To confirm this more fully, by the consideration of other places: the Scripture giveth us plentiful testimony, that the Jews did follow the Heathen in their Ido­latry to the Stars, but are never reprehended for learning Astrologie of them: Wherefore the Prophet Amos, chap. 5. prophesied to them long before, even this captivity where­in the Israelites were held in Jeremies time, [Page 89] because they had born (that is worshipped) the Images of Siccuth and Chiun. Abenezra and and with him Montanus, understanding the Planet Saturne by Chiun: and St. Hierome expounding this word Coeab, thinketh it to be Venus whom even the Saracens in his time did worship: But St. Luke, Acts 7. ver. 42. & 43. following the Greeke doth explaine Amos, and saith, then God turned himself away, and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the booke of the Prophets: and you tooke 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 expositors 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 Sgnes, immediately he giveth this reason, for the customes of the people are vaine: and declaring wherein, he addeth, for one cutteth down a tree in the Forrest, &c. which should want sence, if this verse depended not on the for­mer: thus also 2 Kings chap. 17. verses 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 [Page 90] like them: But now if Mr Chamber would know, wherein the Imitation of the Heathen offended God, the spirit of God himself re­solveth him, that this was not in the study of Astrologie, but in that they left the Command­ments of the Lord their God, and made them mol­ten Images, even two Calves, and made a grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal: Wherefore in the 23. chap. 4, 5, 11. of the same booke of the Kings, the Jews are again particularly reproved for offering incense to the ☉, ☽ and Planets, and for dedica­ting horses and chariots to the Sun: and to return to our own Prophet; doth he not chap. 7. verse 18. expresly testifie, that their chil­dren gather wood, their fathers kindle the fire, their women knead the dough, to make cakes for the Queen of heaven, and to powre out drink-offe­ings to their gods? and is it not for this defe­ction, not for Astrologie, that he doth like­wise threaten, chap. 8. verse 2. that the bones of their Kings, Princes, Prophets, Priests, and Inhabitants, shall be spread before the Sun and the Moon, and all the host of heaven; whom they have followed, and whom they have served, and whom they have followed, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped? to be short, the Prophet remembreth their like Idolatry to the host of heaven, ch. 19. ver. 13. & ch. 44.15. all which considered, it is plain enough [Page 91] why the Prophet in this 10. chap. seeketh to withdraw the Jewes from fearing the Signes of heaven, sith in every place their Idolatry to heavenly bodies, is reprehended; But their imitation of the heathen in the study of Astrologie no where.’ But for tediousnesse I might here give you the expositions of the chiefest and best Expositors as he also sets them down, who from all ages have interpreted the text in this sense, but these my labours would then swell to a greater bulke, then I would willingly they should; besides it would be in some sense superfluous, sith what hath been already said may satisfie any one who doth not willingly blind his eyes, and absolutely deny satisfacti­on; wherefore I refer the curious reader to his most learned booke, chap. 2. and hasten to Mr Homes his remaining sophistications.

SECT. VI. Wherein his sixth proof is refelled, viz. Dan. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

HIs sixth wrest of Scripture is Dan. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. where we read Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dreame, and for to understand the interpretation and meaning of the dreame, he commanded to call all the Magitians, Astrolo­gers, [Page 92] Sorcerers, &c. before him, to tell him the signification of his dreame; which if they could not do, they should be cut in pieces, &c. upon which Mr Homes infers, that because they could not shew the King his dreame, with the interpretation thereof, Astrologie is false, which I may say is a very false assertion; for if he had known what Astrologie is, he had never thus made himself ridiculous to condemn Astro­logie by this assertion or place of Scripture, the reader may remember what A­strologie is, Page 2. it is de­fined. and how far all Astro­logers hold it effectuall; as ye have also before. Now that this place of Scri­pture doth no wise condemn Astrologie, I shall desire him to observe, that God in his secret wisdome and counsel, Dan. 2.18. had decreed what should happen in the latter daies, and had revealed it to the King by a dreame, viz. the subversion of his Monarchy, and together with his, all others whatsoever, and the com­ming of Christ which is the stone cut out with­out hands, which afterwards grew to a mountain which filled the whole earth, both with his power and glory, by the clear Sun-shine of the Go­spel; by which I am confident Mr Homes can­not prove then, Astrologie to be condemned or to be false, when it is not in its power to re­veale the secrets of God, but onely extendeth to the knowledge of natural accidents and [Page 93] mutations, and their causes; which was not (you clearly see) the Kings dreame, but a revelation of Gods secret will and intent by dreame: wherefore since his argument will not hold, his conclusion must needs faile him. Moreover you see, as the dreame was really a revelation, so was also the interpretation thereof, for you see in that same second chap. that Daniel prayed to God to reveal it unto him, which you see according­ly was in a vision by night, Daniel an A­strologer and Magician. and thought he was as great an Astrologer and Magician as any of the wise men; yet he knowing it was a se­cret beyond nature, Dan. 2.13, 14. applyed himself to God for the revelation thereof, not to the search thereof in any booke of naturall causes, as of Astrologie or Magick: wherefore you see how far Mr Homes runs himself into an errour, for want of knowing what Astrologie is, and the extent thereof. And then lastly, he as rashly concludes with his divine proofs, as in all his progresse before; intruding and falsely impeaching Astrologers to be some of those that brought and burnt their books upon repentance of their wicked practices, Acts 19.19. which I must con­fesse (were they as he also most rashly and in­considerately tearmes them to be, and as he [Page 94] saith set forth in the 21. Revel. 8. to have their parts in the lake that burneth with fire and brim­stone) they had at that time done very well in burning their books, had they been worth a thousand times as much againe as they are there reputed or valued at; but sith their Art and study depends upon onely the knowledge of the nature and influences and motions of the Stars; I know not what reason he hath to include them to be thus penitent for study­ing Nature onely, Ergo, not condemned un­der the word Sorcery in the Revelation, 21.8. wherefore seeing this is so apparently false, I should counsel him (and that speedily to) to burn his books that thus hath lead him into an errour, and to contradict the Scriptures; for I find in that very 21. of Revelation 8. Lyers expresly nominated, and when he goeth to the fire with his books, let him remember to go by Bred-street, that so he may sorrow for all together: that so the Lord may have mer­cy and Pitty of the poor Pastor.

SECT. I. Wherein his first four-fold reason is convinced.

HIs first reason then is, (to prove Astrolo­gie is false) that Astrologers themselves confesse, that either the prudence of a moral 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. Whereupon be concludes that Astrologie is false; for saith he, what humane providence cannot doe, grace can; if not, Angels may; and wehre all faile, 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 sayeth himselfe (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 Astrologie; when he [Page 96] can say no more against it, then what the Practitioners in the Art do confess themselves? there is certainly none but wretched Atheists, that will deny, that God hath not an over-ru­ling, and a restraining power over all things, as well celestial, as terrestrial; but whether his will and pleasure be to alter their naturall courses, is a question, but he hath heard that Ptolomy himselfe, nay and all Astrologers in general, do attribute nothing (farther then natural things, which are in sublunary ele­mentary bodyes) to the power and influence of the Stars; The Stars have power but on na­tural things. he might then as well have sayed, the eye hath no power to see, or distinguish from black and white, (because by the power of sense, it may be closed) as weakly to infer the Stars not to have power, because God can alter, or is able to alter their motions, influences and effects, or the piety of a Godly man, which neither is in the verge of na­ture, all Astrologers will condescend and a­gree, that the Stars (as also Ptolomy himself) hath no power of what is beyond nature; and if piety be not as far beyond nature, as heaven is from earth, let the weakest capacity judge. He might then as well have said, a fish is no living creature, nor hath any life, be­cause it will not live on the Land; for it is altogether as far out of the element (as I may [Page 97] say) of the Stars, or their power to extend their influence to divine matters, as for a fish to fly, or a stone to swim, or the like ridicu­lous things, (if affirmed) which is contrary to nature. Wherefore his third clause also, is to as little effect, as the two former, when all that knows any thing in divinity, will ac­knowledge the tutelarity or guard of Angels, to be administred onely to the elect; and if this be not as far out of the bounds and con­fines of nature as the other, I would desire Mr. Homes to make cleare to the contrary; and for his fourth clause, it is as witty an one, as if one should say, Mr. Homes is no Divine,, because he is not as yet a Bishop, Inquire of Mr. Homes. or that a man is not marri­ed, because he lives from his wife. The prudence of a moral wise man, may al­ter or prevent the effects of the Stars. This is not onely confessed by all the learned in Astrolo­gie, but also sapiens dominabitur astris, a wise man may rule the Stars; but they do not con­clude therefore they have no effects at all, as the ignorant in the Art do with Mr. Homes; but they farther say, astra regunt homines, sed re­git astra deus. The Stars rule men, but God ruleth the Stars; this is the doctrine of Astrologers (I meane those that are Astrologers indeed, and know the fundamentals and true ground of the Art, not such ignorant Practitioners [Page 98] as Mr. Homes and Raunce) nei­ther do they mean, Astrologers hold no fatal neces­sity. when they say, astra regunt homines, any fa­tal necessity to be attributed to those heavenly bodies, nor to have power o­ver men, further then such men are guided only by sence as bruit beasts, and not by rea­son; for they further affirm, that they nisi agunt, non cogunt, they act, or incline, but no wise compel; but where grace or reason supports a man, there, or on such a man, the Stars have no power; wherefore then (by the way) I may aske Mr. Homes or Raunce, if they with all their pretended zeale, can find fault with this Doctrine, or teach better themselves; or whether any Divine whatsoever, or all put together, can in the least carp at this; or whether Astrologie then be Diabolical, 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 sayeth, ignorance is the enemie of all good learning, Ignorance the mother of vice. whether they deserve not exemplary punish­ment, to condemne so noble, so profitable to the Common-wealth, so excellent, so divine, and so pleasing a study, as Astrologie is, teaching and traducing their vile ignorance to the world; and truly as one of them most [Page 99] wisely sayed, if he should make appeare 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 be content 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 feare or wit, undertake to condemne what they are ignorant of; and that none should be suffer­ed to condemne, 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. And this would not onely be a discouragement to the ignorant traducers of Arts, but also an incouragement to all ingenious spirits, to ap­ply themselves to knowledge, Knowledge, the onely distinction between a man and a beast. which is the onely thing that distinguisheth men from bruit beasts. For I dare confidently affirme, that if either of these two zealous time-servers, knew the depth and ground of Astrologie, they had never thus enviously car­ped [Page 100] at it; The verity whereof, as also it's 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 helpe them) can imagine or contrive to say. But to return to our businesse in hand, Mr. Homes on his four-fold argu­ment, brings this conclusion, that God worketh not by the stars as secundary causes, but Ephe. 1.11. he ruleth all things after the counsel of his divine wil. O rare Divine! which understands not the meaning of the Holy Ghost better in this place, then because God ruleth all things af­ter the counsel of his own will; he worketh not by causes: then, to what purpose I pray you are Armies, and the successe sometime this way, sometime 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 warre) that it was not concluded in the counsel of Gods own wil, that the victory should be gi­ven on that side? sure he will not be so im­pious: yet you see he worketh it by instru­ments. (Many of the like instances might be here produced, but for brevities sake) but he might understand this place of Scripture to speak of the Omnipotency, and Omniscien­cy of the wisedom and power of God, in the Government of the world, (as to any one that peruseth the Chapter will appear) will [Page 101] he therefore deny that God worketh by cau­ses or meanes? Sure this were obstinate wil­fulnesse, or absolute madnesse; but that he worketh by the Stars, what he preordained, Chap. 2. Sect. 2. of this dis­course. is clear from what hath been already sayed, where­fore here againe to rehearse, would but increase this same volum to a lar­ger size then my first intentions; wherefore I leave you to look back to what hath been here­on abovesaid, and hasten to his second frivo­lous reason or argument.

SECT. II. Wherein his objection touching the diversity of Twins, is refelled. As also some other quirks against Astrologie examined and convinced.

HIs second Argument or reason against A­strologie is, (saith he) from cleare expe­rience in Twins conceived at the same instant, and borne in the same houre or lesse. Now Mr. Homes had done well to have made this his cleare ex­perience, as cleare to his Reader, by demon­stration or example, and not to content him­self with his bare word, this is but one Doctors opinion; but will he say that all Twins are conceived at the very same instant of time? [Page 102] sure he will not; but admit some are, yet will he not affirme, they are therefore borne in the same instant of time; I will appeale to any one of discretion and understanding in such matters, if it hold with reason, that two Chil­dren should be borne both together; and to make it more cleare, that all Twins are not conceived at one and the same instant of time, Aristotle, Pli­ny, Cardanus, Dodoneus, Lau­rentius Gordoni­us and Paraeus. I refer him to the perusal of those he finds in the Margent; but let me aske him what he thinketh of the sto­ry of Proconesia, who as the sto­ry goes, lying with her Master, and his man her fellow servant both in one day; conceived by both, and brought forth one Child like the Master, and the other like the man. Wherefore the first part of his argument is not available; neither (upon good consideration) will his following words; for he confesses himselfe that the nearest time of their birth is, in the same hour or lesse, when all that knows any thing in Astrologie, knows that four minuts of time in the birth, gives near upon a yeares time in directions; wherefore certainly when he made such clear experience in the birth of Twins, they were not born at the same instant, but at least four and four and four minuts dif­ference, for the nearest time he confesses, may be somewhat lesse then an houre; which cer­tainly [Page 103] must breed very much difference in­deed; wherefore except he could have proved that they were born both at an instant, or giue us an example of any such that he hath made cleare expe­rience of, His argument concerning Twins, Meerly sophistical. his argument and reason is a meer sophistical ca­vil. And whereas he alleageth for this strength of his cavil, that Pharez and Zara did put forth themselves interchangeably in one hour; but how he can prove it was in one hour, is I beleeve too hard a taske 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 tyed about it, yet be plucked it back again, and Pharez was born before him, Gen. 38. ver. 29. Therefore I am confident he cannot af­firm, that Zarah was a whit the nearer his birth by putting forth his hand, for we see to the contrary; wherefore then how this as­sertion maketh against Astrologie, let the weakest capacity judge. And this is not so weak, but he can bring the ex­ample of Jacob and Esau to con­demne Astrologie, The example of Jacob and E­sau no wise e­quivalent. which is far weaker (if possible) and serves as little for his purpose (when he rightly considers it) he will say himself. [Page 104] For all that is acquainted with that story in the Scripture, knowes that Esau was borne first, and after him came his brother Jacob; and that this is cleare, the Scripture further sayeth, 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 Astrologie; 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 significators at their birth, which will cause very much diversity of manners, for­tunes, forme and shape, &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 bee borne 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 Child, that he should be thus born with one hand before all the body. His reason against Astrologie, in the matter of Twins, proved frivolous and inconsistent with either time or reason. And a­gain, since it is no wise possible in na­ture, that Twins [Page 105] 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 Astrologie: But who so would be farther satisfied in the matter of twins, let him look Ranzovius in his book De certitudine Astrologiae scientiae. But where­in the difference appears, I believe he knows not; however, if he could prove all the difference that possibly could be ima­gined, yet is not this a sufficient ground for him to condemn Astrologie, sith it hath no­thing to do with Divine providence, 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 Rebecka (the Scripture telleth us) was barren: Wherefore this being so, this I say alone, is enough to silence all that he can say against Astrologie, by this example of Jacob and Esau. But sure, notwithstanding, if one should particularly examine their lives, one should hardly find such great difference be­tween them as could justly be alleadged to condemn Astrologie; for if we look to their [Page 106] qualities, they were both Princes, if to the number of their Wives and Chil­dren, Philo his anti­quities of the Jews. look into the Antiquities of the Jews, and you will find their children were alike in number within one, and we know that Jacob had Leah, Gen. 36. Rachel, Billa and Zilpah, to his Wives, 4. and Esau, Bashe­mah, Mahalah Adah & Aholibamach, 4. also; if we againe looke to their Riches or wealth, they were both so abundantly wealthy, as that one Country was not able to containe them both: but if any one say, they differed in the mat­ter of their birth-right, I answer, that this simple objection is of no validi­ty, Astrologie med­leth not with Divine matters nor with the se­cret wil of God. for, Astrologie 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; for, as he was chosen to be the root or foundation of Gods 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 foudations of two great Nations; but as this maketh neither for, nor against Astrologie, being a supernatural birth; [Page 107] yet it may and doth serve very fitly to shew, that if Mr Homes be minded to cavil, here is matter enough for him: Wherefore you see clearly, this reason (or non-reason) and ex­ample of twins, against Astrologie to be of all reasons and examples the most weake, and in­consistent with the matter in question.

So that rather I may justly ask him here, where is the strength of his reasons and arguments against Astrologie? where is his victory over the Astrologians? where is Astrologie proved incertaine? where hath he proved the incertainty thereof? then for him to ask (upon these his bald reasons) where then is the verity or certainty of Star predictions? where is the verity of Astrologie? as if he had obtained an absolute conquest, over Astrologie and Astrolo­gers: And therefore concluding these his rea­sons to be most invincible, and not able to be answered by Astrologers, he answereth them himself his own way, in the behalf of Astro­logers. It may be (saith he) they will read us a lecture of difference from magnitudes and motions, which answer I must confesse sutes just well enough with the question, neither of them both being fully to any purpose; but to be farther satisfied herein, let him looke Ptolomy, lib. 3. Looke Ptolomy, Lib. 3. cap. 7. of his Qua­dripartite, to know the reasons of the dif­ferences in Twins. chap. 7. of his Quadripar­tite, where he shall be clearly taught the reasons [Page 108] of differences in Twins, and convinced of his erroneous cavill, 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; but let that passe, and hear how he questions and answers for and against Astrolo­logers, if so (saith he) if the ☽ be lesse then the earth according to Keckerman at least twenty times, and the rest of the Planets below the ☉, as ♀ twenty seven times lesse 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 Mathemati­tians and Astrologers that ever writ, that these three Planets under the Sun are lesse then the earth, See Ptolomy, Albotegnius, Alfraganus, & Tycho. but amongst the most lear­ned of them there is much di­spute of the certaine magnitude thereof; but how equivalent this querke is against Astrologie, is wonderful! A candle is not able to give light to a bowle, 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 roome, a thou­sand times bigger then it self; (a strong rea­son indeed) we know and see, that the in­fluence [Page 109] 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 several 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 several significators in Twins, which is the onely cause and reason that can be given for his fri­volous quirke: 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 externall violent motion of the Stars, why then I againe de­mand, how the Stars can have time to make any distinct impression by any particular influence on one borne, especially on one who perhaps may lie in the mouth of the womb partly borne, partly unborne; for a quarter or half an hour, or many hours; when the motion of the Zodiack is 60 times 60 miles in an houre, which is 60 miles compleat in one mi­nute.

But to answer to this weake cavill, I shall [Page 110] 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 10000 miles; for we see by dayly experience, that the ☉ (who is 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; for marke how small a thing in a Diall gives this 60. miles in a minute, so that this doth no whit at all hinder the influence of the Starres, 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 halfe, 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 wombe, 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; When the Radix of a nativity is properly to be taken. but that instant in which He or Shee is perfectly se­perated from the wombe, and entred this elementary world, since no man can proper­ly [Page 111] call that a birth, which is but half a expelled, or but halfe perfected, when also sometimes the Infant may draw back again.

So that these frivolous kind of cavillings, is neither available nor indeed any thing in the least to the controversie in dispute; yet Mr. Homes is willing to help Astrologers to answer these his feeble questions, with far wea­ker expressions; and to say the truth, igno­rance it selfe, for saith he, If Astrologers will plead and thing to helpe themselves herein, from the slownesse 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 againe, as that their courses are not finished in lesse then 7000. yeares; Now I would very faine know of any rational man, how this answer of his in the behalfe of Astrologers, is able to availe them a rush, or himself in his purpose, since they are also hurried with the like violence as afore­said, every 24. 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 gaine is but the opportunity of this question, viz. How then can any age since the beginning of the world have experence, what the conjunction of the Starres may produce? This is a great Conquest indeed, but how slender an Artist he herein renders [Page 112] 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 7000. years finishing its course, not the Stars; but suppose they do move, yet they move not by several motions, as the one being flower or swifter then another, for they are all alike distant each from other continu­ally, and if these come not to aspect nor ☌ of the Planets; yet the Planets come to configu­ration with them, as ♄ commeth in configu­ration of them once in 29. years some odd months and dayes; ♃ in 12 years, ♂ in three years, ☉ in one year or twelve months; ♀ and ☿ in the like time or there abouts, the ☽ in 28 dayes and some odd hours. I hope then this experience may be learned in a far shorter time then 7 or 8000 years, and if the motions of the Planets are not exactly for ever calculated by Astronomers in former ages, and that of late to our hands, I would faine Mr. Homes would do them better; 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 Twins births or any others, without the error that these motions he speaketh of can cause, which indeed is none at all. Wherefore if these assertions of his, be not weaker then all his former cavils, as al­so [Page 113] most apparently inconsistent with what he would faine prove, I leave to the learned and judicious herein to judge, and hasten to his remaining cavils.

SECT. III. Wherein his indeavours to prove Astrologie of no truth or certainty, as also it's rules and princi­ples, are themselves of lesse truth, or ground, nay and indeed sensless.

HIs third Argument against Astrologie is, to prove the Maximes, Theorems, Axiomes and Canons of the Art, inconsistent with truth or foundation; but first he denyeth absolutely any such ( viz. ground or principles) at all to be in the rules of Astrologie, but with what ap­parent falsehood, malice, and invective wickedness, this is done, shall appeare to the world by these examples following, being some few questions and resolutions, which by my own experience I can against all malicious ad­versaries affirme to be most punctually true; wherefore I have thought good here to de­vulge them to the world, that such envious carpers at this most true Art, may be for ever silenced, or at least that their perverseness may be apparently and vulgarly knowne in their [Page 114] colours; but see how inveterately they tra­duce it, notwithstanding milions 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 plaine dealing with the Devil! it is witchcraft! and the like simple and malicious censures, or rather scandals hereon, but to the business intended.

[Page 115]A Gentleman a very good friend of mine (having expected some money from an Vncle of his, a Fathers brother, and being disap­pointed two several returnes of the Post; being therefore doubtfull of the receipt thereof) propounded unto me this question. Where­upon I erected this Sceame, it being the pun­ctuall time of his question.

I find here but two degrees ascending, and that of the signe ♎, which according unto the rules of some Astrologians, and indeed all that ever I met with) ought not to be judged on; yet I agree not alwaies with them in this point, nor in many more besides this. The reason then I take this question to be sufficiently ra­dicall, is, because it so exactly discribeth the Querents body, together with his marks; be­sides, the question concerned not the ascen­dant, but the second House, and there is 24. degrees ascending, &c.

But to be short, I find ♃ here significator of the Querents Uncle (from whom this money in question is expected) as being lord of the third from the fourth, yet the sixth in the figure, he is located in the Querents second, intimating therefore his intention and wil­lingnesse to performe the Querents desire; which judgement was the more confirmed by being in ⚹ with ♀, Lady of the Querents se­cond; as also ♂ lord of the seventh, which [Page 116] is the Uncles second in a △ to the Querents second House; and ☽ separating from a △ of ♀ and immediately applying to a ⚹ of ♃ in the second, both being friendly aspects and principle significators, (though she separated not from ♃ and applyed to ♀, yet they be­ing both fortunes, and her application was to ♃ in the querents, 2 ^d) I judged as abovesaid, that his Uncle had a great willingnesse to performe his desire, and that he should receive the mo­ney he expected, of the which I was the more confirmed, by reason I found ♁ disposed of by ♀ and that within a fortnight after the time of the question; the reason I nominated just that time, was, for that ♃ and ♀ lackt just two degrees of the perfect ⚹ aspect; ♀ indeed as she is in a moveable signe, might denote but dayes; yet by reason ♃ is in a fixed signe, which might signifie months, or yeares (but as the ancients teach, a te et a scientia) I tooke the medium therefore of these extreams, which was weeks; which accordingly happened, and not till then: for on the 25th. day of the same moneth he received it, notwithstanding by a Letter presently after the question, a soo­ner time was nominated, and after that, not above four dayes before the day I nominated, came a messenger from his Uncle, about other businesse to him, and yet brought it not, which did seeme very strange to the Querent. [Page 117] This Gentleman▪ viz. the Querent, till his acquaintance with me, had but a weake be­lief of Astrologies legality or veritie; I believe he is at this present in this Town, and can justifie this for a truth.

But because some ignorant traducers of this Art, do affirme that Astrologers will never un­dertake (nay and that they cannot) to resolve the querents doubts, without he comes to them with a great belief of their skill, and of the power of the Art; I will here give you my judgement on two figures, propounded not onely by unbelievers, but enemies of Astrolo­gie; which were propounded by way of dis­course, and in their arguing with me of the verity of Astrologie.

The occasion of this Question was thus; upon some conference, of the verity of this Art of Astrologie we here undertake in this small Treatise to Vindicate: a Gentlewoman of very long acquaintance with me, being then in company was very invective against it, insomuch she would no wise believe any one could resolve her any thing she should de­mand, and wondred I would maintain (in the least) the verity thereof; whereupon I desired her to propound any question to me; where­upon she told me that she was confident if there were any verity therein, yet I could not re­solve her question; her reason was, because [Page 118] no Astrologer (she told me) would undertake to resolve an unbelieving querent: so that I de­sired then the willinger to be demanded some Question, the rather, for that I was desirous to convince her, of this weake opinion; but to be short, she at length after much intreaty, propounded this Question, as followeth.

Shall I receive the money due from the Parliament?

I find here the ☽ significatrix of the querent in ♏ disposed of by ♂ and he lord of the 11; whereupon I told her, she depended much up­on [Page 119] a friend (or so in pretence) which might happily be a souldier, which I was the more confident of, by reason I saw ☽ going straight to the ⚹ of ♂, but because she separated last from the ⚹ of ☉ lord of the second; and so transferring the light of ☉ to ♂, I told her I feared her friend was not very faithful unto her, but did under-hand seek to defraud her of what she expected of the Parliament, or of as much as in him lay he could do: I found also ♃ significator of the Parliament disposed of by ♂, as also ☉ lord of her second, separa­ted from a ⚹ of ♃, I acquainted her they had lately promised her faire, but still (I told her) I did believe her martiall friend did obstruct their good willingnesse unto her, and because I saw ♂ so very near the □ aspect of ♃, and that he was disposed of by ♂, I told her I was confident (notwithstanding all the faire pro­mises (of which she confessed she did plentious­ly abound) the Parliament had lately made unto her) he or some man or men signified by ♂ would be her hinderance, so that she should no wise receive the money she expected of them, which was the more certainly con­firmed by his being in ☍ to the cuspe of the se­cond.

She thereupon confessed that the friend sig­nified by ♂ (whom I described) was indeed very forward (to outward appearance) to do [Page 120] for her, but she had indeed (of late) found him very perfidious, but yet she said she could not be perswaded but the intentions of the Parlia­ment were reall: but not long after ( viz. with­in three moneths, as ♂ wanted three dayes of the □ of ♃) came forth the Ingagement, which her husband refusing to take, was for­ced to lose his debt: and who was the authors of the Ingagement? which when she also found so marvellously to happen, she was so converted from being an antagonist or enemy to Astrolo­gie, that she became a great lover and admirer thereof; often times since blaming her former rashnesse in condemning what she was ignorant of.

[Page 121]But another example that the querents un­belief, is no whit material to the perverting of the Artists judgement, I will also here give you; for if the question be indeed radical, the Artist having any skill, and not deviating from his rules, he shall seldome faile.

And this is of an incredulous Gentlewoman also; her Question was, of her husband being absent.

Where is my husband? And when will he returne?

[Page 122]This Question was propounded by a Lady very unbelieving in the Art of Astrologie, in­somuch that if possible, she exceeded the for­mer.

I find here ♀ significatrix of the absent hus­band, and located in the twelfth house of the figure; whereupon I told her, her husband was in Prison (but before (because ♏ ascend­ed) I described his shape, as also the markes of his body) who when she heard this, with much admiration began to tell me, he was indeed in Prison, and was such a manner of man ex­actly as I had described him; but she could never have believed this could have been told her, which was the reason she would say no­thing to me of his condition; whereupon she was very desirous then to know farther, viz. when she should see him; but first I finding ☽ se­parated from ☉ (by a △ aspect) lord of the ninth, yet the third, from the seventh his as­cendant; & in △ of ☿ lord of the tenth in the figure, and then immediately transferring the light of both by a △ to ♀, the absents significa­trix, I accquainted her that a brother or kins­man of his, should make means to some officer in great authority, or the Gene­ral (for it could not then be the King) which should be the means of his inlargement, He was then himself a Pri­soner. and for that these aspects were so near the time, that the [Page 123] question was demanded, I told the querent I was confident her husband was already or should suddenly be inlarged, and be relieved also with money; which I saw also by ☿ his being in combustion of ☉ he was in want of; as for the time when she should see him, I find ♀ very near the ascendant, and the same time she comes to the cuspe thereof, the ☽ comes to the same degree (or very near it) of ♊ the proper ascendant of London, I told her I was confident when ♀ and ☽ came to these places, he would be with her, which was the 25. day of the same moneth, being Wednesday, which accordingly happened; and when I came to the speech of him, he confessed all that I had related concerning him was to the letter true; viz. That he was in Prison ten weekes, and was by the means of his brothers power with the Generall (which was then Sir Thomas Fairfax) he had his liberty, and that his brother did (for his necessary occasions) furnish him with 20. l. I could here insert many the like examples, but since they are so frequently divulged in other Treatises, I hold it here no wise necessary longer to in­sist; but Mr Homes I pray, if one had asked whether a man had lived with his wife or no? or whether he loved another mans wife? might not these questions have been resolved as well as any of these above mentioned?

[Page 124]But let us see how he can prove the rules or principles of the Art groundlesse and of no verity; and first (he saith) because of the foresaid various varieties and uncertainties of the Stars, both in their own motions, and in comparison with others, but you have also afore received a confuta­tion of these assertions of his, and therefore this his first reason is not one jot equivalent to his purpose.

Secondly, Because no man knoweth the particu­lar qualities of the Stars, but this is but one Doctors opinion, and therefore I may as wel, and with as good reason and strength of ar­gument deny his words, and not shew him to the contrary; but this were to deceive my Reader Homes like. And with this word only he cannot be willing to content himself, but he must strive to confirm it by his false allega­tions; No Artist yet ever undertook to speake of more then the seven Planets, and some few nomi­nated fixed stars, of some few several magnitudes; with what slight expressions are these his scandalous allegations vented, Looke Ptolo­meus Coperni­cus. &c. when it is clear and ap­parent to the world, that all those Stars from the first magnitude down to the sixth magnitude, and even to the cloudy [Page 125] and occult Stars as they call them, are made clear unto us, and the whole world, And for their natures, looke Ptolomy, 1. Quadripartite, Cap. 8. Stadius, Sconerus, and Lucas Gauricus whose works are so apparently extant, and yet so openly traduced and scandali­zed; what will he not then in­deavour to hide that is not so apparent? he doth not onely deny here neither so apparent a truth, but affirmeth as palpable an untruth in his very next words; they leave out saith he, or are ignorant of millions of Stars, that are neither named nor known. What non-sense & sim­plicity doth this his hatred aganist Astrologie cause him to be guilty of? I would very fain know how he came to know these millions of Stars that he saith were never yet knowne or named? he knowes that that was never knowne, sure he did not learn this great skill in Bredstreet, truly these ridi­culous whimsies, makes me beleeve he is not well in his senses, since he was in the street aforesaid, and causes me also extreamly to Pitty the poore Pastor.

Thirdly, Thousands of Stars cannot be so much as seene a minute together, as the Philosophers con­fesse in their discourse of Via lactea, the milkie way in the heavens, to be seene in a most starry night, especially in Winter. Before he was up with his millions, now he is come down to his thousands, I am confident at the last he wil descend to his [Page 126] unites; yet here also may his Reader see how he strives to deceive and delude him with vain conceits, and to take effect the better, he fa­thers them on the Philosophers, I beleeve his Philosophers will descend to be some whimsical Poets. For the Poets indeed fai­ned that on a day Ganimedes who (as they say) was Jupiters Cup-bearer, Of Via lactea; or the milkie way. carrying his Lord a sack Posset or a cup of Milke, stumbled in in the way at some great fixed Star (or at the paw of the Beare) and let fall all his liquor, which ever since hath caused the heavens to be in that place white or cloudish even in the most clear nights, but perhaps if Canis major and minor had been called on, Then M. Homes had not had this Via lactea to have prated on. it had been other­wise; I may then with as good reason or ground conclude this story, as true as his allegation, that they are an innumerable company of smal stars that cannot be discerned or distinguished; but I would very fain understand this paradox, that they cannot be seen, and yet they are knowne to be an innumerable com­pany of Stars, sure he hath a very discerning eye, and rather one surpassing his judgement, for he but even now, knows more then all people ever yet knew, and now he seeth what was never yet seen: but these or any such whimsical expressions or arguments, are enough to fright the ignorant [Page 127] from the beliefe, either in the verity or legali­ty of Astrologie; he cares not how little he troubles them with reason or truth.

Fourthly, Because all the Stars do shine on 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. But to answer this frivolous objection in every particular by plain proof, were too tedious here to relate, since for the instructi­on of the students herein, there hath been whole volumes writ, to whom I shall refer all that require farther satisfaction then what I here do say, which is onely thus, that to deter­mine either generall or particular effects, it is not alwayes necessary to consider all the Stars, for some never are seen in our horizon, and of those that are, half are ever under the earth, and of those that are above the earth, many are in such places of the heaven, as they are of little or no use in our ordinary practice: Wherefore he most weakly asserteth this rea­son, since as I said before, their vertues and natures are so plainly delivered us by the lear­ned; and thus with such like frivolous and weak arguments and suppositions, he indea­vours to confirme his objection against Astro­logie and its rules, as also that the complexions of people may be altered from their child-hood to their man-hood; and that there are causes between us and [Page 128] the Stars to alter their influence; and that Astrologers depend upon Clocks and Dials to know the ground of their workes, which Clocks and Dials may faile, and so consequently needs must the Astrologer: and such simple cavils not knowing what indeed to object, for certainly all that knows any thing in the world, must needs judge this kind of arguing to be meerly either for want of matter, or to patch up a simple discourse: for what can hereby in the least, or all that he doth farther rabble hereon be said, to prove Astrologicall rules uncertaine; surely this is no more to the purpose, or to our dispute in hand, then for me to say I will, when one as­keth me if Astrologie be lawful or no? or any such ridiculous answer: But since in the sub­ject of this preceding discourse, all these, to­gether with the rest of his sophistications, are already answered; I hold it most vaine longer here to dwell, but hasten to his fourth and last argument against Astrologie: for our dispute is not to decide quicks and quillets, but answer those objections that are brought to prove the vanity and falsenesse of Astrologicall Predictions.

SECT. IV. Wherein he thinketh the ground of the Art wholly shaken and overthrown, by affirming it meerly imaginary, viz. the ninth and tenth sphere, and in them the Zodiack, therein proveth and sheweth his own ignorance the more apparently manifest.

BUt what doth this sophisticall cavil availe him, to the subversion of the verity or cer­tainty of Astrologie, when the motions & effects of the Stars are known? but even as wel may he condemn the rules, & precepts of all Arts which are also gathered by experience and reason, as Astrologie, because the signes of the Zodiack are devised by men; but the reason they attribute these names, as Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and the like, to the constellations of the heaven is by reason of their formes and particular vertues expressed under these figures; Ptolomie, 1. Quadripartite. for Ptolomy hath delivered the nature of the particular Stars in them by themselves, as also their particular complexions and efficacies, as also the Houses, exaltations, tri­plicities, termes and faces, and other dignities, of the signes, as they follow the nature of the Planets: and since these are known, to what end are all these his cavils whether there be a [Page 130] ninth or tenth sphere? for let there be none at all (as he saith) nor any thing called a Zo­diack (as he would faine perswade the world) yet since clear experience and practice evin­ceth him, as also demonstration that there are such constellations (call them what you will) his sophisticall weake argument will no wise serve his turne; for I may as well de­ny there is a Dog a Bear, both lesser and bigger a Swan, a Crown, a Wagoner and the like, as he denieth there is not a Bull a Ram or a Lion in the heavens, when it is not desired litterally (by any Astrologer) to be understood. Wherefore I leave him here to bait Ʋrsa major with Canis major and minor, till I am of his weak opinion, or till he can perswade any judicious soul to believe this his doctrine: and hasten to con­clude this our discourse.