Astrologomania: the madnesse of astrologers. Or An examination of Sir Christopher Heydons booke, intituled A defence of iudiciarie astrologie. Written neere vpon twenty yeares ago, by G.C. And by permission of the author set forth for the vse of such as might happily be misled by the Knights booke. Published by T.V. B. of D.

CHAP. V.

That Confession of the Knight examined, that Astrologi∣call Predictions reach not to the regenerate. An in∣uincible Syllogisme of the Knights examined.

HItherto wee haue proued, that Astrologicall Predictions haue no place or ground among naturall meanes: that the Starres are not naturall Causes of such Euents: that the naturall man receiueth not such knowledge: that the knowledge of these things commeth by an instinct or familiarity with a Spirit, by the confession of those, whom the Knight much esteemeth for their knowledge in Astrologie. What proofes can wee seeke more eui∣dent? Therefore wee conclude, that the broken staffe faileth him, vpon which all his Booke resteth: That the Starres are naturall Causes of such Effects, as Astrologers foretell, it is broken in pieces, and the shiuers therof strike the Cause through the sides. See∣ing Philosophers haue reiected the Art for this cause, the Knight comming to the same point, should haue enformed vs with some conuincing reasons, and not intreat vs to conceiue that which hee should proue. And yet wee must both pardon and pitty him. I will admit, that hee is able to say much for the Cause; that his Learning is much better then his Booke maketh

proofe of; that it is pitty so good parts should bee so euill imployed. How the Knight taketh it, I know not: But vnto mee it seemeth strange, that so good parts and guifts should be spent vpon so sottish a Sub∣iect; and failing in the maine point, that hee should not haue feeling thereof. What can wee thinke, but that with Astrology there is alwayes ioyned some Magicke? And that your vnderstanding, oth•…•…rwise so quicke and liuely, is in this particular bewitched with an Astrologicall illusion, as it were with some Magical Incantation? I wi•…•…h his good, from my heart. Neither can I feare such a base feare, that hee will take it in euill sort, which is meant for his good. And if he bee the man which I take him for, hee will one day thanke him, that is not affraid to deale roundly with him, to pull him out of the fire; I meane, to draw him, if by any meanes, so it bee the will of God, from this sottish Superstition: But I must proceed.

One common euasion hee vseth, which I haue men∣tioned before, that Astrological Predictions reach not to the Church, nor to the regenerate in the Church: and sometimes hee saith, neither to the regenerate, nor to the wise. Now, because properly euery Art ought to bee defined by the Subiect; by this, Astrologie should bee defined an Art, that considereth the for∣tunes of fooles and wicked. For that euery habite of the minde ought to bee defined by the Subiect; it is well proued by Aristotle. And is not this, thinke you, the reason why the Regenerate and wise forsake the Study of Iudiciary Astrologie? For, by your confessi∣on, it profitteth them nothing, it reacheth not so farre as vnto them. For what other reason can you giue vs,

why Augustine, Picus & such like, being both thorowly enabled by naturall abilities, & hauing a desire to that knowledge, vtterly forsaked the Profession therof; but because they were either regenerate or wise? then what are they who professe it? I moue nothing but from your owne Principles. And doe you not handsomly perswade men, to thinke honourably of your Professi∣on, when you say, it concerneth neither wise nor re∣generate? Or what account doe you make of all such, as come to seeke your helpe in this Art? Doe you not say, that they can haue no helpe of you, vnlesse they bee fooles, and wicked men? Perhaps true. But here I intreate that it may bee well considered, what a manner of Art this is, that by the Professors thereof is confessed, wholly and onely to concerne them, who are in Regno Diaboli. All lawfull Arts doe concerne alike the Regenerate and vnregenerate; and the worke of regeneration, maketh no distinction, no manner of alteration in the vse of a lawfull Art. And is not this enough, to proue the whole Profession not to belong to Nature? For can any man shew any of the Libe∣rall Sciences, any Art or Profession in the world, that dependeth vpon naturall Knowledge, and goeth no further, which concerneth not all men alike, of what quality or disposition soeuer they bee? And what warrant can any man haue to professe or practise such Art, as is wholly conuersant about the members of Sathan, and goeth no further? But as soone as euer they haue bidden the Diuell farewell, the Art biddeth them farewell.

Againe, they who grant that Astrologicall Predicti∣ons touch not Religion, nor the regenerate, nor the

Church, haue no reason to vse Predictions within the Church. Let them bee shut out of the Church, and illude the Reprobate, for whose vse they hold their Art by their own confession. Now within the Church euery one receiueth the Sacrament of Regeneration: And therefore the Children that are baptized in the Church, are taken for Regenerate, albeit the effect thereof, is more or lesse apparant, or not apparant in processe of time. What then hath the Astrologer to doe within the Church, where all receiue the Sacra∣ment of Regeneration? Further, wee say, that the Art which concerneth only those men which are in the Kingdome of the Diuell, and none else, is Diabo∣licall, and nothing else: This is manifest from the contrary. For, as that Profession which concerneth the godly and obedient, and none els, is only of God; so that Profession which concerneth the wicked, and none else, must needs bee onely from the Diuell: For ouer the wicked the Diuell, ruleth Ephes. 2. 2. and not in the godly; for they are freed from the Kingdome of darkenesse, from Sinne, and the power of Sathan. Now when they are once freed from the power of Sathan; then saith the Knight, they are freed from Astrologie. Could any man more plainly proue, that Astrologie is one part of the power of Sathan? Bodin proueth by many Examples & Confessions of Witch∣es, that Witchcraft hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ower vpon the Regene∣rate, or vpon Magistrates, who execute the Lawes a∣gainst them; which is fully confirmed by his Ma∣iesty, Daemonol. lib. 2. cap. 6. Now if Astrologicall Predictions haue no power ouer the Regenerate and wise, what doe they differ from Wi•…•…chcraft? Sauing

that heere in a greater shew of Learning, they haue gotten, as they thinke, a deeper hole to hide them∣selues in? But this is but the deepenesse of Sathan. In the meane time, wee cannot but obserue one espe∣ciall marke of an vnlawfull Art: the godly are exclu∣ded, it medleth not with them. Lawfull learning and Knowledge excludeth none, but worketh vpon all sorts of men alike. Onely Sorcery, Witchcraft, and Astrologie, declared herein to be the inuentions of the Diuell, are confessed by the Maisters of these Arts hereein to bee vnlike all other lawfull Arts.

The Knight saith, it is not his part to proue, but to answere; but no man will yeeld it to bee an Art or Profession, without proofe: And therefore, Pag. 507. hee vndertaketh to proue, and warneth vs of an in∣uincible Syllogisme, which, saith he, is of that force, that neither Hemminga, nor all the Aduersaries of Astrologie, shall euer bee able to auoid it. This Syl∣logisme is worth the learning, it will giue full satisfa∣ction, and make vs all recant what wee haue written, or can write against Astrologie. Let vs therefore heare this wonderfull Syllogisme. This it is.

The Sun and Moone worke vpon these inferiour matters, but the other Starres haue the same nature and substance: ther∣fore the other worke and gouerne in the same manner.

But how are wee disappointed? For wee looked for a Syllogisme concluding Astrologicall Predictions, and that so forcibly, as could not be auoyded. Here is nothing concluded touching Astrologicall Predicti∣ons. This Syllogisme, M. Chambers hath answered, & so battered it in pieces, that I doe maruell, how the Knight could thinke it fit for any Seruice: but he that

hath no better, must make much of the best he hath.

To satisfie the Knight, I must set downe how hee refuteth M. Chambers: by this the Knight can take lesse exception, and the Reader may better vnderstand the manner of his writing. M. Chambers admitting this Argument, saith, the operations of the Sunne & Moone are euident; and nothing belonging to Pre∣dictions.

How repugnant, saith the Knight, is hee to himselfe? For if their operations be knowne before hand, they must serue to Predictions: and to deny it is all one, as if confessing a man able to know when the Sunne shall arise, hee should yet deny it possible for him, to foretell when it shall bee day. And againe, if the operations of their Lights bee also first knowne vnto vs in ouery part of the Zodiacke; why should not their operations by like reason, belonging to Predictions? For the Astrologer doth no lesse know their effects; as their motions doe di∣uersly apply their Influence to the matter of things, then the Physitian doth the operation of those Simples, which bee doth minister. But fully to stop his mouth in this point, what hath hee brought but a begging of the questi∣on, which neuerthelesse is consirmed by Moses, who ex∣pressly witnesseth them to bee created for Signes? And to oppose his owne Confession against him, M. Chambers himselfe in his 15. Chapter, acknowledgeth them to bee Signes to foretell the changes of the ayre, plenty, dearth, plagues, drought, & such like: with what face then can he here deny, that which he hath expressly affirmed before?

I haue set downe the Knights words at large, because the Reader may iudge of the proofe of this inuincible Syllogisme. M. Chambers saith, the Argument pro∣ueth

not Astrologicall Predictions: the Knight saith, it is, as if granting that one knoweth the time of the rising of the Sunne, should not know when it would bee day. Either this instance is nothing worth, or else hee holdeth, that as the day followeth the Sunne∣rising, by such a naturall course, which cannot bee broken without Miracle; so the particular Euents in mens actions foretold by the Astrologer, follow the Positions of the Starres in such a naturall course, as cannot be broken, without Miracle.

The operation of the Sunne and Moone that are naturall, are confessed. The Husbandman can tell when it will bee day, as well as the Astrologer. The Husbandmen and Fishers, by marking the course of the Moone, can foretell the full Sea and E•…•…be, more exactly then any Astrologer: what then? Are th•…•…se Astrologicall Predictions? No verily, no more then the foretelling of an Ecclipse. For, of these things that naturally follow, and without a Miracle are not broken, our question is not. This M. Chambers gran∣teth: But what affinity hath this with your Astrolo∣gicall Predictions? Or, how will you conclude from this grant, a particular contingent Euent in a mans life or state: as that Henry 2. shall bee at such a time wounded in the head: or that Ioh: Medices shall bee Pope, or any such like. For M. Chambers by Astro∣logicall Predictions, meant onely particular contin∣gent Effects, as your selfe say they are such, Pag. 210. Now, when as your selfe confesse, that Astrologicall Predictions are in things contingent & not necessary; you grant directly with M. Chambers, that the day following the rising of the Sunne naturally, that is,

necessarily not contingently, the ebbing and flowing following the Positions of the Moone, necessarily not contingently, the Eclipse following the interposition necessarily, not contingently. You must needs grant that these naturall and necessary Consequents, haue no affinity with Predictions, which are not naturall and necessary Consequences, but contingent, as your selfe doe acknowledge. And yet you aske, with what face can M. Chambers say this? With an honest face, and a learned head. Wee will not vrge with what face you may looke vpon your ouer-sights. Learne what it is wee grant, and what wee deny. Wee grant that the operations of the Sunne and Moone are eui∣dent, that their Effects are naturall, and therefore bound to naturall necessity, no way subiect to Con∣tingence.

Wee deny, that the particular Euents foretold by Astrologers, are naturall Effects or necessary, but only contingent. You confesse thus much. How then can you refute these things? If I grant the operations of the Sunne and Moone, in things necessary by the or∣dinary Course of Nature; must I needs grant the power of Starres in things contingent? Yet this you thought to bee such a Syllogisme, which all the Ad∣uersaries of Astrology should neuer bee able to an∣swere. You deceiue your selfe, and would deceiue others. But who is not able to distinguish betweene naturall Effects, and contingent Euents, which poore distinction cutteth off all your hopes of this inuinci∣ble Syllogisme; and sheweth the Cause to bee weake, that cannot bee better supported. And whereas you take pleasure to compare the influence of Starres to∣wards

a contingent Euent, to the operation of Sim∣ples, it is not worth the refuting, your selfe granting the one contingent and the other naturall. Now call you this a begging of the question; the question being of Predictions in particular Euents? What doe wee begge in distinguishing betweene naturall Effects and contingent Euents? Doth not hee, thinke you, famously begge the question, who answereth in euery passage of his Booke, that the Astrologer con∣taineth him within the bounds of naturall Philosophy, that the Starres are naturall Causes of particular con∣tingent Effects: which neither you proue, nor your selfe or any man liuing is able to proue. Where you tell vs, that M. Chambers is conuinced by the testimo∣ny of Moses, who expressly witnesseth, that the Stars bee created for Signes, which words are often repea∣ted in your Booke, whereby you inferre, that Moses doth warrant your Predictions: Wee answere, that you must not giue interpretations of Scripture to the Church; but take them from the Church. The Church hath interpreted these Signes, to bee such as pertaine to naturall and politicall Orders and Seasons. You draw the words to hidden secrets beyond the Course of Nature, without warrant. Further, wee di∣stinguish betweene generall Effects in nature, and par∣ticuler contingent Euents. Now if M. Chambers ad∣mit with Clem: Alexandrinus and others, that by the rising and setting of certaine Starres, men may fore∣tell the change of the Ayre, plenty, dearth, plagues, drought, and that in this respect, Mariners, and Hus∣bandmen haue vse of that knowledge: Must hee that granteth this, needs yeeld to your Predictions of par∣ticular

contingent Euents? No Sir; wee admit the one, and deny the other, without any repugnance. But whereas wee vrge your particular Euents, you would gladly shift off the matter with a distinction of parti∣culars. The conceit, good Reader, if it bee worth the hearing, is this.

Particulars, saith the Knight, are of two sorts; either indiuiduall particulars, or specificall: For species spe∣cialissima, and species subalterna are particulars saith hee.

First, it is newes (if wee speake properly) that species and genera should bee particularia; particulare, in the proper acception thereof, being alwayes opposed to vniuersale.

Secondly, if a man should admit this goodly di∣stinction; yet will it doe the Knight no seruice: For if any were so absurd to say, that Astrologicall Pre∣dictions are in particulars, that is in generals: yet this speech differring altogether from the sense of the Learned, cannot helpe them, who set their Predicti∣ons in such particulars; as that Henry 2. should bee wounded in his head, in such a yeare of his age; that such a man should bee Pope; that Don Fredericke should bee King of Naples, and such like; which are all of those, which hee calleth indiuiduall particulars. And thus you see, to what faire end you haue brought your Syllogisme, which you told vs none could auoyd.

Notes

• Lib. 4. Demon