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. I.

Wherein the Grounds which the Knight taketh without proofe, and vpon which hee buildeth his Booke, are called in question.

M^R Chambers (a man for his Life and Learning worthily honou∣red of all that knew him, & by his learned Labours known f•…•…r and neere) hath written against Iudiciary Astrologie, as many of the best learned before him haue done. Wherein hauing done no lesse then a Christian learned man ought to doe, hee had reason to looke for another reward of his Labours, then hee found: For in stead of thankes and commendation for his learned Labours so well placed, hee is roughly entertained by Sir Christopher Heydon Knight, a man that hath taken much paines to hold vp a Cause, which cannot bee holden vp by mans strength. For albeit the illusions of

Iudiciary Astrologie haue long beene maintained by the pollicies of Sathan; yet when the light shineth vp∣on it, it will neuer be able to stand. And in truth, in the hearts and Consciences of the godly in the Church, or of the wise and learned without the Church, was neuer yet thought able to stand. Now, after so many men, my comming into this cause, can adde nothing vnto it. What can I bring hereto, which hath not been brought by the Learned long since? Yet, that the same truth may be confirmed by the mouthes of many witnesses, and that others may not bee abused by the Knights Booke, and that himselfe also may haue occasion to con∣sider the whole matter afresh; I will examine this matter once more, and open to the Knight the weakenes & vn∣sound foundations of his vnprofitable Labours. Wher∣in I leaue not onely the intemperancie of words, with which hee hath so much enlarged his Booke; but euen so much as the cause will suffer the multitude of words: For the pleasure that some •…•…ke in long writing, nei∣ther can I allow in iudgement; nor for my businesse, practise.

I purpose to examine the grounds that the Knight hath brought, or any other may bring for Astrologie, wherein the Reader may know who they bee that stand against Astrology, and who for it. I shall also open to what part of knowledge Astrologie is referred, that is, to speake shortly, to Magicke.

One principall ground vpon which he much resteth, is, that Astrologie is a part of naturall Pholosophy: for thus hee writeth, Pag. 18. concerning Natiuities and Predictions.

I confesse that Astrologers containing them∣selues within the bounds of Naturall Philosophy and rea∣son,

doe take vpon them so much as lawfully they may, &c.

And this is the common Answere almost to euery obiection, Pag. 19.

No man, I thinke, of indifferency or common sense will censure the Astrologer (who iudgeth no farther of future effects, then as they are contained and re∣uealed in the starres, and second and remote causes) to bu∣sie himselfe farther in Gods vnknowne Secrets. Pag. 29. Astrologie professeth onely to foresee naturall mutations & accidents. Pag. 30. To place confidence in Starres as in diuine causes and powers, is one thing, and to esteeme them but as subordinate and second causes in Nature, is another. Pag. 36. The question betweene vs is, whether the Starres be signes or second causes of naturall mutations or euents; and whether the study thereof be vnlawfull.

It were too much trouble to recite euery place where hee repeateth thus much. It is in a manner all hee saith; take away this Answer, and ye take away all from him.

Now Sir, wee charge you for abusing your Reader in writing so long a Booke, and throughout the whole Booke, neuer once making offer to proue the thing in question. For you confesse the question betweene you and vs, is, whether the Starres be second causes of natu∣rall mutations (which I admit to be part of the questi∣on, but not all.) But by your owne grant if this bee the question, then a man of your learning & vnderstanding should haue spoken somewhat for the proofe of the question. Could you finde in your heart to write so large a Booke, and yet not once proue the question, vp∣on proofe whereof all your Booke must rest? And thought you (Sir) that men of iudgement would take these things at your hands? It is an easie matter, I per∣ceiue to write Bookes, if this liberty were granted:

were it not better with modesty to hold your peace, then to be called to such a reckoning? I say your Booke is idle and to no purpose, as long as that is not pro∣ued, which your selfe maketh the question be∣tweene vs.

But least this might seeme to be rather an imperfecti∣on in the man, then in the cause it selfe: (For my mea∣ning is not to take any aduantage of selected ouersights or slippes, as he seemeth to feare.) Let vs consider this thing a little farther. Then let this be the first question, which you confesse is the question betweene vs, whe∣ther the Starres (as they are the subiect of Astrology) be naturall causes remote or subordinate of such euents: Or (which is all one, and deliuered likewise by him∣selfe) whether the Astrologers in their Predictions con∣taine themselues within the bounds of naturall Philo∣sophy. You hold the affirmatiue, through al your Book, though neuer prouing it: whensoeuer you finde your selfe thrust to the wall, and held hard, then you runne continually to this help, as the halting man to the horse, and without this poore shift so often repeated, you are not able to goe one foote forward. First then, let vs rea∣son this point, wee deny that the Starres are naturall causes of those euents which the Astrologers presume to foretell by them, or that heerein the Astrologer con∣taines himselfe within the bounds of naturall Philoso∣phy. That the truth may the better appeare in this point; first wee moue this question, To what part of learning Astrologie belongeth? Wee looke for your Answere: you tell vs it is a part of the Mathematickes: And that Astrologie, which you say is the same with Astronomy, hath two parts, the one speculatiue, the

other practicall, which you call Iudiciary Astrologie, pag. 2. I omit the escapes of this vnwarranted diuision: We examine now to what part of Learning this Iudici∣ary Astrology is referred? You tell vs sometimes, it is a part of the Mathematickes; sometimes you say it is a part of Naturall Philosophy. These things are so diuers, that you cannot bring them to any accord: For the Mathematickes are distinguished from Naturall Philo∣sophy so farre, as when you set Astrologie sometime in the one learning, sometimes in the other, we are per∣swaded that you doe heerein as men shifting, and not vsing plaine dealing, & not being able soundly to speake to the point, you confound your selfe by confounding things which are in themselues distinguished. This con∣fusion in speech, is a signe of feare & confusion in your cause. For if Indiciary Astrology bee a part of the Ma∣thematickes, as you would haue it, then the subiect thereof is certaine, true, no way subiect to error, as is the subiect of the Mathematickes. But because you dare not say that it handleth such a subiect, therefore you reserue this hole to hide your selfe in, that it han∣dleth naturall causes and euents. But no part of the Mathematickes handleth naturall causes and euents, which are neuer separated from the matter, wherein there is mutability; but the Mathematicall considerati∣ons, are abstract from the mutability of naturall matter: And the Mathematician frameth thence such conceits, as whether we regard the manner of knowledge, or the subiect, are no way subiect to error or mutability: and in this respect deserue onely the name of Sciences, because no humane knowledge, can bee so certaine as this knowledge is. If therefore this bee a part of the

Mathematickes, it is not contained within the bounds of Naturall Philosophy; if it bee within those bounds, it is no part of the Mathematickes. If this were a true Art, or if the Professors thereof were plaine dealers, they would not thus collude betweene these starting∣holes of Mathematickes & naturall Philosophy. Now Sir, we whom you account vnlearned opinion-Masters, grauelled with the difficulties of the mysteries of this deepe Art, maintaining a senslesse scruple, and as you say, monsters of opinions, in denying Astrologie, intreat your Worship with your great learning to edisie vs in this point heere in the entrance, and to certifie vs to what part of learning you will referre Iudiciary Astro∣logie? You tell vs a tale, that Aristotle calleth it Scienti∣am mediam, betweene the Mathematickes and Naturall Philosophy. To proue this, you cite Aristotle, Li. 2. Cap. 2. Physic. and your reason is, because the Principles thereof are purely and meerely Mathematicall, which in the practise are applyed to sensible matter, as the Physi∣call subiect thereof. Sir, you dreamed so; for this is no better then a dreame, to tell vs of an Art that hath Principles purely Mathematicall, & a subiect Physicall. As for Aristotle, it seemeth you cared not whether hee said so or no, it was enough to bring his name: For Aristotle doth not say, it is Scientia media, betweene those two, as you father vpon him: but disputing quo Mathematicus à naturali Philosopho differat, doth consi∣der that which wee now call Astronomy, as a part of Mathematickes, and not of Naturall Philosophy; nei∣ther doth he leaue it hanging in the middest betweene them, but giueth it directly to the Mathematickes. If the Knight here shall catch at a word to helpe himselfe,

it is but a poore helpe: For the Learned know well, that the vse of words receiue great change in diuers Ages. In some Age Astrologia and Astronomia were the same, especially in those old times, when no man did euer dreame, that they who then were called Chal∣dei, should at any time bee called Astrologi, or that Art Astrologia. For they were called Astrologers long after Aristotle his time, who are now called Astronomers. Now Aristotle, who litle wist (God wot) how the vse of names should runne after his time, vseth the word Astrologia as then it was vsed, for that which wee now for distinctions sake call Astronomy, for saith he, Astro∣logia est in ijs rebus de quibus Mathematicus considerat: which words, if they had beene written in those times, when the Chaldei were called Astrologi and Mathemati∣ci, they might haue serued the Knights purpose; but be∣ing written in Aristotle his time, to turne them to this purpose, is either palpable ignorance, or wilful collusion, wittingly wrangling to no purpose. For, who is so igno∣rant, that knoweth not that Mathematicus in Aristotle his time did not signifie a Chaldean (as afterward it did) but onely a Professor of those Arts which then were called Mathematicae, whereof that which now is called Astrologie, was not thought to be any. Then where hee saith, that Aristotle maketh it Scientiam mediam, between the Mathematickes and Naturall Philosophy, hee is found many wayes faulty. For Astrologia in Aristotle his opinion, and the Knights meaning is not the same thing. Further, Astrologia in Aristotle his meaning is not Scientia media, but a part of the Mathematickes: and Aristotle doth not once say that the naturall Philosopher medleth with it: For he vnderstood then by that word

that which wee call Astronomy. Much lesse doth Ari∣stotle admit the Knights reason, that it should therefore be Scientia media, because the Principles thereof are purely Mathematicall, which in the practise are applyed to sensible matter, as the Physicall subiect thereof: which words without vnderstanding the Knight often repea∣teth: Those bee the Knights dreames, not Aristotle his reasons. Then still wee vrge for an Answer, to what part of learning you will referre your Astrologie? You thinke perhaps you haue said enough, if you referre it in some respect to the Mathematickes, and in some re∣spect to Naturall Philosophy: but we will not leaue you so. Wee say, in no respect it can be referred to either of them. Not to the Mathematickes, because it conside∣reth not things certaine and infallible, which the Ma∣thematickes doe. It will not helpe you to say it conside∣reth the Starres, and the Starres in some respect are the subiect of the Mathematickes. For it were a foolish and vnlearned speech to say, because the naturall Phi∣losopher considereth a Body, as in a place, and the Mathematickes consider a body as with his dimensions, that therefore naturall Philosophie should bee refer∣red to the Mathematicks: so vnlearned and vnrea∣sonable is the assertion that saith, because the Astro∣loger considereth the Starres as causes of inferiour euents, and the Mathematickes consider the starres, so farre as toucheth their bodies or motion; that therefore Astrologie should be a part of Mathematickes. Now if wee driue this your pretended Art from these two parts of Learning, it will neuer finde any resting place in any other part of good learning. And therefore, whereso∣euer it is found, it will bee taken for a Rogue that hath

no certaine abiding place, as it hath beene taken for the same, by the learned in former times, and for the same whipped by them.

First then, Astrology is no part of the Mathematicks, because it proceedeth not by demonstration from certaine and knowne Principles, And euen they who would haue it a part of Naturall Philosophy ac∣knowledge so much.

Now let vs examine whether it be contained with∣in the bounds of Naturall Philosophy. If they tell vs that the Starres are causes remote and Subordinate of inferiour effects, they come not to the point: For that is not heere in question, whether the Starres bee causes of some effects in these inferiour Bodies? For that influence which is apparant in the Moone and Sunne may bee gathered in other Planets. This is granted concerning such Bodies as are subiect to their Vertue.

But here to cut off their long & idle discourses, & to bring our disputation to a short issue, the question is, Whether the Stars are naturall causes of those euents which the Astrologers presume to foretell? For these men meddle onely with mens actions. If Astrologie stayed it selfe in this, to foretell the naturall Humours or their effects, which shall be in such Plants and Bo∣dies as are somewhat gouerned by Planets; it might seeme to haue some likelihood. But with this they meddle little or nothing; their curiosity is about mens Fortunes.

Now the Principles by which the Astrologer com∣meth to his conclusion, are no naturall Principles, but Sorcery. For curious men wandring after the know∣ledge

of hid and vnknowne things, seeke the cloake and pretence of an Art, and haue called it Astrologie; which they seeke to bring within the bounds of Na∣turall Philosophy: when as their Principles haue no Affinity with naturall causes; but with those illusions which Sathan inuenteth to deceiue and draw away simple and vnstable Soules into an admiration of cu∣rious and impious sleights and vanities. Let Philoso∣phers iudge of these Principles. That a Sextile and Trine Aspect are fortunate, but a Quadrate vnfortunate. That the first House signifieth the life and body of him that is borne; the second, his riches; the third, Brethren; the fourth, Parents; the fist, Children; the sixt, sicknesse; the seauenth, Marriage; the eighth, Death; the ninth, Re∣ligion and God; the tenth, Rule and Dignities; the ele∣uenth, the good Spirit; the twelfth, the euill Spirit. That in each of these, the three Lords of the Triplicities haue their seuerall Vertues and significations. As in the first House, the first Lord of the Triplicity, must shew the Life and nature of him that is borne: The second Lord of the Triplicity, the force and strength of his Body: The third, his oldage; and with such conceits you must-runne through the rest. That in whose House Mercury is found to occupy the dignities of Mars, Aries then ascen∣ding, it will dispose him to Contention. Are these and such like naturall Principles? Or, are they meanes subordinate betweene a naturall cause and a naturall effect?

The way to bring any thing to the knowledge of a man, is either by probable Sillogisme, or by demon∣station, or by faith. Now these things stand not by demonstration; themselues doe not challenge that:

neither can they stand by Logicall deduction. For, what absurdity or improbability would follow if a man deny any of these things? Nay, what absurdity were it withoutreason to yeeld to any? It remaineth then, if any man know these things, hee must know them by faith; but not by that faith which God taught his Church: therefore by that faith which the Diuell teacheth.