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. VII.

An Historicall relation of the principall Authours, that haue written of Astrology.

THe Knight hath added to this booke a Chrono∣logicall Index of Astronomers (meaning thereby Astrologers) from Adam to his time. In this order he setteth all the Patriarches, till Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, them, and all before them, he reckoneth Astro∣logers. And in the midst of these godly Patriarches be∣tweene Henoch and Methusalah, (whereby wee must vnderstand, that either Zoroastes must be taken for an Holy Patriach, or that the Patriarches must bee ac∣counted for men of the same profession with him.) And thus along he ioyneth cleane and vncleane toge∣ther, but without proofe, without reference. In this Index, he hath set Ioseph, Homerus, Hesiodorus, and many other to fill the number, which would bee a

hard taske for the Knight to make proofe that they were Astrologers. And therefore I haue thought it needfull for the vse of the vnwary Reader, to mark the iudgements of the best writers that haue spoken here∣of, that a plaine distinction may appeare betweene good learning, and Astrologicall Sorcerics.

The first inuention of Astrology, is by many lear∣ned men attributed to the diuels. This is the iudge∣ment of Tertullian, lib. de habitu muliebri. And againe, Lib. de Idolatria. And of Clemens Alexandrinus in Ec∣log. And of Origen. Hom. 13. in Num. Coelius (thodig. Lib. 2. cap. 12. hath obserued, that Lactantius writeth: Astrologia, Auspicia, Auguria et oracula esse Daemonio∣rum inuentum. And that Apuleius (a man of that pro∣fession) confirmeth the same. The Knight to remoue this odiousnesse of their originall telleth vs, that Plato in Phaedro, attributeth the Originall of Arithmeticke & Geometry to a diuell that was called, Theuth. And o∣thers say, that Philosophy and other Arts were so in∣uented. The Knight by this answere would deceiue himselfe and others. It is true, that the Graecians did attribute the inuention of Arts, and of other things that serue for the benefit of man, to such as they held Gods; as the inuention of Wine and Corne & other things: though we know by the truth of Gods word, that these things were inuented before those Gods of theirs were borne. It is also true, that those Gods of theirs were men which had liued here before. It is also true, that the worship which they offered to such Gods, was Idolatry; and by exhibiting diuine wor∣ship to such, they made them deuils. Hereupon the Knight inferreth; therefore they did attribute the in∣uention of good Arts to deuils: This we deny. For

they did not hold their gods to be diuels, or vncleane spirits: as the knowledge of the truth teacheth vs to hold. And the Heathen did account them Gods, which once were men, as the Knight himselfe confes∣seth of this Theuth, which diuers thinke to haue beene Mercurius Trismegist. Now when the learned Fa∣thers of the Church speake of Deuils, they haue an other sense, then the Heathen speaking of those which they c•…•…ld 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which words of Heathen, are taken in good part, but not of Christi∣ans. And therefore his answer is nothing to the pur∣pose; vnlesse he could shew, that the Heathen did at∣tribute such inuentions, to such as themselues accoun∣ted euill and vncleane spirits: For from these euill spirits came Astrology, and from these came no part of good learning. And therefore, Origen carefull long before to answer to this particular, disputing of that which is called the wisedome of the Princes of this world, saith: Sapientiam principum huius mundi intel∣ligimus, vt est, Aegyptiorum secreta, quam dicunt et oc∣culta Philosophia, et Chaldaeorum Astrologia, et Iudaeo∣rum de scientia excelsi pollicentium, sed et Graecorum multiplex variaque de diuinitate sententia. Where hee doth distinguish Astrology from Philosophy, and the actes which hee nameth presently before, thus: Poetica, Grammatica, Rhetorica, Geometria, Musica, Medicina. All which, he maketh an other part of wise∣dome or learning much differing from Astrology. For these Arts he calleth the wisedome of the world, and of men. But Astrology, saith hee, is not a part of the wisedome of the World, but of the Princes of the World, for so he calleth Deuils. And to this purpose do many learned, both Philosophers and Diuines,

distinguish betweene Astrology, and good learning, accounting the one to be profitable for mans vse, the other to haue no vse in nature, no place in good lear∣ning. The first spreder of this Art, as most men agree, was Z•…•…roastes, who being a man giuen to the familia∣rity of wicked spirits, did first open to the world in writing, the secrets of these illusions, which curious men in a desire to know things to come, beeing also inticed and drawen thereto by wicked spirits, gathe∣red into a kinde of Art and Profession. The learning whereby these men sought to know particular acti∣ons to come, was in one word called Magicke; wher∣vnto Astrology did serue as an instrument or pretense. And therefore Zoroastes is famous or infamous for teaching of Magicke. This man was a Persian, and not (as many thinke) a Bactrian, and from him the Per∣sians had this learning. Yea their Kings Sonnes were brought vp therein. Plato tearmeth this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Magicke of Zoroastes, the Son of Oromasius: this is the worship of the Gods. True it is, that Plato speaketh honourably of it: but no otherwise then of the worship of their gods. Pliny witnesseth that Plato trauelled to learne it, & before him Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus; but they trauelled to learne all Magicke, not only Astrolo∣gy, as the Knight seemeth to say, commending Astro∣logy by their trauell. For they were either Magitians, or sought the knowledge therof, in some measure. And therefore by their trauell hee may as well commend Magicke, as Astrology. As also where hee saith, that Kings and great Personages haue studyed this Art; where he pleaseth himselfe with a pleasant conceit of

this study, which reacheth to the highest heauens; and therefore should (as it were) through their secret influence aboue all other, be embraced and aduanced by the Highest on earth. But if you strip his speech out of his Rhetoricke into plaine Logicke, then it will appeare, that these Kings, of whom hee glorieth so much, were Students in Magicke, as Pliny witnesseth, speaking of Magicke. In tantum fastigij adoleuit, vt hodieque etiam in magna parte gentium praeualeat, & in oriente regum regibus imperet. The Knight must ey∣ther take all the commendation of this Art, or leaue it. Learned men haue trauelled for it, it hath beene the study of Kings. This he taketh as in the commen∣dations of Astrology: By which he yeeldeth, that A∣strology is a part of Magicke. For certaine it is, that the study for which these men are reported to haue trauelled, and which those Kings haue studyed, was Magicke. And if vnder this name of Magicke, hee commend Astrology, then indeede we grant, that he may to this purpose finde somewhat amongst the An∣cients: but otherwise, he will find nothing for Astro∣logy. And hee will neuer finde, that the Ancients re∣ferred it to any other part of learning then to Magick. The Knight seemeth to helpe it well, by taking that to Astrology, which the Ancients spake of Magicke.

Aristotle seemeth to scorne this learning, as not ad∣mitting it into any place of naturall knowledge. For he going thorough all the parts of good learning, medleth not with Astrology, shewing thereby, that he tooke it for no part of good learning. After these, Eudoxus, a Scholler of Plato, was much renowned for his learning, who being a man of great skill in Astro∣nomy,

vtterly reiected all this learning that standeth in Predictions. Cicero saith of •…•…im thus. Ad Chaldaeorum monstra veniamus: de quibus Eudoxus Platonis auditor, in Astrologia, iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile Princeps, sic opinatur, id quod scriptum reliquit Chal∣dae is in praedictione, & in notatione cuiusque vitae ex na∣tali die minime esse credendum. Eudoxus in the know∣ledge of the Mathematickes, went beyond all the Chaldaeans, and all other in the iudgement of the best learned, as Cicero saith. Pliny and others that speake of him, giue him the commendation of a man of grea∣test Learning in the Mathematickes.

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

To that which Tully saith of Eudoxus, the Knights answer is, that hee can conuince him by as Authen∣tique witnesse, as his owne. For Laertius (saith he) was the Sonne of an Astrologer, and wrote of Astrologie. Sextus saith, that hee and Hiparchus practised Pre∣dictions of weather. And Pliny, shewing that Ma∣gicke doth consist of Physicke and Astrologie, affir∣meth, that Eudoxus reputed it as the most excellent & profitable study, of all other Disciplines that pertaine to wisedom. And therefore, saith the Knight, conside∣ring that Tully is so taken tripping in one, what credit are we to giue to him in the rest? Whether Cicero or S. Christopher be taken tripping, let it bee examined. The Knight would proue by other testimonies that

Eudoxus was an Astrologer: And if hee might once proue this, then hee thinketh Cicero is taken tripping. Alas poore trip: what needeth hee seeke any proofe for this? For Cicero hath said more for this, then all his proofes. Hath not Cicero said, that Eudoxus was, in Astrologia iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile Princeps? All the testimonies which the Knight brin∣geth, come short of this: to what end, are testimonies brought to proue a thing granted? What then fol∣loweth? The Knight saith, therefore wee must not giue any credit to Cicero in the rest. Let the Reader iudge; whether this be plaine dealing. Cicero dealeth plainly, and therefore deserueth credit: He saith Eu∣doxus was a most learned man in Astrologie, and yet hee did vtterly reiect the Chaldaean Predictions. Against this, there is nothing brought; for, that he was an Astrologer, is confessed on all sides: the tru•…•…h is, this word Astrologie was otherwise vsed, and in ano∣ther meaning amongst the Ancients, then now it is amongst vs: and from the ambiguous vse of this word, the Knight seeketh in diuers places, to deceiue the vnwary Reader. The word was by ancient Wri∣ters, taken for Astronomy: And when they commend Astrologie, they meane Astronomie; and reproue Astrologicall Predictions, although they speake well of Astrologie. Cicero saith, that Eudoxus reiecteth Pre∣dictions, & yet was the greatest Astrologer that liued then. This sheweth, that Astrologie, as then this word was vnderstood, might be studied & knowne without Predictions. That which the Knight bringeth out of Pliny, is worse: For Pliny, speaking of Magicke, saith (as the Knight citeth him.) Eudoxus, qui inter sapientiae

sectus, clarissimam, vtilissimamque eam intelligi voluit, Zorastem tunc sex millibus annorum ante Platonis mor∣tem fuisse prodidit. If hee will make any thing of this testimony, hee speaketh for Magicke: so that hee must proue Astrologie, a part of Magicke, b•…•…fore that this can serue his turne. M. Chambers denyeth, that Eu∣doxus was an Astrologer, as the Knight vnderstandeth Astrologie, the Knight out of Pliny proueth that hee was an Astrologer, because Pliny saith hee was a Ma∣gitian.

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

Let vs consider what Cicero himselfe thought of this Profession: Hee taketh Auruspices, fulguratores,

interpretes ostentorum, Augures, Astrologi, Sortilegi, for Professors of certain vaine and foolish Arts, whereof no reason can bee giuen: and putteth them together vsually in his Booke, de Diuinatione, as Professors of the like vanities: though one differing from another in the manner, yet all agreeing in the end; which is by foolish and vnnaturall meanes to know before hand the actions of men, in things to come. Wherefore, in his iudgement there can no reason bee brought for Astrologie, which may not likewise bee brought for Augury, Auruspicine, and all these damned Arts. Ci∣cero proueth, that this diuination hath no part in good Learning. Nec eorum quae in Geometria describuntur (can any Prediction tell) quae vera quae falsa sint, sunt enim Mathematicorum non hariolorum: De illis vero rebus quae in Philosophia versantur, numquid est quod quisquam diuinorum aut responderi soleat aut consuli? Where wee note, that Diuinus or Hariolus as it com∣prehendeth the Astrologer, is cleane thrust out from the Mathematickes and Philosophie: And there∣fore the Astrologers profession, is no part of Mathe∣matickes or Philosophy. Cicero doeth likewise op∣pose, naturam & sensum, against fortunam & casum, and sheweth that these Predictions come not from nature and sense, but from chance, and fortune. For who is able to giue a naturall reason, Cur a dextra Cor∣uus, a sinistra Cornix ratum faciat? Cur stella Iouis aut Veneris coniuncta cum Luna, adortus puerorum salutaris sit: Saturni Martisne contraria. And againe, it is confessed that these things are such: quorum rerum euenta, non causa quaerenda. And therefore in another place, speaking of these future Euents, hee saith: Id

futurum est in nulla rerum natura. And because in na∣ture hee findeth no reason for such Predictions, there∣fore hee calleth them Chaldaeorum Monstra. And againe. O delirationem incredibilem, non enim omnis error stulcitia est dicenda▪ And all this Art hee calleth superstitionem Sagarum. Vtrum Philosophia Dignius Sa∣garum superstitione ita interpretari, an explicatione naturae.

M. Varro liuing in that age with Cicero, and ac∣counted the most learned of that age, saith likewise. Ex Astrologiae sinu pro fluxisse superstitionum omnium vanitates. Pliny putteth these Predictions not in any part of the Mathematickes, or naturall Philosophy; but amongst vnnaturall curiosities and Sorceries. And reckoneth that Diuination which is ex Stellis, amongst the parts of Magicke; and reasoning of the ignorance of men, by bringing in of many Gods: that Fortune is made a God, addeth thus, Pars alia & hanc (Fortu∣nam) pellit, Astroque suo euentus assignat, & nascendi legibus, semel in omnes futuros vnquam Deo decretum, in reliquum vero alium datum. And againe. Ecce ful∣gurum monitus, oraculorum praescita, Auruspicum Prae∣dicta, &c. Somtimes, as his manner is, in the searching of Antiquities; hee noteth the Professions with the Authors. Auguria ex auibus, Car monstrauit, a quo Ca∣ria appellata. Adiecit ex caeteris Animalibus Orphaeus Aruspicium Delphus, ignispicia Amphiaraus: Auspicia auium Tiresias Thebanus: interpretationem ostentorum & somniorum Amphiction: Astrologiam Atlas Lybiae filius, vt alij Aegiptij, vtalij Assirij. And thus ioyning Astrologicall Predictions with Predictions of Augu∣ry Auruspicine, as Birds of a feather, at last hee setteth

downe all these, as kinds of Magicke or Sorcery. Vt narruit Osthanes species eius sunt (speaking of Magicke) nam & ex aqua, & e Sphaeris, & ex Acre & Stellis, & Lucernis, ac peluibus, securibus & multis aliis modis diuina promittit: praeterea vmbra∣rum inferorumque colloquia. I omit the Censures of the Romane State against Astrologers, as is obserued by Tacitus, and others.

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

Touching the Fathers of the Church, we need not trouble the Reader with long citations: for they are all ours sure: And all sound Writers in the latter time; vntill that Antichristian corruption came in, which with many other doctrines of Diuels, brought this also into the Church (practised amongst some Church men) in the smoake of the bottomlesse pit. Before wee proceede, wee must meet with the Knight in some passages, touching the matter spoken of. M. Chambers saith, that Pythagoras, Democritus and Pla∣to hauing trauelled to conferre with the Magitians of Persia, and Priests of Egypt, either neuer learned of

them this kind of Art (meaning Iudic iary Astrology or if they did, they seemed vtterly to haue contemned it, as neuer vouchsasing to mention it in any writing: Thus farre M. Chambers. The Knight answereth, this is ab authoritate negatiue. But I tell you Sir, if hee dis∣proue it Negatiue, from these authorities, hee speake•••• home to you: for these are the Philosophers, that you must make much of; for you are like to haue none other to helpe you. If we proue, that these haue not maintained Astrologie, nor written for it; then sure all Philosophers are cleane gone from you: All the hope of your Cause, is in these or in none. And therefore, as loth to lose these, hee telleth vs out of Lacrtius, that Pithagoras honoured 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and out of Tully, that hee did yeeld magnam authorità∣tem diuinaioni: You may adde also out of the same, I meane Cicero, if you please, that hee was Augur: For so Cicero calleth him, Lib. 1. de diuinat. the like you say you could confirme of the others; and after ma∣ny words, you conclude thus.

Because M. Chambers hath thought this an Argument to fauour his purpose, I will adde the testimony of Pliny, who expressly witnes∣seth against M. Chambers, Lib. 30. Cap. 1. that as they all tooke vpon them an exiled and banished life, rather then a trauell to learne it, and all secret Arts: so after they had attained it, and were returned, they did no lesse extoll it; but esteemed the same as a secret, not to bee re∣uealed.

This valiant Knight dare venture vpon any thing: for the truth is, these words of Pliny, which hee citeth, are directly and expressly spoken of Ma∣gicke M. Chambers saith, That these Philosophers are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Astrologie: the Knight reproouing this as

an vntruth, proueth out of Pliny, that these Philo∣sophers trauelled for the study of Magicke: Which thing M. Chambers witnessed. The truth is, and we confesse it, that these Philosophers were studious of Magicke, and therefore so farre-forth, their Philo∣sophy hath not beene accompted pure. Then are these the only men, of whome the Knight had some hope. Yet it cannot be proued, that these men fa∣uored Astrology: but the Knight rather (then he will loose them) will confesse that Astrology is Magicke; for otherwise he can haue no helpe of these: If not of these, then of no Philosophers. Where then are the learned men that haue mayntained this Art, whome the Knight mustereth in Armes? When all search is made of Antiquity, there wilbe found only Zoroastes, Mercurius Tresmegistus, whome though wee could be content to giue him, yet a doubt may be made of this man, because in his Bookes extant vnder his name, though there be manifest profes of Magicke, wherein he excelled; yet there is little or nothing to be found of Astrology. Apollonius Thya∣nous, Porphyrius, Iulianus, Apuleius, and such: Adde to these; whome the Knight himselfe challengeth, Spurain, Theagenes, Thrasyllus, Ptolomy, Seleucus, and Ascletarion: These wee yeeld you. If you can proue that these or any of them (for example take Apollonius, because hee is more famous then the rest; the other being obscure or lesse remembred) If you can proue that this man (whome you recken a∣mongst your Astrologers) or any other did performe these predictions by Philosophy, or naturall know∣ledge; then will wee confesse that you speake to good

purpose: till then you haue said nothing. If any man will vndertake this cause, he must be called within the bounds of certaine limitations: For o∣therwise, if hee shall write as much as would loade a horse, either in commendation of Astrology, or in euill speech against such as stand against his opinion: I haue nothing to say but that—

Iubeo miserum esse libenter; gratenus id facit.

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

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

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

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

5. That it was accompted more honorable to professe the skill in Augury, Auspicia, and Extispicia; then to professe Astrologicall predictions, and men (of more honorable place and greater accompte for their wisedome) haue professed the former, then this latter sorcery of Astrology.

If they will speak to these points and acquit Astro∣logy, then they say somewhat. But must warne the Knight, or any other, that hee will be pleased not to take for granted the contradictory of these positi∣ons,

and so runne along in a flourishing discourse, but these be the things that you must proue. Now Sir to proue these things, will much trouble you. First you will rake vp the Arabian dunghill; but that will not serue your turne: For I graut the Arabians did ho∣nor this profession; but wee speake here of the anci∣ent times, wherein good learning stood amongst the Heathen. Neither will it serue you to reckon vp Adam, Seth, Mahaleel, Iared, Henoch, Zoroastes, Methusaleth, Lamech, Noah, Sem, Arphaxad, Abra∣ham, Isaac, Iacob, Albion, Ioseph, Homer, Hesiod, &c. And to tell vs, that these were Astrologers; Take Zoroastes from that company, and then wee yeeld him to you, he is the Father of your Art. You challenge him, you shall haue him. But then let the world know, what a goodly Father this profession hath.

Notes

• Alcibid. 1.
• Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1.
• Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1.
• Lib. de Di∣uin. 1.
• Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1.
• Lib. 1. de Di∣•…•…n.
• Ibid.
• Coel. Rhod. Li. 10. Cap. 20.
• Lib. 2. Cap. 7.
• Lib. 7. Cap. 56.
• Lib. •…•…0: c. 2.