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. VI. (Book 6)

The Examination of the Knights Definition of Astrolo∣gie: whereby, as by a Rule, hee would rule the que∣stion.

THe Knight fearing, belike, something, be∣fore hee came to the Answeres of the Scrip∣tures alleadged by M. Chambers; setteth downe, as hee calleth it, a Rule, whereby the Reader may leuell and direct his Iudgement, as he saith. This Rule is to compare all authorities that are brought against him, with the definition of Astrologie by him∣selfe set downe. This proceeding seemeth to vs strange. First, hee will make a Definition as it plea∣seth him best. Then, hee will haue not onely Philo∣sophicall truths, (which were absurd enough) to bee leuelled according to his Definition, and not his De∣finition to those truthes: but he would also perswade vs, to leuell and direct the authorities of holy Scrip∣ture to this Definition, and to vnderstand the Scrip∣tures by this Definition, and not his Definition by them. For these are his words, Pag. 23.

I haue thought good to forewarne the Reader, not to bee discouraged with the shew of testimonies, which he (M. Chambers) muste∣red out of the Scriptures, Councells, Fathers, but still to compare his authorities and Arguments with the Defi∣nition, by mee at first set downe, to the end it may serue as a Rule, whereby the Reader may direct his iudgement.

Indeed Sir, if you could finde such Readers as you wish, that would take such Rules without examining; then might you thinke your Cause were in good case.

But what if the Readers will not take your Rules? What if they wil not be perswaded to leuel the Scrip∣tures by your rules, but examine your rules? Would any speake thus to his Reader, but an Astrologer? What Readers doe you hope for that will examine scripture and all authorities by your rule? But what is this rule? This is your definition of Astrologie, Pag. 2.

Astrology is that Art, which teacheth by the mo∣tions, configurations, and influence of the signes, starres and coelestiall Planets, to prognosticate the naturall Ef∣fects and Mutations to come, in the Elements and these inferiour Elementary bodyes.

When you haue set downe this your definition or rule: then orderly you diuide it into two parts: the first speculatiue, in the heauenly motions and appearances: the second, pra∣ctical, which they cal the Iudiciary part of Astrology.

What learned man will euer yeeld this definition and diuision? It were an easie matter to prooue any thing, if this might serue the turne, to set downe a defi∣nition, and therein to begge the question. If this defi∣nition must be a Rule to rule all disputations against you, you neede not dispute or make proofe of any thing, it is all done in your definition. But this man∣ner of writing, is both idle and presumptuous, ruling the disputation by your fancy without proofe, with∣out reason. Consider the absurdities of your defini∣tion. First, whereas you lay it to Master Chambers his charge, that hee did not define Astrology; you haue small reason for that, if you consider all. For this deuise of entering into a controuersie with a defi∣tion, is vnwarranted. Where did any of the Ancients so? Now to examine the writings of learned men by new deuises, were not reason. The most learned and

iudicious Writers come not rashly to a definition. Obserue Aristotle, as you shall finde that hee setteth not downe a definition, before he hath fully prooued euery part thereof: Then commeth the definition as in a place of a conclusion. The iudgement of this man, and others, may warrant men to write after this sort. Neither is it reason, that late deuises should pre∣scribe against the auncient manner of the best Wri∣ters. Neither doe you vnderstand your Master Ra∣mus herein; for it is not his meaning, that all disputa∣tions should begin with a definition. But as it is the fittest and most orderly course in teaching children the rudiments of Arts (and so farre we allow it) so in handling of Controuersies what learned man did euer vse that course? There is a place, and time for all things: but in the beginning of a Controuersie no place for a definition. The reason is, the parts should first be prooued. Yet this man (without any proofes) is presently at a definition. And hauing prooued no∣thing, he will haue his definition to be a Rule, thereby to examine all things that are against him.

Now let vs consider the manifold perfections of this definitie. First, he saith, Astrology is an Art: We haue learned out of Aristotle, what an Art is: It hand∣leth things variable, quae aliter fieri possunt: And so is distinguished frō science; which handleth true things not variable. Aristotle speaketh so generally, that hee wold be vnderstood of al Arts. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now this Knight will haue ars to be genus to Astrology and Astronomy: And Astrono∣my which is scientia not ars to bee a species thereof. Was it euer heard before, since learning first began to

be knowne amongst men, that any thing which is tru∣ly called Scientia, could haue his genus to be ars? Then he saith, that this Art teacheth by the motions, confi∣figurations, and influence of Signes, Stars and Celesti∣all Planets. Astrology medleth not with motions, that is the worke of Astronomy: with configurations it dealeth; but where hee addeth influence; it had bin good: first to haue declared what influence hee mea∣neth. For as we deny not naturall influences, so A∣strologicall influence we reiect, as hauing no place in Nature, but onely in the braines of Astrologers. And whereas a definition should be short, no superfluous words admitted in it: to what end doth he say Celesti∣all Planets, as if there were some other Planets? And where he saith it is to prognosticate naturall effects, and mutations to come: wee admire his wisedome, that to saue disputation and proofes, hath put the que∣stion in a definition. And therefore his definition is a very idle conceit, vnlesse he, or any, for him can first prooue, that the subiect of Astrology, is the considera∣tion natural of Causes, with their effects. Now whoso∣euer will proue an Art or Science, or any habit of the mind, whatsoeuer, must first bee sure of the subiect thereof. For it is most true, which Aristotle both sharp∣ly saw, and soundly deliuered. Ethic. 6. That all Arts, Sciences, and habites of the minde, are distin∣guished one from another, by their seuerall subiects. But this man hauing made no proofe of the subiect of Astrology, thinketh that is enough for him to define, and not prooue, but onely put the subiect in his defi∣nition, and then to giue warning to all men, to take this his definition for a Rule, to rule al things brought against him. And therefore we vtterly reiect your de∣finition

as vnlearned, because you haue not prooued the subiect. You say, the subiect is the consideration of natural Causes, and their natural Effects. This we vt∣terly deny, for the reasons which we haue deliuered. Other escapes we let passe, for shortnes. Vpon this we stand, not only because the genus is mistaken, but espe∣cially because the Subiect is mistaken. You should by proofe and disputation declare and manifest the true subiect of Astrology. But you may see what com∣meth of it, when a man will runne so hastily to a de∣finition.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. Ethic. 6. Cap. 4.