To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THat the stars are signs of future events, I con∣ceive not onely contradictory to solid Phi∣losophy, but also opposite and repugnant to ho∣ly Scripture; and although the reasons which I have alledged in the premises be sufficient to convince this infirm doctrine; yet in this place I
will produce other forcible arguments to corro∣borate what formerly I have maintained: First therefore whatsoever is a natural sign of another thing, that upon necessity must be either its cause or effect, or both, and proceed from the superior and common cause; for besides these, what fourth member can be imagined, to have the sign upon necessity joyned with the cause by it signi∣fied; this is no way distinct from the third Mem∣ber, for such a connexion and conjunction can no other wayes have a being, then that the cause should produce that out of it self, which is the Sign; and then that which is the thing signified, as the same thing which moves the cause to acti∣on and excites it, must also applicate and apply that which is presignified; but each of these must necessarily be referred to the common cause, from whence this argument may be framed: If the Heavens and Stars be signs of all sublunary things, they are either their causes (which this opinion allows not) or the effects, which no man in his wits will grant, or presume to affirm; or else (which is all that can be said) as well celesti∣al as sublunary things proceed from the common cause; as the Rain-bow is sign of fair weather, not that it is the cause or effect thereof, but one and the same is the common cause of both; up∣on necessity the common cause of celestiall and sublunary bodies must either be corporeal or in∣corporeal:
I do not think they will say it is cor∣poreal, for above the Heavens there is no body at all; therefore they must grant, that all things must be referred to an incorporeal cause; that is, ei∣ther to God himself or Angels, who moves the Heavens: so that whilst Angels move the Hea∣vens, in the very state, habit, position, and con∣formation of those Heavens, as it were by cer∣tain nods and becks of theirs like notes and signs described therein, they should point out and predict the events and contingents of humane affairs; but this in many respects is not credible, for whosoever grounds upon this foundation, must needs grant and say, that Angels induce mortals unto all, and whatsoever, even the great∣est and most horrid fins and villanies.
In this point Philosophy doth inform us, and also Theology doth the like, that there is no acti∣on of Angels, (as they call it) transeant, which immediately proceeds from them, other then lo∣cal motion; and that the Angels who do circum∣volve and wheel about the Celestial Orbes, these I say, those great masters averre to have no other operation concerning humane affairs, then what proceeds from motion and the light of the Hea∣vens: For those I know not what insluences di∣stinct from light, I have formerly sufficiently made null; and there is no man so brain-sick, who will affirm, if he will speak things probable
and likely, that motion and the light of heaven can infallibly, clearly, and distinctly premon∣strate all future effects of sublunary things; and again, when two effects of the same cause neces∣sarily shew one the other, as they must proceed from the same cause, so must they also proceed after one and the same manner, otherwise it can∣not be that they should indicate one another: Such things as are brough•• to pass by God and his Angels in Celestial bodies must have their be∣ings necessarily and invariably; whereas those which are beneath the Moon, have their contin∣gency very mutably, and I may say defectively.
In like manner other arguments may be fra∣med; if the stars who are confined to a set and certain number, and of a like condition, can be signs of future things, which are almost infinite both in number and variety, and in themselves discrepant and differing: How can the same posi∣ture and conformity of stars, under which Twins and many others are born in in the same moment of time, be a certain sign properly and distinctly to presignifie so many several and distinct dis∣positions, casualties, and events, as we daily dis∣cover in them? therefore if we grant the stars to be signs of future things, we must also affirm them to be their causes; and if we deny them to be Causes, we must also deny them to be Signs.