Name: Lux Veritatis, or Christian Judicial Astrology Vindicated
Author: William Ramesey

Lux veritatis or, Christian judicial astrology vindicated, and demonology confuted: in answer to Nath. Homes, D.D. Wherein his allegations of the learned, reasons, divine proofs, and arguments, are particularly examined and convinced. With the legality of the art maintained and warranted by Scripture. Whereunto is annexed, a short discourse of that great eclipse of the sun, March 29. 1652. By William Ramesey.... London, Printed by J.B. for Nath. Brooke at the Angel in Cornhill, 1651.

LƲX VERITATIS. OR, CHRISTIAN JUDICIAL Aſtrology VINDICATED, AND Demonology Confuted: In Anſwer to NATH. HOMES, D.D. Wherein his allegations of the Learned, Reaſons, Divine proofs, and Arguments, are particularly examined and convinced.

With the legality of the Art maintained and warranted by Scripture.

Whereunto is annexed, a ſhort Diſcourſe of that Great Eclipſe of the SUN, March 29. 1652.

By WILLIAM RAMESEY Gent. Student in Aſtrologie and Phyſick.

London, Printed by J. B. for Nath. Brooke at the Angel in Cornhill. 1651.

To all wel-willers and lovers of ART.

Gentlemen,

IT is true, I may looke for (when I ſeriouſly conſider my own inſufficiency and lack of good utterance and a pleaſing oratorious phraſe) many cenſures, and be perplexed with doubts, whether I have or no choſen the better part; ſince moſt, or the generality of men are carried away ſooner with a pleaſing and deluding tongue, then truth, delivered in an homely or mean ſtile: eſpecially ſince this moſt noble ſtudy that I undertake here to defend is ſo vulgarly traduced, and commonly both ill ſpoken of: which indeed at the firſt, was ſome diſheartning to my undertakings; yet becauſe my Antagoniſts Coat is ſuch, as that a word againſt Aſtrologie ſheltred under it, will by the vulgar be more heeded, then an Oration from another; and this noble Art in danger hereby to ſuffer (moſt falſely) an ill eſteeme in their opinions; for the well wiſhes I owe both to it, the truth, and all ye the ſtudents therein, and lovers of learning whatſoever. I thought good rather to incur the harſh cenſure of ſome, then by my ſilence to give occaſion to the ignorant, and enemies thereof to vaunt themſelves againſt it: and truely notwithſtanding all this, I had not thus taken him up; ſince neither he nor any one elſe can ſay ought againſt this ſcience but what hath been formerly moſt fully anſwered:^[1] but for the Readers ſatisfaction, who perhaps would have concluded (had no body undertaken to anſwer him) he had been paſt anſwering. I very much fear there are many moſt groſſe faults and miſtakes in this Treatiſe, it being pen'd at that inſtant of time, I was more perplexed and troubled then in all my life before; my occaſions being ſuch, that I had no time to ſtudy a better method, or correct what hath eſcaped; it being the fruits of what my weake Genius did produce in every houſe and place I came in (in purſuance of my then occaſions) where I could happily meet with the leaſt occaſion. Yet my hope is, that in what I have been defective (as I doubt not but your piercing judgements will ſoon diſcover) you will both ſupport, ſupply and amend, hoping alſo ye will accept of the will for the deed: to whom I here Dedicate both my ſelf and weak labours to ſerve you to my weak power.

W. RAMESEY.

Die ☿ 4. Decembris, 1650.

To the unpartiall READER.

Courteous Reader,

AS there is nothing more ridiculous amongst the learned, then to conclude, before a through underſtanding be, in the matter in queſtion and controverſie; ſo is there nothing more worthy or commendable in a man, then to be patient, and hear all, nay and indeed both tales, before judgement be given; for the old ſaying is, one tale is good till the other be heard; and if this diſcourſe be a thing beyond thy knowledge, I ſhould deſire thee firſt Legere, perlegere, & tunc judicare,: Read, and read it over and over, before thou judge.

This very ſame Art of Chriſtian Judiciall Aſtrologie which I here defend, being by the vulgar in general (ſome few years ſince) and alſo by ſome otherwiſe knowing and diſcreet, condemned as Illegal, Diabolical, and indeed to be little better then Witchcraft; I alſo as ignorant therein at that time as themſelves, concluded ſo too; yet upon an cccaſion one day, I deſired a Gentleman that was extream hot (in words onely) againſt it, to do me the favour as to acquaint me with his knowledge of the unlawfulneſs thereof; that ſo I might have ſome ground for my then ill conceit thereof, as alſo to be better able to uphold my opinion; but to be ſhort, I could get nothing of conſequence out of him, that could any wiſe prejudice the validity of the Art; but onely he believed ſo; and how could any man tell him any thing that he knew not himſelf, without dealing with the Devil, or being a Witch? which (me thoughts) was ſo ill becoming a man of judgement and underſtanding, to have no better reaſons nor grounds for his high words, that I was even aſhamed I was of his opinion, and therefore thought it much more commendable to be ſilent thereafter in ſuch matters, which I underſtood not; then to condemn an Art onely with words and no ſound argument.

Whereupon being very much deſirous to be ſatisfied in the verity and legality of this moſt famous Art of ASTROLOGIE, ^[2] which ſo many diſcreet Gentlemen would ſometime ignorantly condemn, I applied my ſelf to the ſtudy thereof, which after ſome expence of time and paines, I found to be ſo apparently true and lawful, that theſe flaſhes of my friends againſt it, was quickly manifeſt to me, proceeded meerly from ignorance and tradition.

Wherefore, Reader, that thou maiſt not in the leaſt be miſtaken herein, as the antagoniſts and enemies thereof are to condemn the Arts legality for the abuſe of the Artiſt, who will, out of vaine-glory and pride, often undertake to predict impoſſible things, I mean which this Art cannot reach unto; and ſo for their ſimplicity & abuſe thereof, give occaſion to condemn that which of all ſtudies is the moſt delectable, comfortable, true and lawfull; not knowing indeed what it is, they would condemn, and ſo deceive both themſelves and reader.

But that thou maiſt not herein be deceived; I ſay, I will here declare unto thee, the whole power and ſubject of Aſtrologie; ^[3] and that firſt Negatively, and next Affirmatively.

Negatively, Firſt that the Rules of Aſtrologie doth not meddle with vaine contingents, or ſuch as have an indifferent reſpect to the oppoſites as depending upon unknown, or indeterminate cauſes, which may happen one way or other.

Secondly, mans will is not ſubject to the influence of the Stars, neither hath Aſtrologie to do with it, but accidentally, ſo far as the ſoul with the faculties thereof, follow the temperature of the body: neither doth Aſtrologie meddle with the providence of God;^[4] or ſhew a cauſe of miracles, nor with the ſecrets of God; for they are paſt finding out, ſaith the Scripture, Ergo, Aſtrologers that are but men that contemplate natural cauſes are falſly and moſt ſcandalouſly abuſed, when thus impeached.

And thirdly, Aſtrologie, or the influence of the Stars, have no fatall neceſſity, except ſome contingency be mixt therewith; for this were to deny the providence of God.

But contrariwiſe, Aſtrologie dealeth with ſuch things as are performed by Art and nature, with the will of man indirectly and accidentally; and his inclinations, temperature and diſpoſitions, as alſo with his affections and body, and with natural ſecondary cauſes, and general accidents and contingencies; but if men will, contrary to the rules of Art, undertake to go beyond it, and abuſe both the Art and themſelves, ſhall any one therefore conclude poſitively it is unlawful, not efficacious or conſiſtent with either reaſon or truth? Sure thus to affirm, is as ſimple in any man, as for me to ſay Religion is Diabolical, falſe, frivolous, inconſiſtent with reaſon and truth, becauſe there are hereſies crept therein, Schiſmes, and Sects.

Wherefore I ſhall deſire all to whom this my weake and ſmall Treatiſe ſhall come, that they would not ſo inconſiderately and raſhly condemn what they underſtand not; but firſt, throughly weigh every particular argument and reaſon therein, before a cenſure proceed from their lips; yet I muſt be plain with thee, I neither fear nor care for thy raſh concluſions; for ſince I know it will be acceptable to all impartial and judicious ſouls, I ſhall reſt content, ſince no man living can pleaſe all people. I ſhall be very glad if I have any whit been ſervicable to the Students herein, to whom I wiſh all proſperity, and could wiſh that all ingenious ſouls would apply themſelves, to the ſtudy thereof; which they may lawfully and ſafely do, for any hurt the antagoniſts thereof hath done it, for I do with all my heart love all thoſe that apply themſelves to knowledge, and my miſfortune is ſo much the more increaſed that I am acquainted with ſo few of the ſtudents of this noble Art of Aſtrologie; to whom as alſo to thy ſelf, I wiſh all happineſſe, and remaine,

Thy loving friend, W. RAMESEY.

Die ☿ 4. Decembris, 1650.

The Contents of every Chapter and Section contained in this Treatiſe.

IN Anſwer to his Diſtinctions, Deſcriptions, Obſervations and nature of Aſtrologie, wherein he is taught what Aſtrologie is, and his Diſtinctions and deſcriptions proved meerly erroneous, and convinced as malicious, ignorant, and inconſiſtent with reaſon or honeſty: or to ſay, ſus ſacerdos. Page 1.
- Wherein is demonſtrated and taught the definition of Aſtrologie. p. 1.
- In anſwer to ſome cavils of Mr. Homes's, wherein he denyeth Aſtrologie to be warranted by Scripture, proved erronious and falſe. p. 4.
- Proving Aſtrologie to be an Art. p. 13.
- Proving the lawfulneſſe of Aſtrologie, being not impugned by Scripture, nor Councels; but allowed of by the wiſeſt and greateſt of men. p. 15.
- Demonſtrating the antiquity of Aſtrologie p. 27.
- Shewing Aſtrology to be the profitableſt ſtudy revealed under the Sun to Mortals. p. 29.
IN Anſwer to the opinions of the learned touching Aſtrologie, wherein is further ſhewn the legality of Aſtrologie, that the Stars are both ſignes and cauſes; and that Mr. Homes his quoting the Fathers and learned, is meerly fallacious and envious, and no wiſe available to his intent and purpoſe. p. 37.
- Wherein is farther ſhewn, the legality of Aſtrologie, p. 38.
- Wherein is ſhewn that the Stars are ſignes and cauſes. p. 39.
- Wherein his Allegation againſt the ground of the Art is condemned, and his bringing St. Auſtin and Galen againſt it, proved fallacious, injurious and malicious; and how farre we ought to attribute to the power of the Stars. p. 46.
- Wherein Aſtrologie is defended againſt his Allegations, from Mr. Perkins's words. p. 54
- Wherein his cavilling Mr. Briggs, and others, are convinced. page 56.
WHerein his divine proofs againſt Aſtrologie, are examined and confuted. p. 59.
- Wherein his firſt Scripture proof, viz. Deut. 18. verſe 10. is convinced and cleared no wiſe condemn Aſtrologie. p. 60.
- Wherein his ſecond proof is refelled, viz. Eſay 2.6. p. 69.
- Wherein his third Text is convinced, viz. Eſay 44.25. p. 72.
- Wherein his fourth proof is refelled, viz. Eſay 47.12, 13, 14. p. 77.
- Wherein his fifth proof is proved weak, as to his purpoſe, viz. Ier. 10.2.3. p. 85.
- Wherein his ſixth poof is refelled, viz. Dan. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. p. 91.
WHerein his reaſons and arguments againſt Aſtrologie, are particularly examined and condemned, neither to conſiſt with reaſon or truth. p. 95.
- Wherein his firſt four-fold reaſon is convinced. ibid.
- Wherein his objection touching the diverſity of twins, is refelled, as alſo ſome other quirks againſt Aſtrologie examined and convinced. p. 101.
- Wherein his indeavours to prove Aſtrologie of no truth or certainty, as alſo it's rules and principles, are themſelves of leſſe truth or ground; nay, and indeed ſenſleſs. p. 113
- Wherein he thinketh the ground of the Art wholly ſhaken and overthrown, by affirming it meerly imaginary, viz. the ninth and tenth ſphear, and in them the Zodiack; therein proveth and ſheweth his own ignorance the more apparently manifeſt. p. 129.
Wherein the confutation of the objections that are brought for Aſtrologie are examined, and refelled. p. 130.

LƲX VERITATIS. OR, Chriſtian judicial Aſtrology VINDICATED, In Anſwer to Doctor Nathaniel Homes.

CHAP. I. In anſwer to his Diſtinctions, Deſcriptions, Obſervations, and nature of Aſtrologie. Wherein he is taught what Aſtrologie is, and his Deſcriptions and Diſtinctions proved meerely erroneous; and convinced as malicious, ignorant, and inconſiſtent with reaſon or honeſty; Or to ſay, Sus ſacerdos.

Section. I. The Definition of Aſtrologie.

THat the Reader may the better judge of the controverſie between Doctor Homes and my ſelf, I think beſt here before I enter upon any part of his diſcourſe, to ſet down what this Art of Judicial Aſtrologie is, which I undertake to defend. Ptolomie Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Of his Quadripartite, defines it thus, Aſtrologie is that Art (joyning it with Aſtronomy, as making no difference betweene them, though Mr. Homes and other Adverſaries thereunto do) which teacheth by the motions, Configurations and Influences of the Signes, Starres and Coeleſtial Planets, to judge and prognoſticate of the natural effects and mutations to come, in the Elements and inferiour and Elementary bodies. And who ſo takes Aſtrologie to be any other thing, is altogether ignorant of the Art, or guilty of inveterate malice in traducing ſo noble and admirable a ſcience, eſteemed and allowed of in all ages, and that in great reverence and honour, as well as the ſtudents thereof (as in it's due place ſhall be made to appeare) by the chiefeſt and nobleſt of the people. Though Doctor Homes would faine perſwade the vulgar and ignorant ſort of people that it is a Doctrin of Devils, & unlawfull, which ſhall in it's due place be made to appeare (as alſo the reſt of his weake arguments and cavils,) that they are meerely malicious, ignorant, weake, and inconſiſtent with reaſon or the thing in queſtion; which that he may not be ignorant of, as alſo for the better underſtanding of the Reader, I doe here more plainly rehearſe by way of Quere, viz.

Firſt, whether Astrologie or fore-telling, or Prognoſticating by the Starres, be a lawfull Art, free from all Diabolical practiſes and devices.

Secondly, Whether Aſtrologie may not lawfully be ſtudied and practiſed, by the beſt of Gods people, without offence in the leaſt, either to the law of God, or man (if they concur with the rules of the Scripture) which is the full matter in controverſie, and to be in this following diſcourſe diſcuſſed, handled and cleered; and if ſo, then certainly the malicious ignorant condemners of this Noble and moſt profitable Art ſtudied by mortals, (as in it's due place ſhall appeare) ought to be ſeverely puniſhed, and that with examplary infliction, that poſterity may take warning how they condemne what they are ignorant of; and likewiſe be incouraged to apply their minds to the contemplation and knowledge of all Arts and Sciences, eſpecially this moſt heavenly and divine ſtudy of Aſtrologie, or the language of the Stars.

Now you have heard the diſtinction of Astrologie the ſubject intended, by it you may not onely ſee the cauſes which concur to the conſtitution of the nature of the Art, but alſo the finall cauſe, whereunto all the precepts of the Art are to be referred; ſeeing then the knowledge of the effects of the Starres in the Elements and their bodies, dependeth of the motions, Configurations, and Influences of the Coeleſtial bodies,^[5] Aſtronomy or Aſtrologie (for by the learned, there is made no diſtinction between them as ſeverall Arts, but generally conclude them (as indeed they are) one and the ſame Art) is divided into two parts, the firſt ſpeculative or theorical, which conſiſteth in the knowledge of the heavenly motions; the other part is that which conſiſteth in the effects and properties of the former motions, and without this (viz Aſtrologie) the other is meerly vaine and of no uſe, or to none or little purpoſe; the former viz. Aſtronomy furniſheth the Aſtrologer with matter and ſtuff wherein to exerciſe himſelfe; the other viz. Aſtrologie diſpoſeth the matter, and accordingly judgeth as the caſe doth require, and therefore to be eſteemed the more noble part of this Science.

SECT. II. In anſwer to ſome cavels of Mr. Homes his, wherein be denyeth Aſtrologie to be warranted by Scripture, proved erroneous and falſe.

HAving thus painted forth the matter and forme of the thing intended to be inſiſted on, I come now to ſhew you what Mr. Homes his utmoſt power and malice againſt it is: and firſt his blind zeal begins to ſhew it ſelf, in perſwading the Reader it is condemned by the Scripture, and no wiſe thereby tollerated; his words are, It is no where allowed in the Scripture, under the notion of Aſtrologie, but every where ſpoken againſt as we ſhall ſee afterward: and all that he can ſhew us and make us ſee, is but ſix places of Scripture, which is farre from being worthy of the Title of a generall condemnation, when there is none but knowes the extent of the Scripture to conſiſt of many halfe dozen Chapters, nay of books, Ergo not envy where condemned, and thoſe places neither, but imagined by him to condemne Aſtrologie, when indeed they ſerve no whit at all for his purpoſe, as in it's due place ſhall be made appeare. But he thinks theſe words to be of force enough, to aſtoniſh and diſcomfort the ignorant, from the ſtudy thereof; and therefore as a warning peece, or that his other windy reports may better take, and be more heeded and beleeved, he prefixeth this ſlanderous and moſt falſe and wicked ſaying; and truly for his pollicy he is worthy applauſe, for miſtruſting his words ſhould be little regarded, he colours them with a preface (as it were) of Religion;^[6] yet this will not keepe him from being ridiculous to the wiſer and more learned ſort of people. But by the way, is it every where condemned? doth not the King and Prophet David ſay, The heavens declare the glory of God, Pſal. 19.1. and in another place, The language of the Stars, (which is the ſignification of the word Aſtrologie [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the language of the Stars; and is it not allowed any where in Scripture under the notion of Aſtrologie?) Is heard over all the earth, or the utmoſt parts thereof, Pſal. 19.3. as if he had ſayd, there is no part free from the power of their Influences; for their power hath a general extent over all Nations, Kingdomes, Countries, Provinces, and Languages. I pray, who can reſtraine the ſweet influences of the Pleiades? Job 38.31. And did not the Starres in their courſes fight againſt Siſera? Judg. 5.20. One of theſe places had been enough to have convinced him of great wickedneſſe, in denying the Scripture doth any where allow of Aſtrologie; for if he never read theſe places, then he is wicked, and no leſſe then wilfully wicked, to conclude what he underſtands not; if he hath peruſed them, then moſt malicious to ſpeak againſt truth; I may even as well ſay diabolically wicked,^[7] and that he teacheth rather the Doctrin of Devils, for the Devils Doctrin is falſehood; and if he preacheth ſuch groſs lyes as theſe, he is the Devils preacher, and not Aſtrologers, neither is Aſtrologie a Doctrin of Devils (as ſhall be made clear to him before the cloſure of my diſcourſe) as he in his 160 page, line 21. is pleaſed to terme it. So then, now I hope the Reader doth clearly ſee, theſe his firſt words of his diſcourſe, to be meerly envyous, ſlanderous, and malicious, (or at the beſt) moſt ignorant; for it will puzzle all his braines; and Mr. Raunces, nay and all that dare or will take their parts, to make any one of thoſe paſſages of Scripture (he brings to confute or condemne Aſtrologie) to ſerve in the leaſt for his turn, as in it's due place ſhall be cleared.

Then ſaith Mr. Homes, as other things that are naturall, which are brought to countenance Aſtrologie, are not tollerated by the Encyclopedia, and general order and ſeales of all Arts and Sciences, within their own ſpheres, to be accounted Aſtrologie. For inſtance, Firſt, (ſaith he) Some urge that we know the tydes of the Sea, by the ſtate of ☽ and tempeſts by other Stars, which I am confident Mr. Homes cannot denye, but he will render himſelfe more ridiculous then already, which he indeavours to do thus; theſe and of the like nature, are properly handled in that part of natural Philoſophie, which we call Meteorologie; and ſo likewiſe are all fiery Meteors, Comets, &c. and ſo by conſequence are made an integral part of Phyſicks, for if you will ſay, becauſe of their external efficient cauſe, viz. the Starres; they are to be handled as a part of Aſtrologie, by the ſame reaſon there will be left no ſuch Science as natural Philoſophie, becauſe all inferiour bodies below the Moon (as ſayeth the great Philoſopher Ariſtotle) depend upon the ſuperiour Celestial bodies of the heavens. In all which he doth but ſhew his great miſtake in the ground of Aſtrologie, and his envy thereto; for how can Mr. Homes prove this is a meer urging, or an opinion of ſome, that the ☽ is the cauſe of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea; or that it is rather to be attributed to that part of natural Philoſophie, which is called Meteorologie, and ſo conſequently to be a part of Phyſicks, when all the world knows that hath any experience or underſtanding in Aſtrology, that he is as far from hitting the mark, as if he had miſt the Butt.

Wherefore for his better inſtruction, (for I ſee he is not ſo well verſt in Aſtrology as he pretendeth, or as one that is to condemne it ſhould be) I will make it appear to him, that the ☽ is the abſolute cauſe of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea; and this is the opinion of all or moſt knowing and learned writers, both in this Art and other Sciences; and not onely ſo, but it is ſo clear to all the learned, that his great friend Picus Mirandula, which was a ſtronger Champion (or at leaſt more knowing in the Art then he) againſt Aſtrologie, doth confeſs the ☽ to be the poſitive and ſole cauſe thereof.

And thus,^[8] if he have any underſtanding in the Art (as by his writing, I muſt confeſſe (as I but now ſayed) I ſee none) let him take the true time of the Seas flowing firſt, and then obſerve in what part of heaven the ☽ is accidentally, placed by her violent diurne motion, and he ſhall find it to flow till ſhe come to an abſolute □ aſpect of the place ſhe was in at it's firſt beginning to flow; and then will continue ebbing till ſhe come to the direct ☍ or oppoſite place in the heavens, &c. Still let him obſerve exactly when ſhe comes to the □ or ☍ of the place of her firſt beginning, and he ſhall never erre in this point; this is ſufficiently well known to the learned Practitioners, and the ſonnes of Art; yet note that ☉ and other Starres may haſten, hinder and alter the ☽ influence, as he may ſee at ☌ and ☍ of ☉ or the change and full, in ſpring tides, and neap tides, at quarters and half quarters. I would he had not been ignorant of this, and then perhaps, (this being the beginning of his diſcourſe) he had not undertook to lay pen to Paper againſt this moſt heavenly, moſt admirable, and moſt contemplative, delectable ſtudy and ſcience of the Stars and Coeleſtial bodies. So by this time he clearly ſees how inconſiderate and raſh this his ſophiſtical and falſe argument is.

Secondly, ſaith Mr. Homes, others ſay that by Aſtrologie we know Eclipſes and Changes of the Moon; but we ſay Aſtronomy doth challenge this as belonging to it, &c. My anſwer is, that I ſay, (what ever he telleth me others may or do ſay) he cannot but know that thoſe that ſay ſo are not verſed therein, and are as ignorant to apply or attribute this part of the practick, viz. Aſtrologie to the Theoricall part, viz. Aſtronomy; as he is to make a diſtinction between the one and the other, as two diſtinct Arts, when Ptolomie whom the moſt learned follow, in his book, chap. 1. of his Quadripartite (as above ſaid) defining Aſtrologie, maketh no diſtinction between the one and the other, but that the one is Theoricall, the other Practicall. And thirdly,^[9] ſaith he, If any one urge that Aſtrologie bandles of the qualities and effects of the ſtars, we Reply, that ſo doth Aſtronomie, of their qualities namely, of their light and colour, and naturall Philoſophie of their effects, in watry, ayrie, and fiery meteors: as much as to ſay, Aſtrologie is no Science at all, but will give its property to another ſtudy; if this be not ſlanderous and malicious, let the weakeſt in the world judge: he might as well then all this while have called it, Natural Philoſophy, as Aſtrologie; and then he tels us, if we admit of the Title Alſted gives to Astrologie, viz. Aſtrologia planetaria, or Planetary Aſtrologie, and of Doctor Willets titles, viz. Astromaney & Genethliaca; then ſaith he for concluſion by all obſerve, that there is no place left for Aſtrologie; by which he clearly renders himſelf the moſt malicious of all wretches, to deny that Art which above 298.^[10] of the moſt wiſe men of all ages have ſtudied and practiſed (their names you ſhall have hereafter in its place;) both before and ſince Chriſts time, whoſe antiquity may be derived from our firſt father Adam: maintained by Princes and Kings, reverenced by that greateſt of worthies, Alexander the Great; and not condemned by any of the Fathers, or the practice thereof prohibited by the Church, farther then that they ſhould not hereby be drawn from the ſtudy of Divinity, as you ſhall ſee by and by; Mr. Homes me thinks being a wiſe man, ſhould not write againſt, (and that in ſuch a zealous manner) a thing which is not in rerum natura, or in poſſe, as in his firſt Section of his tenth Chapter, he ſtudies to make Aſtrologie appear, to what purpoſe then are all his arguments againſt Aſtrologie, when he will not admit of any ſuch thing in the world: what doth he write againſt then? and why doth he ſo much condemn the ſtudents thereof? becauſe he knows not the validity thereof; becauſe he knows not the rules and fundamentals thereof; becauſe indeed he is altogether ignorant of the ſame; and let him not be angry I plainly tell him ſo, (plain dealing is beſt among friends) for if he did, he would have been ſo far from writing or ſpeaking againſt it, that he would have been more furious and hot with any one ſhould have condemned it, then I am with him; for he that will ſpeak againſt what he knoweth not, and bring falſe, ſcandalous and ſophiſticall arguments to maintain his opinion; he I ſay, would certainly terme that man no better then a fool, or at the beſt a knave to write againſt what he knows, and can alſo prove to be true; but I will not be ſo hot with him.

But now that he may ſee his errour in offering to undertake to put men out of conceit with this heavenly ſtudy, I will ſhew him here (before I begin to anſwer his ſecond Section, in that which I have to ſay to it, though this will ſufficiently refel it.)

Firſt, that Aſtrologie is an Art.

Secondly, the lawfulneſs of it, being not impugned by Scripture nor councels, but allowed of by the wiſeſt and greateſt men.

Thirdly, the antiquity of it.

Fourthly, that it is the profitableſt ſtudy under the Sun.

SECT. III. Proving Aſtrologie to be an Art.

ARiſtotle, lib. 2. chap. 2.^[11] Phyſ. affirmeth that Aſtrologie is Scientia media, a Science between the Mathematicks and natural Philoſophy, for the principles are meerly Mathematical, and in practice are applyed to ſenſible matter as the Phyſical ſubject thereof; moreover he ranks it alſo amongſt the liberal ſciences; and annexeth it to Philoſophy in ſuch a ſort, that he ſeemeth indifferent to uſe the name of a Philoſopher and an Aſtrologer for the ſame. So likewiſe Averroes in his Commentary on the 12. of the Metaphyſicks, text 44. ſpeaking concerning the power of the heavenly bodies, in the procreation and conſervation of all worldly things, and in their mutuall conſent and and aſſiſting one another in their mutual operations, he reſembleth them to good governours in a Common-wealth, that joyntly concur in one unanimous conſent for ordering the ſame: His words are diſpoſitio in juramento corporum coeleſtium ad invicem in creando entia, quae ſunt hic, & conſervando ea, eſt ſicut diſpoſitio regentium bonorum, qui juvant ſe ad invicem in regendo bonam civitatem. And in his Commentary on the ſecond book of Phyſicks, his ſecond Chapter, ſheweth that natural Philoſophy and Aſtrologie have one and the ſame ſubject, and yet are diſtinguiſhed by a divers conſideration; and in the third of the Metaph. Comment, 7. he affirmeth the knowledge of the Stars to be a Mathematical Art; and ſo it hath ever in all ages by the moſt learned Philoſophers been eſteemed. I believe Mr. Homes nor no man elſe that knoweth any thing, will denie that it is one of the liberal ſciences, and if he wil condemn it as none, he muſt be content to loſe one of them, which were to render himſelf the eighth wiſe man; what ſcience I pray will he place in the room of it, ſince he thus indeavours to excommunicate it, for he tels us it is as meere a phanſie as Palmeſtry, and yet Galen (one of his learned, that he brings to condemn Aſtrologie with the word Sophiſticum, that it is Sophiſtical, page. 115. l. 11.) as Phyſitians themſelves report, teacheth to know the temperature of the body by the palm of the hand; and his reaſon is, becauſe the mind commonly followeth the conſtitution of the body; thus you may ſee how he carpeth and catcheth at any thing that he thinks wil make in the leaſt for his turne; as alſo of Alſted, and Doctor Willets Titles of Aſtrology, when the queſtion is, whether either of them knew the common rules of the Art. So then, this being made clear to him that it is an Art, and not onely ſo, but a Science, and hat one of the liberal Sciences; I come now to the ſecond leſſon I promiſed him. viz.

SECT. IV. Proving the lawfulneſſe of Aſtrologie, being not impugned by Scripture, nor Councels; but allowed of by the wiſeſt and greateſt men.

WHat hath already above been ſayed, is clear to any judicious impartial eye,^[12] that this Art is lawful, where I ſay, The heavens declare the glory of God, &c. But to clear it more plainly, the Pſalmiſt in his very next words ſayeth, The Firmament ſheweth the works of his hands, Pſal. 19.1. which is clear to me is meant thereby that he effecteth by them, (and no other thing) (though I muſt confeſſe there are divers interpretations thereof) my reaſon is, that otherwiſe, every thing which is created doth declare the handy work of God; I beleeve Mr. Homes wil find Aquinas and Hierome of my opinion: He hath heard alſo, that there is no ſpeech nor language, where the voice of the Stars are not heard; Pſal. 19.3. which may ſerve here again very wel for the purpoſe in hand;^[13] and to ſpeak more plainly, that God doth not prohibite mortals from the ſtudy of them; you may ſee how the Holy Ghoſt by Stephen, in the 7. of the Acts, verſe 22. ſpeaking in the commendation of Moſes, giveth him (over and above the commendation that was aforeſaid) that he was learned in all the wiſedome of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds, which is cleare to any rational man, that if it had been any wiſe ſinful, diabolical, or odious in the ſight of God, Moſes would not have applyed his ſtudy thereunto; or at leaſt, it would never have been recorded in his praiſe. I might inſtance here Daniel, Solomon, and others, but this is ſo clear, that to inſiſt longer hereon, were but vaine, ſince there is no one place in the Scripture that can be ſhown to ſpeak poſitively againſt Aſtrologie,^[14] or the ſtudy thereof, more then to remember us not to give the glory of the Creator to the Creature, &c. as in the anſwer to his divine proofes ſhall appeare. Wherefore then ſince it is warrantable and lawful out of Scripture to ſtudy this Art, nay and as we ſee by experience, warranted by God, in the ſhewing of blazing Stars to Aſtrologers only (not to the vulgar & proficient in other Arts) to forewarn his people of the danger and puniſhment to come;^[15] and if it were not ſo, he might as wel ſhew ſignes on earth to the illiterate, by common vulgar things; as in heaven to the learned Aſtrologer, who onely can judge of their effects. Wherefore then I ſay, of neceſſity the Art muſt be allowed of by Councels, being the wiſer ſort of people, eſpecially by the godlier ſort of Councels, whoſe acts and determinations wil be grounded on piety and the word of God,^[16] and if otherwiſe, I value not what their cenſure is; for they are but men, and (guided by their own reaſons and opinions,^[17]) are but fraile, ſubject to infirmitie and error, humanum eſt errare, he cannot but know alſo that even the palpableſt truths have been condemned by Councels, either for ſome ſelf intereſt, or for abuſe of the thing condemned; as for inſtance, the Bacaran Councels (as wel as the Roman Senate) hath condemned Aſtrologers, but how? not becauſe they were ſtudents in that heavenly ſcience, but for truſting in Aſtrology (and who is ſo ſuperſtitious, may not lawfully be termed an Aſtrologer, for Aſtrologers are in no ſort hereof guilty) the words of the Councel is in the Cap. 9. of Bacaran Councels, Si quis animas, & corpora humana fatalibus ſtellis credit aſtringi, ſicut pagani & priſcillianus dixerunt, anathema ſit. Who ſo truſteth in the fatal neceſſity of the Stars, as the heathens and Priſcillianiſts do or ſay, let him be accurſt; to all which, there is no Aſtrologer, but wil willingly condeſcend; for by this, is not Aſtrologie nor Aſtrologers in the leaſt condemned, but the abuſe of the Art, to give that to it, which properly belongs to God the creator of theſe heavenly bodies; the decree is againſt thoſe that truſt in them, or beleeve a fatal neceſſity, not that ſtudy the knowledge of them, and make a true uſe of them. So likewiſe the Councel or Parliament in England, made a Law againſt thoſe that multiplied Gold and Silver, why? not becauſe they condemned that heavenly revelation, or practiſe of the moſt bleſſed Stone of the Philoſophers, ^[18] but they forbad the multiplication of Gold and Silver, in that they thought it too great a treaſure for any private ſubject, and to prevent rebellion, commotions and inſurrections in the Common-Wealth, like wiſe Pilots ſitting at the ſterne, did ſtudy to prevent the ſtorme which was likely otherwiſe to ſhipwrack the ſafety thereof. So that I ſay then, there is no Councel, (if they have any ſpark of Religion, learning or policy) that will ſhew them ſelves ſo ridiculous, as to decree-any thing in the leaſt, againſt either Aſtrologers or Aſtrologie, taking it as it is in it ſelf, and not abuſed; which is not the fault in the Art, but the Artiſt in going beyond the Art; for if under the colour of Aſtrologie, I ſtudy Necromancie, is Aſtrologie therefore to be condemned as unlawful, becauſe together with it I ſtudy unlawful Arts? No, ſure ſince this is a thing ſo far different; therefore it is good to put the Saddle on the right Horſe.

And this my argument is thus confirmed, for that in former ages, both the greateſt and wiſeſt ſort of people were Practitioners and Students in Aſtrologie;^[19] as firſt we may ſee by the Egyptians, amongſt whom it was not lawful for any man to take the function of prieſt-hood on him, except he were an Aſtrologer; nor could any be choſen King, except he were of the Colledg, of Prieſts. And Rodiginus reporteth that for the prevention of Treaſon, there was none borne within that Kingdom, whoſe Nativity was not brought to the King to be judged on. And Dion recordeth the ſame to be practiſed by Tiberius, and we ſee in Daniel, that the Monarks of Babylon attempted nothing of importance, without firſt asking Counſel of the Caldeans. And the Kings of Lacedaemonia had none in their Councels, neither were any ſuffered to ſit, but who were Aſtrologers: and alſo among the Perſians, none was admitted to the Crown, but who were excellently skilled in Aſtrologie; nay even at this day there is no King but hath his Mathematitian about him. So then, it is cleared, that there is no Councel but what is ignorant of Art and Religion, that wil condemn or decree any thing againſt Aſtrologie, and how it hath been eſteemed amongſt the wiſeſt and greateſt of the people. And that ye may be the better confirmed in what hath beene already ſayed; I wil give the names of moſt of the chiefeſt Patriarks, Fathers, Kings, Emperours and Philoſophers, (according as that worthy and Noble Sir Chriſtopher Heydon ſets them downe at the latter end of his Book, in defiance of judicial Aſtrologie) that have been ſtudents in this noble Art.

Aſtronomers and Aſtrologers from the Creation, or our firſt Father ADAM. Before CHRIST.

ADam.

Anno 3032

Seth.

Anno 2930

Enoch.

Anno 2923

Kenan.

Anno 2625

Mahalaleel.

Anno 2617

Jared.

Anno 2520

Henoch.

Anno 2074

Zoroaſter.

Anno 2142

Methuſelah.

Anno 2366

Lamech.

Anno 2311

Noah.

Anno 2155

Sem.

Anno 1803

Arphaxad.

Anno 1875

Sale.

Anno 1835

Heber.

Anno 1875

Peleg. Pheleg.

Anno 1966

Regu.

Anno 1935

Sarug.

Anno 1922

Nachor.

Anno 1965

Therach.

Anno 1878

A raham.

Anno 1839

Iſaac.

Anno 1731

Jacob.

Anno 1706

Albion Anglus.

Anno 1704

Joſeph.

Anno 165[•]

Ninus rex aſſyriorum

Anno 1679

Prometheus.

Anno 1802

Orion.

Anno 1802

Atlas.

Anno 1792

Mercurius Triſmegiſtus.

Anno 1532

Hyas Atlantis filius.

Anno 1500

Aeſculapius.

Anno 1462
Anno 1457

Petoſeris.

Anno 1420

Necepſus.

Anno 1400

Melampus.

Anno 1357

Orpheus.

Anno 1300

Linus.

Anno 1252

Ariſteus.

Anno 1250

Muſaeus Eleuſinus diſcipulus Orphei.

Anno 1250

Endymion Latmius.

Anno 1240

Phineus Phaenicus.

Anno 1220

Chirion.

Anno 1202

Hercules.

Anno 1185

Homerus Chius.

Anno 1072

Phidon Arginus.

Anno 812

Homerus.

Anno 742

Heſiodus.

Anno 642

Epimenides.

Anno 592

Thales mileſius.

Anno 582

Solon.

Anno 580

Anaximander mileſius.

Anno 572

Ariſteus.

Anno 552

Theognis Megarenſis.

Anno 544

Xenophon.

Anno 542

Pythagoras.

Anno 520

Anaximenes mileſius.

Anno 521

Democritus.

Anno 506

Heraclitus Epheſius.

Anno 503

Zamolxis Seytha, Pythagorae diſcipulus.

Anno 490

Lucippus.

Anno 482

Anaxagoras.

Anno 480

Empedocles.

Anno 458

Democritus Abderita.

Anno 456

Empedocles Agregentinus.

Anno 452

Ariſtarchus.

Anno 452

Archelaus.

Anno 450

Meliſſus.

Anno 442

Meton Athenienſis.

Anno 432

Criton.

Anno 432

Protagoras.

Anno 430

Helicon Cizicenus.

Anno 420

Euclides Megarenſis.

Anno 420

Theetaetus Athenienſis.

Anno 412

Antiſthenes Athenienſis.

Anno 412

Eudoxus.

Anno 398

Polymarchus.

Anno 398

Parmenides Eleates.

Anno 382

Dicaearchus.

Anno 342

Heraclides.

Anno 340

Zenocrates.

Anno 330

Conon Samius.

Anno 330

Calippus Cydonius.

Anno 330

Caliſthenes.

Anno 329

Theophraſtus.

Anno 320

Polemon.

Anno 318

Timocharis.

Anno 292

Euclides.

Anno 292

Ariſtillus.

Anno 290

Aratus.

Anno 284

Cleoſtratus.

Anno 282

Ptolomeus Philadelphus.

Anno 280

Callimachus.

Anno 480

Theocritus.

Anno 280

Bion.

Anno 280

Pletades vel ſeptempoetae.

Anno 270

Ariſtarchus ut alii volunt hoc tempore floruit.

Anno 267

Dionyſius.

Anno 261

Eratoſthenes.

Anno 213

Archimedes.

Anno 210

Sulpitius gallus Conſul Romanus.

Anno 160

Ariſtotherus.

Anno 160

Colophonius.

Anno 140

Nicander.

Anno 140

Hipparchus Rhodius.

Anno 126

Publius Nigidus.

Anno 58

Theodoſius.

Anno 56

Theagenes.

Anno 50

Vitruvius.

Anno 50

Lucius Tarucius.

Anno 50

Achoreus.

Anno 49

C. Julius Caeſar.

Anno 47

Soſigenes.

Anno 47

Sulla.

Anno 47

M. Flavius.

Anno 47

M. Manilius.

Anno 30

Maternus Firmicus.

Anno 5

Aſtronomers and Aſtrologers ſince the Incarnation of our Saviour Chriſt, according as Sir Chriſtopher Heydon doth record them.

C. Julius Higinus.

Anno 5

Artemedorus.

Anno 6

Germanius Auguſti filius.

Anno 10

Thraſillus.

Anno 17

Gamaliel Chriſti diſcipulus Aſtrologus inclitus.

Anno 34

Columella.

Anno 50

Marinus Tyrius.

Anno 60

Andromachus Cretenſis.

Anno 67

Agrippa Agris in Bithynia.

Anno 90

Menelaus Romanus.

Anno 90

Aſcletarion.

Anno 90

Proclus Licius.

Anno 90

Mileus.

Anno 96

Apollonius Tyraneus.

Anno 98

Hermippus Beritius.

Anno 120

Theon Alexandrinus.

Anno 130

Claudius Ptolomeus.

Anno 139

Ammonius.

Anno 135

Antigonus.

Anno 135

Cornelius fronto,

Anno 150

Abidas.

Anno 170

Apollinaris.

Anno 170

Plotinus.

Anno 160

Amelius Apanteus,

Anno 270

Porphyrius.

Anno 280

Jamblicus.

Anno 290

Sopater Apameus.

Anno 290

Dorotheus.

Anno 290

Julius firmicus.

Anno 320

Syrianus Alexandrinus.

Anno 320

Euſebius Caeſarienſis.

Anno 320

Theon Alexandrinus.

Anno 360

Theon e Muſeo Aegyp.

Anno 380

Apollonius Pergeus.

Anno 380

Pappus.

Anno 380

Procus Lycius.

Anno 390

Iſodorus.

Anno 391

Ammonias.

Anno 400

Heliodorus.

Anno 400

Rufus feſtus Anienus.

Anno 410

Cleomenes.

Anno 427

Cyrillus.

Anno 427

Poſſidonius Apher.

Anno 470

Victorinus Aquitanus.

Anno 470

Phyloponus.

Anno 490

Dionyſius Abbas Romanus.

Anno 532

Proclus Byzantius.

Anno 500

Hero Mathematicus.

Anno 500

Olimpiodorus.

Anno 500

Boetius.

Anno 520

Marimes Neopolitanus.

Anno 525

Victor Campanes

Anno 540

Artuillus Scotus.

Anno 710

Adelmus Balduinus Anglus.

Anno 710

Beda.

Anno 730

Albumaſer.

Anno 844

Albategnius.

Anno 879

Arzahel Hiſpanus.

Anno 879

Abbo floriacenſis caenobii Abbas.

Anno 1004

Campanus.

Anno 1030

Hermanus Contractus.

Anno 1040

Almeo Arabs.

Anno 1048

Azophi Arabs.

Anno 1061

Robertus Lotharingus Anglus.

Anno 1091

Rodulphus Brughenſis.

Anno 1140

Abram Auenezre.

Anno 1145

Aboali.

Anno 1145

Jo. Hiſpalenſis.

Anno 1146

Thebit.

Anno 1195

Hali Abanragel.

Anno 1202

Alkindus.

Anno 1235

Jo. de Sacrobuſto Anglus.

Anno 1240

Alphonſus rex Caſtiliae

Anno 1252

Vitellia.

Anno 1274

Rogerus Bacon Anglus.

Anno 1280

Guido Bonatus.

Anno 1284

Guilielmus de S. Godialdo.

Anno 1293

Michael Scotus Anglus.

Anno 1293

Jo. de Dacia.

Anno 1300

Jo. Dank de Saxo ia.

Anno 1300

Jo. de Ligneriis.

Anno 1300

Rich. Walingforth S. Albani abbas, Anglus.

Anno 1326

Jo. Eſtuidi. Anglicus.

Anno 1340

Leupoldus de Auſtria.

Anno 1340

Jo. Eligerus de Gondoſtenen.

Anno 1350

Rober. de Leceſtria Anglicus.

Anno 1350

Jo de ginunden.

Anno 1400

Petrus de Aliaco.

Anno 1400

Henricus de Haffia.

Anno 1400

Jo Blanchinus.

Anno 1440

Georgius Purbachius.

Anno 1462

Nicholaus de Cuſa.

Anno 1462

Io Iovinianus Pontanus.

Anno 1462

Jo. de Monte regio.

Anno 1467

Eherhardus Schluſinger Tygurinus.

Anno 1470

Abraham Zacuti.

Anno 1470

Georgius Trapezuntius.

Anno 1480

Marſilius Ficinus.

Anno 1490

Bernardus Warterus.

Anno 1490

Dominicus Maria Bononienſis.

Anno 1490

Jo. Lucilius San tritte[•].

Anno 1500

Jo. Ganivetus.

Anno 1500

Omer Aſtronomus.

Anno 1503

Jo. Muniz.

Anno 1503

Lucius Bellantius Senenſis.

Anno 1503

Jo. Schreterus.

Anno 1504

Jo. Warnerus.

Anno 1512

Jo. Angelus.

Anno 1512

Jo. Eſizer.

Anno 1514

Jo Stopherus.

Anno 1530

Jo. Carion.

Anno 1530

Lucas Gauricus.

Anno 1530

Joachimus Ringelber genſis.

Anno 1530

Achille P. Gaſſarus.

Anno 1530

Aegidius Tiſchudus.

Anno 1530

Orontius Fineus.

Anno 1530

Andreas Stiborius.

Anno 1534

Jo. Stabius.

Anno 1534

P. Appianus.

Anno 1534

Vitus Minſhemius.

Anno 1536

Albertus Pighius.

Anno 1536

Hieronymus Fracaſtorius.

Anno 1540

Jo. Virdungus Halfurtus.

Anno 1540

Subaſtiames Manſterus.

Anno 1540

Jo. Dryander.

Anno 1540

Franciſcus Maurolicus.

Anno 1540

Jo. Schonerus.

Anno 1540

Georgius Joach Rheticus.

Anno 1540

Gualterus Riffe.

Anno 1540

Nicholaus Copernicus.

Anno 1540

Michael Angelus Blondus.

Anno 1544

Nicholaus Sophianus.

Anno 1458

Angerius Ferrerius.

Anno 1548

Caſparus Penſerus.

Anno 1551

Eraſmus Rheinholdus.

Anno 1551

Jo. Roias.

Anno 1551

Cyprianus Leovicius.

Anno 1551

Jacobus Millichius.

Anno 1551

Michael Noſtradamus.

Anno 1553

Nicholaus Simus.

Anno 1553

Hier. Cardanus.

Anno 1553

Genema Friſius.

Anno 1556

Chriſtoph. Stathmio.

Anno 1556

Chonradus Daſypodius.

Anno 1556

Jo. Stadius.

Anno 1560

Petrus Nonnius.

Anno 1560

Thomas Boderius.

Anno 1560

Samuel Syderocrates.

Anno 1560

Jo. Ʋrſus.

Anno 1570

Joffrancus Officius.

Anno 1570

Valentinus Nabod.

Anno 1573

Jo. Garcus.

Anno 1573

Gerardus Mercator.

Anno 1573

Eraſmus Scieckenfuſſius.

Anno 1573

Nichodem. Friſchrinus.

Anno 1580

Cornelius Gemma.

Anno 1580

Henricus Ranzovius.

Anno 1582

Chiſtoph. Clevius.

Anno 1582

Hier. Wolfius.

Anno 1582

Bartholom. Scultetus.

Anno 1582

Blundevil.

Anno 1582

Jacob. Chriſtmannus.

Anno 1582

Jo. Henricus Rothmannus.

Anno 1582

Sextus ab Heminga.

Anno 1482

Franciſcus Iunctinus.

Anno 1590

Gerardus Mercator.

Anno 1590

Peucerus.

Anno 1590

Bartholomeus Petiſcus.

Anno 1600

Henricus Buntingus.

Anno 1600

Adrianus Romanus.

Anno 1600

Origanus.

Anno 1600

Thomas Finxius.

Anno 1602

Enerartus.

Anno 1602

Tycho Brache.

Anno 1602

Aſlacius.

Anno 1602

Jo. Maginus.

Anno 1602

Wright.

Anno 1602

Meſtlin.

Anno 1602

Theſe are it ſeemes, as many as this good man could hear of, before his time that were remarkeable; yet let us not forget learned Cornelius Agrippa, and himſelf. Blagrave author of the Mathematical Jewel, Hartgil, reverent (both for learning and induſtry) Argol of Rome, and many innumerable others there are, which if I ſhould undertake to expreſſe, this whole volume would not be able to containe half of them, beſides thoſe that have privately ſtudied it in all ages, which never made their names vulgarly known.

And let us not forget thoſe of our times, here in our own Nation, (though we know not thoſe that are in others.) viz. Mr Lilly who hath put our Aſtrological rules (for the better inſtruction of our Nation) into Engliſh. Doctor Phiſke, Mr. Booker, Capt. George Wharton, and Mr. Vin. Wing, and many others which for brevity ſake I omit, and haſten to ſhew you the antiquity of the Art, ſince you have already ſeene the lawfulneſſe thereof, being allowed of by the Scripture, and the wiſeſt and religiouseſt of men.

SECT. V. Demonſtrating the antiquity of Aſtrologie

WE have ſeene already how Aſtrologie hath been proved lawful by the Scripture and reaſon, not condemned by Councels, but admired and honoured in all ages, by the wiſeſt of the ancients; we come now to ſhew it's Antiquity, and from whence it had it's firſt originall; concerning this point, there hath been much controverſie amongſt Writers, but moſt hold, that it was firſt revealed to man in the infancy of the world by God; Ariſtotle deriveth it from the Egyptians, Tully from the Aſſyrians, other from the Sydonians, Caldeans, Perſians, Indians, Arabians and Greeks; but how ever it is moſt certain, if we will believe the ancienteſt Hiſtoriographers, that the Prieſts and Kings amongſt the Egyptians, the Caldeans among the Babylonians, the Magicians among the Perſians, the Gymnoſophiſts among the Indians, the chief Philoſopers of Greece and Italy, and the Druides of France were all Aſtrologers, and eſteemed by thoſe Nations for the wiſeſt men.^[20] But Joſephus in his Antiquities, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. deriveth it from Adam and Seth: and that they taught it to their poſterity, and that Seth was ſo wel skilled therein, that foreſeeing thereby the deſtruction of the world, firſt by Water, then by Fire, leſt the knowledge ſhould periſh by the Flood, engraved it in two Pillers, the one of Stone, the other of Brick; and he farther witneſſeth that of Stone to remaine in Syria in his owne time; and in the third Chapter of the ſame booke, he affirmeth, that man lived ſo long before the Flood (by the permiſſion of God) to learn Arts and Sciences, eſpecially naming Aſtrologie and Geometry, the which (ſaith he) Ediſcere non potuiſſent, niſi ſexcentis viverent annis, could not be learned under ſix hundred yeares time, for theſe are ſtudyes that require much experience, and particular obſervation, which could not be done on an inſtant. Again in his eight Chapter of the ſame firſt booke of his antiquities, he further affirmeth, that Abraham having learned this knowledge in Chaldea being the place of his birth, when he came into Egypt, he firſt taught the Egyptians the knowledge of Aſtrologie and Arithmetick,^[21] and ſince the Egyptians have been moſt exquiſite therein, ſo that ſome Hiſtorians have believed Atlas King of Egypt to be the firſt inventer thereof, others have thought Henoch and Atlas to be both one, but moſt Hiſtoriographers hold Atlas to be after the Flood. It is vaine longer here to remaine, ſince generally Aſtrologie by moſt (eſpecially the moſt judicious) Hiſtoryographers hold it to be derived from God to Adam, and that it is the moſt ancient of all Arts and Sciences, except Arithmetick; wherefore leſt this diſcourſe ſwel to a bigger bulk then I would willingly have it, I haſten to the fourth and laſt leſſon I promiſed to ſhew Mr. Homes, and that is to ſhew him.

SECT. VI. That Aſtrologie is the moſt profitableſt ſtudy revealed under the ſun to mortals.

WHich I ſhal indeavour to make cleare thus; firſt, That it is moſt profitable for the knowledge of morall Philoſophie, viz. of our ſelves and others. Secondly, For naturall Philoſophie. Thirdly, For Phyſicke. Fourthly, For Health. Fifthly, For Husbanddry. Sixthly, For giving a reaſon for Climactericall yeares (which other Arts cannot) and other things. Seventhly, and laſtly, For Miletary Diſcipline.

Firſt,^[22] that it is moſt profitable for the knowledge of moral Philoſophy, Mr. Homes will not deny (if he know any thing in the Art,) that the conſtitution of the body, and the diſpoſition of the minde is by Aſtrologie known; ſo that hereby we receive a double benefit, viz. Firſt, admonition to refraine what may prove obnoxious and hurtful to our health. Secondly, incouragement to apply our ſelves to that whereunto we are born apt by nature, beſides we may alſo be warned hereby, of what may cauſe the minde by ill government to offend others. And for felicity the chief end of moral Philoſophy; no Art or Science can compare with Aſtrologie, for it teacheth a man what pertaines to the goods of the body and minde, and ſo alſo to moderate the unruly affections, whoſe violence carrieth away the minde from that golden meane wherein vertue dwels and keeps her place; ſo likewiſe in the external goods, it reſolveth a man what hopes or likelihood by his own induſtry, or otherwaies he hath to attaine to the riches of this world; and alſo teacheth him how to increaſe the ſame, by what meanes, at what time, and in what place it wil be beſt for him, or moſt profitable to this intent or purpoſe. So that then ye ſee Aſtrologie to comprehend more in one part, then all the Arts in the world put together, in any or all parts.

^[23]Secondly, For natural Philoſophy, it bringeth no leſſe helpe hereunto, then to the former, for hereby the Philoſopher commeth to know God the upholder and immoveable Creator of all things, by the conſtant inchangeable motion of the heavens; and the corruption and generation of all things, by the motion of ☉, ☽ and other Planets in the Zodiack; and that there is a certain prefixt time of every ones life that is born, allotted by the Stars, and that this is divers according to the nature of every conſtellation, and the meaſure of every proper revolution; as alſo the reaſon of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, by the motion of ☽. He comes alſo by Aſtrologie to know the riſings of Meteors, the motion of Comets, and innumerable other things, much conducing to the furtherance of his knowledge, experience and skil. But this is ſo clear, I haſten to what is further to be ſaid in the praiſe and utility of Aſtrologie, leſt I ſpend too much time in confuting ſuch weak ſtuffe, as is this diſcourſe of Mr. Homes, againſt ſo apparent a Noble and excellent Art.

Thirdy, For Phyſick, for all that knows any thing in Aſtrologie, can acquaint Mr. Homes, ^[24] as alſo his great friend Gallen (as moſt falſely he accuſes him (in his 115. page) to condemn Aſtrology as Sophiſtical, when indeed he himſelf appeares no other at the beſt, to wrong ſo worthy a man.) That he that ſhal adminiſter Phyſick when the Sunne comes to the equinoctial points, or in the Canicular or Dog-dayes and the like, knowes very little either in the one or other, viz. Phyſick or Aſtrologie; and is rather to be accounted a foole then a Phyſitian; and further, Gallen admoniſheth men not to truſt themſelves with that Phyſitian that is not verſed in Aſtrologie; and Hippocrates alſo ſayeth, that that Phyſitian which is ignorant in Aſtrologie, is not fully, nor can he be perfectly known in his Art; for without Aſtrologie, he ſhal never be able to give Phyſick ſafely, viz. when to purge by evacuation or vomit, or Phlebotomie, or for what humours, or in what quantity, neither can he know or come to the underſtanding of the chief Piller of his Art, viz. The true cauſe of the Malady without it, neither with it, (if wel learned therein) can he erre, beſides Gallen further affirmeth, that Phyſick given at unſeaſonable times, doth not onely little availe or helpe, but often times prove very hurtful, even to the indangering of the life of the Patient; and that theſe times are onely to be known and judged by the Starres. Fernelius (a learned Phyſitian) doth hereunto alſo condeſcend, as alſo Ficinus; for there is nothing more certain, then that Aſtrologie doth plainly deliver rules for all the parts of Phyſick aboveſaid, (which Mr. Homes I am confident (if any whit read therein) dare not but confeſſe) and not onely ſo, but teacheth alſo the critial dayes, without which they cannot be known with any certainty; wherefore it is, that thoſe Phyſitians ignorant in Aſtrologie, conclude the ſeventh and fourteenth dayes to be dangerous, when moſt times they are deceived, and ſo conſequently apply contrary remedies to their Patients, much to their prejudice,^[25] if not abſolute deſtruction: The reaſon is, the ☽ by her various motion commeth ſometimes ſooner, and ſometimes latter, to her □ and ☍ or quadrat and oppoſit part of the place ſhe was in at the beginning of the diſeaſe, viz. Sometimes ſhe comes to her □ in ſeven dayes, ſometimes not till the eight or ninth day, other times at the ſixth dayes; and to her ☍ ſometimes at the fourteenth day, ſometimes at the thirteen day, other times not till the ſixteenth day. I would faine now Mr. Homes, you would ſhew what Art in the whole earth, is more beneficial to Phyſick, then Aſtrologie, &c. but I haſten to the remaining proofs.

Fourthly, For health,^[26] which none but the moſt ignorant and malicious wil deny, ſince the conſtitution of the body the only ground, wiſe Phyſitians go upon and look firſt too; that, that foundation being layd, they may then fall to the rebuilding of the Patient, otherwiſe (as you have heard) deſtruction (like a houſe founded on the ſand) is to be expected. Then conſequently the moſt envious cannot but confeſſe and acknowledge it to be the moſt profitable thing for our health under the Sun. Wherefore then let us ſee whether the husband-man will acknowledge it to be beneficial to him in his way of living, viz. Husbandry.

^[27]Fifthly, Husbandry, and firſt let me aske him, whether he lops his Trees from the time the Sun declines from our Horizon, till he againe reenters the equinoctial point? or if he knows not (if he ſhould) that it wil not grow again? or whether he uſe to ſow Peaſe in the increaſe of ☽? or if ſo, whether they wil then ever leave blooming or bloſſoming? or whether therefore he doth not obſerve and remember to ſet them in the waine, or decreaſe of ☽. Nay, it is reported of the women in the North, both of England and Scotland, that they diligently obſerve a time of the Moon to ſet their Egges, that they may all come to good; and furthermore, let me aske the Husband-man, whether he obſerveth not a time to graffe, and prune his Trees? but this is ſo common, that to ſpend more time hereunto, were to no purpoſe.

Sixthly,^[28] For rendring a reaſon for Climacterical yeares, it happening by the profection of the Planets and Horoſcope, aſcendant or firſt Houſe (as ye may call it) to the ☍ or □ aſpects or their places in Nativities, or by the motion of ♄ if he have any power in the Nativity, for Ptolomie and the wiſeſt in this Art, give ♄ as much power in the decree ſeveral of yeares, as the Sunne hath in months, or the ☽ in dayes; and if his courſe be obſerved, it will bee found finiſhed much about the ſame number of years, as the Moones is in dayes; and further, that ♄ in every ſeven years comes either to □ or ☍ of his place in the Radix of Nativities. And further know, that if there be no danger (as we find by experience) of ſome mens lives, at theſe yeares, they have either ſome of the beneficial Planets in their eight Houſe, or the direction of the aſcendant,^[29] or Aphetical places are free from all impediment and affliction, of the interficient and malignant conſtellations.

Seventhly, and laſtly,^[30] for military Diſcipline, Hiſtory is full of examples herein, and for brevities ſake (becauſe I will haſten to conclude this firſt Chapter, that I may proceed to Mr. Homes his ſecond Section) I will hear content my ſelf with this one, which the Indian Hiſtories ſhew forth unto us; which is, that Columbus having the Art of Aſtrologie, and being in a ſtraight for want of Victual, together with the whole Army of the King of Spaine Ferdinand; and foreſeeing an Eclipſe of the ☽ within few daies to happen; threatned the Indians he would ſend infinite plagues amongſt them, if they ſpeedily relieved them not; in token whereof, they ſhould at ſuch a time ſee the ☽ light taken from them, which they at firſt ſlighted, but when they ſaw according to the former words, that the Moon began to be darkened, and grew ſo more and more, and being ignorant of the cauſe thereof, did not onely ſend them the victual they formerly retained from them, but alſo threw themſelves at Columbus feet, asking forgiveneſſe: So then you have had (as brief as may be) ſhewn unto you, what Aſtrologie is, that it is an Art, and a lawfull Art, allowed of by Scripture; the antiquity of it, and the utility of it; there is it may be ſome Arts, that may be beneficial or helpful to another; but you ſee both poſitively and concluſively, that Aſtrologie is generally helpful to all Arts and Sciences, nay what other ſtudy in the whole world in this point is like it or able to compare with it? and ſeeing it is ſo, very indiſcreetly and unfitly, doth Mr. Homes joyn it or compare it with Augury, Auruſpicie, Auſpicie, Pullarie, Necromancy, Sortelegie, Onieromantie or Palmeſtry, which are no Arts, as he clearly ſeeth this is; and that by the judgement of the wiſeſt men and greateſt Philoſophers; wherefore if he will be wiſer then all theſe he hath been ſhewn, by my conſent, he ſhall be elected the 8th wiſe man; wherefore ſeeing truth and authority of theſe, as well as Scripture, ſtandeth with it, and diſtinguiſheth it from theſe ſortelegies, haphazards and chances; it mattereth not what either he doth or can ſay, or do, againſt it.

CHAP. II. In Anſwer to the opinions of the learned touching Astrologie; wherein is further ſhewn, the legality of Aſtrologie; that the Stars are both ſigns and cauſes; and that Mr Homes his quoting the Fathers and learned, is meerly fallacious, and envious, and no wiſe available to his intent and purpoſe.

I Am come now to Mr Homes his ſecond Section, wherin we ſhal ſee how he vents his malice moſt invectively all along againſt Aſtrologie; thinking he bringeth the learned to condemn it, but what are the learned Schoolmen, or great Philoſophers to me, or their ſayings in this matter,^[31] further then they have truth and reaſon on their ſide? If they follow their own opinions and conceits without ſound reaſon and warrant, I ſee no warrant or reaſon why I ſhould regard either them, their words or their quoters.

SECT. I. Wherein is further ſhewn, the legality of Aſtrologie.

HIs firſt learned man (then) he begins with, is Toſtatus, who he ſaith in his Commentary on Levit, 19. Queſt. 28, 29, &c. hath theſe words, the which Doctor Willet gives him, viz. Of things which are (as to us) accidental, as the ſucceſſe of buſineſſe, or their cauſes internal, as mens will and free choice, as to undertake a journey, or to build, or not build, predictions are not onely uncertain, but ſuperſtitious: and the ſame is to be ſaid of caſting of Nativities by the conjunction of the Planets; but if he had conſidered what reaſon or ground Toſtatus hath for theſe words, he had never thus laid them open; and I much wonder he being a Divine, he had not firſt himſelf conſidered and weighed the text, which that he may now do (Nunquam ſera eſt ad bonos mores via) I will here ſet it down: Regard not them that have familiar ſpirits, neither ſeeke after Wizards, to be defiled by them; I am the Lord your God, Levit. 19.31. where we clearly ſee there is no part of the text, once in the leaſt mentioneth or meaneth Aſtrologie; it is againſt the ſeeking after thoſe that have familiar Spirits, and Wizards;^[32] now that Aſtrologie doth not in the leaſt ſavour hereof, is clear in what hath been already ſaid, and the definition thereof, ſee Ptolomies own words at the beginning of my diſcourſe in the ſecond page: So that except the reſt of his learned men (as he calleth them) can bring better proof or reaſon then this firſt, he had better have been ſilent, then thus to be overſhot.

SECT. II. Wherein is ſhewn that the Stars are ſignes and Cauſes.

HE then brings Doctor Willet (to caſt his ſquib alſo at this ſtrong Tower, viz. Aſtrologie) in theſe words, all manner of conjecturing (which ſaith he is meant by Aſtrologie) is not unlawful, whereof any Natural or Divine cauſe can be yielded, as firſt there be Natural ſigns in the heavens and ayre, as of the alteration of weather, of winds, of raine, &c. This doth no whit hurt it, and is onely a flaſh that at the moſt doth but whiz about it, and at the laſt after a great crack, vaniſheth in ſmoke: mark but the words, all manner of conjecturing is not unlawful, &c. and ſaith Mr Homes, ſee he calleth it (meaning Aſtrologie) but conjecturing onely; but doth Mr Homes conjecture it to be no other? if he do, it is his ignorance; I hope the reader ſees by this time what Aſtrologie is and begins to be as much in love with it againe, as ever before by him diſcouraged, as alſo out of love with his cavils; but this is not all, when you ſee him ſtript of his Scripture proofs, you will tell me ſomething then; when you ſee him as naked left, as my naile, of all his ſophiſtications, you will tell me then you are worſe in love with him, (I'm confident) when his ugly malice is diſcovered againſt this moſt apparent truth: But let me not forget my ſelf, and ſpend too much time about him, but return to the diſcourſe in hand; which is, that ſince there hath been already ſhewn, that the Stars have the applauſe of power on the natural things of this world, as alſo the great Ptolomie (whoſe word in this caſe I believe wil be taken before Doctor Willets, or Mr. Homes his) gives his word for it;^[33] beſides experience alſo, as above ſhewed, (and you know experientia docet) there is no more to be ſaid, but that Aſtrologie is not (as Doctor Willet ſayeth) unlawful; neither doth he in any wiſe condemne it, for in his following words he tels us, There are natural ſignes in the heavens and aire which cauſe raine, winde, &c. The cauſe of which, is no other then the influence of the Stars, which if he deny, all Writers on this Art are contradicted, as alſo the Scripture to boot, if then this be not a ſtrong Argument, let himſelf judge.

But to clear this point more fully, what ſayeth Mr. Homes, ^[34] is the cauſe of Raine, alteration of Aire, and the like? if his Maſter Doctor Willet did not in theſe words ſhew it, me thinks he ſhould not have left the Reader unſatisfied; and not onely ſo, but have proved the Stars to have no Influence thereon, nor to be cauſes of theſe alterations, and then his argument had been good; but certainly he that wil carpe at ſuch trivial words as theſe, would not have omitted that, could he but ſufficiently have proved it, which ſince he could not, or did not; he muſt give me leave to prove they are.^[35] And firſt let me give you Moſes judgement herein, who plainly tells us, The Stars are for ſignes and ſeaſons, Gen. 1.14. which Mr. Homes will ſay is fullfilled in the words following, viz. And God made two great lights, the one to rule, the Day, and the other to rule the Night Gen. 1.16. To which then I anſwer, by way of Quere, to what end then are theſe invincible, irreſiſtable and innumerable hoſtes of Heaven? were they made for no other uſe then to gaze on? the ☉ and ☽ will ſufficiently ſerve our turne for matter of light, if we looke no further into their uſes; but the Scripture further putteth this matter quite out of doubt if we will beleeve Gods own word, Joh 28.31. For he ſpeaking of his Omnipotent power, asketh his ſervant Job, whether he, or any one elſe Can reſtraine the influence of the Pleiades, or looſe the bands of Orion: ^[36] On which words St. Auſtine referreth all men to the ſtudy of Aſtrologie, for the underſtanding of that place; and not onely ſo, but ſhews us that under theſe two conſtellations, the Lord doth comprehend the influence of all the Celeſtial hoſt, figuratively expreſſing pars pro toto; and to ſhew you by experience the verity hereof, if you wil neither beleeve Auguſtine, Moſes, nor God himſelf, except you ſee and feele; (not to inſiſt long on this point, which is cleared by ſuch ſtrong and invincible witneſſes; one whereof is able to be ſufficient teſtimony againſt all Mr. Homes his learned Judges and condemners of Aſtrologie) For confirming and clearing hereof, then I might here again inſtance that palpable experience we have of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, by the influence of the ☽ (as aboveſaid) but to manifeſt it yet further, let him call to mind the increaſe and decreaſe of ſhelfiſh, the mutation and variation of times, and innumerable other effects of the Stars, which (if time and conveniency would permit) might be recorded, and let him then ſtudy the cauſe hereof, and he will then without doubt be of an other tenent; let him obſerve alſo when ♄ and ☉ is in □ or ☍, or when ♂ and ♀ is in □ or ☍ or ♃ and ☿ are ſo poſited, and let him tell me then, what alterations they produce in the aire both by Raine, Snow, Wind, Tempeſts, Thundering and Lightning, and the like according to their ſeveral poſitions, the nature of ſignes and houſes and manſions they are in; (which if he be not altogether ignorant of the Art, he may dayly ſee) theſe and the like effects, are moſt vulgarly known by experience, ſo that therefore he might even as well have confeſſed thoſe ſignes he ſpeaketh of, to be the Stars, and cauſes their influence, ſince he doth not, nor cannot ſhew me any other thing they are, without wronging and ſlandering the Art; and contradicting the moſt learned therein, as alſo the Fathers, St. Auſtine, Moſes, nay and GOD himſelf; and if this appears not then to all the judicious, an apparant Doctrin of Devils;^[37] let the meaneſt of capacities judge, but who could indeed looke for better ſtuff in ſo vile a meane warehouſe; or that beaſt not to be a monſter, or at leaſt to be ſhun'd as very obnoxious, that hath HELL written in it's fore-head? for the title of his Bell and Dragon, (which he hopeth ſhal devour Aſtrologie, with other frivolous and indeed unlawful Arts, like an unconſcionable judge, condemneth the good with the bad) is DEMONOLOGIE, OR THE DOCTRIN OR LANGUAGE OF DEVILS; I ſay, is not this moſt wickedly, or elſe moſt ignorantly done of Mr. Homes, to deny theſe effects and operations of the Starres aboveſayed, to proceed from the Stars? and ſeeing it is ſo, of neceſſity then muſt Mr. Homes's Clerks in this point faile, who have ſo palpably the word of God againſt them; he might as wel then have left out that other addition of Doctor Willets; where he ſaith, that the Stars have not the ſame influence in ſummer, and in Winter, Spring and Autumne, and ſo conſequently will conclude them. Firſt, not to be ſignes (contradicting Moſes, and the word of God, Gen. 1.14. as aboveſaid.) Secondly, Nor cauſes, quia ex unitate cauſae ſequeretur ſimilitudo effectus, of the ſame cauſe there ſhould follow the ſame effect; but there followeth not the ſame effect from the ſame ſignes, appeares by experience. As much to ſay, the Stars are neither causes nor ſignes, becauſe they produce not fruits in Winter, as wel as in Summer, or becauſe they cauſe not Snow in Summer, or Buds and Bloſſoms in Winter. O rare cavil! but ſince he is already, by what is aboveſaid, confuted; I ſhal here add nothing but this, that ſince the queſtion is, whether they are cauſes and ſignes, becauſe that paſſage in the firſt of Gen. manifeſts they are ſignes, I wil (if he wil be convinced by the word of God) here give him to know they are alſo cauſes, I will heare the heavens, and the heavens ſhall heare the earth, and the earth the corne and the wine, &c. Hoſ. 2.2. And in another place, the increaſe of the earth is referred to the Influence of the Sun and the Moon, Deut. 33.14. By all which we may clearly ſee (unleſſe blinded with malice and wilfulneſſe) that they are both ſignes and cauſes, of all our earthly injoyments and happineſſes; Et ſi ſcriptura, & ipſe deus nobiſcum, quis contra nos.

SECT. III. Wherein his allegations againſt the ground of the Art is condemned; and his bringing St. Auguſtine and Galen against it, proved fallacious, injurious and malicious; and how far we ought to attribute to the power of the Stars.

SEeing then it is moſt clearly ſo, that the Starres are ſignes and cauſes as above ſaid, what need theſe envious carpers or malicious gainſayers of the truth be heeded or regarded; but let their perverſe rags of paper periſh with themſelves, not worthy the leaſt remembrance; and indeed had it not been rightly to inform the vulgar, and to make them ſee, that high language ſerveth not to condemn truth, I had buried both them and their filthy rags in perpetual oblivion, but I hope ſince they muſt be remembred, it will be but for their diſgrace, not Chronicled for their worthineſſe, but perpetual infamy.

But this is not all, he comes next to condemn Aſtrologie by Keckerman, and that with as weak arguments as he did the reſt, Keckerman (ſaith he) a moſt learned Philoſopher, and Chriſtian, although he favours ſome things which men now a daies call part of Aſtrologie, did not in all his two great Volumnes in fol. of Arts and Sciences, ſet forth any Aſtrologie; a wiſe ſtory indeed, becauſe Keckerman writeth not of Aſtrologie, therefore there is no ſuch thing, but if Keckerman hath not, yet as wiſe and as learned and greater Philoſophers have,^[38] as if the being of Aſtrologie depended on his writing hereof, or a whit farther from being an heavenly Science and a lawful Art, becauſe he omitteth it, fine Logick and rare reaſon, if rightly underſtood, and the depth thereof throughly ſearched! becauſe Ariſtotle knew not the reaſon of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea, therefore no body elſe doth, neither is there ſuch a thing in Nature; and becauſe Moſes writeth not of the creation of Angels, Ergo, there is none, O profound and invincible reaſon? but it ſavoureth ſo little of reaſon, that it is rather rime-Dogril, Brains and Staires, or hot and block, I had almoſt ſaid head, that I might make (at leaſt) ſence thereof, if neither rime nor reaſon. But to proceed, (he ſaith) he is ſure he hath theſe words againſt it, Manent tamen, &c. the Stars abide, as of other ſublunary effects, ſo of effects in man, the common and remote cauſe which many wayes may be hindered, not only by the firſt cauſe, God, but alſo by particular cauſes, partly in the Heavens, partly in the Ayre and other Elements; ſo that the Predictions of Aſtrologers are with ifs and ands, &c. which is as much to the purpoſe as comes juſt to nothing; for firſt, that God can alter the courſe of the Stars there is no Aſtrologer but will confeſſe (but whether he will or no, or ordinarily uſes ſo to do, is the queſtion) ſo that Mr Homes gets little by this querk ſince he affirmeth nothing that any Aſtrologer will deny: But if Mr Keckerman maketh it not appear what particular cauſes hinder the effects of the Stars, me thinks for the ſtrength of his argument Mr Homes ſhould have done it; for it ſtandeth not with any reaſon, that ſubordinate cauſes as are the Ayre and other Elements, ſhould predominate or rule over the firſt moving cauſes, viz. the Stars; this the weakeſt capacity that underſtands the Art will affirme, and you have but now heard that the effects of the Stars cauſe alteration and mutation of the Ayre, as we alſo daily ſee by experience; and therefore his aſſertion, that the principles of Aſtrologie are not confirmed on true principles, is here alſo condemned as erronious, falſe and malicious;^[39] for we ſee Aſtrologers ſeldome faile in their judgements, except when they ſwerve from the rules of Art, wherefore Alſteds aſſertion alſo is here no leſſe ſimple then the reſt, who ſaith, Aſtrologers are alſo often deceived, and what then, becauſe a man that never was at London, miſſeth his way, once or twice, ſhall he conclude there is no ſuch place; ſure it ſhould rather teach him to obſerve diligently his roade, and not turn on the right hand nor the left, and if the Aſtrologers would as warily obſerve their rules, this objection of the ignorant had never been thought on. But Mr Homes, is Divinity falſe and no wiſe to be heeded; becauſe there is ſo many errours and ſchiſmes crept into the Church? or becauſe every one attaineth not to a full perfection of the Spirit? or becauſe humanum eſt errare, man is fraile and ſubject to failings? no ſure, experience, reaſon and truth teacheth us to the contrary: Wherefore he might very well have omitted theſe ſlender reaſons, as alſo that place of Galen, where he ſaith, ſophiſticum eſt, it is ſophiſtical, but how? not as having no verity therein, but in the ſuperſtitious abuſe thereof, for you ſee clearly in the firſt Chapter of his Treatiſe, Galen holdeth that man a fool, rather then a Phyſitian, that is not an Aſtrologer: and in all his works hath Aſtrologie in great eſteeme and applauſe, and moreover teſtifieth his own practice hereof, eſpecially, lib. 3. de diebus decret. chap 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. and the like: So he brings St. Auſtin to condemn it, thus in theſe words in his Treatiſe De Doctrina Chriſtiana, lib. 2. chap. 21, 22. eſt magnus error, & magna dementia, ſuperſtitio: Aſtrologie is a great error madneſſe, and ſuperſtition, it is clear that St. Auſtin here ſpeaketh of the ſuperſtitious uſe thereof, as in attributing fatal neceſſity thereto, and in too much truſting and confiding therein, as may appear by what you have already heard St. Auſtin ſaith of it; but to clear it more fully, St. Austin confeſſeth that before his converſion, he followed the hereſies of the Manichees, who maintained the Stars to be adored and prayed unto,^[40] and therefore to reclaime the multitude, which went thus a whoring after the waies of the Heathen, this good man uſeth theſe words to recall them, and unite them to the belief of God: But I hope Mr Homes will not ſay that Aſtrologers are thus ſuperſtitious and wicked; he that ſaith Aſtrologie (as I ſaid before) is any other thing then what is delivered by Ptolomy, in the ſecond page of this Treatiſe, knoweth not what Aſtrologie is; Neither will he affirme I hope, that St. Auſtin condemns Aſtrologie, but the ſuperſtitious abuſe thereof, which is clear, for he delivereth five opinions concerning deſtiny.

Firſt, that by deſtiny is underſtood the providence, ^[41] will and power of God, and therefore he warneth the Aſtrologers, that they continue their opinions, but correct their tongues, for through cuſtome of ſpeech the vulgar commonly underſtood nothing by the word fate or deſtiny, but the inevitable power of the Stars.

The ſecond is quite contrary to the former, aſcribing all to the abſolute power of the Stars, without the will of God: But this opinion derogating from the omnipotent power of God, and his providence in all our actions, he ſaith ought to be rejected, not onely by thoſe that profeſſe the true Religion, but which ſerve or worſhip any gods at all, though never ſo falſe.

The third, ſo attributeth to the decrees of the Stars, that yet they believe them to have this power in ſuch ſort derived unto them from God, that thereby they can, and do determine of us and our actions, as they will themſelves: which opinion he thinketh is very wrongfully held of heaven, to maintaine ſuch wickedneſſe to be, as it were inacted in that moſt ſhining Senate, that were the like acted in any Court or State on earth, were worthy to be ſubverted.

The fourth opinion is, that the Stars have neither power nor will to operate on us at their own pleaſures, but as they do neceſſarily execute that which God impoſeth upon them; which St. Auſtin accounteth more intolerable then the other, for that it teacheth us to conceive that of God, which they hold unworthy to impute unto the Stars,^[42] againſt ſuch he ſufficiently declareth.

Theſe opinions, St. Augustine renounceth, as they rather utterly deny the power and providence of God, or, as they impute abſolute rule and dominion of the Stars immediately over the will of man, neceſſarily inforcing us in all our actions; or as they throw all our ſins upon God, whileſt they make him by the Stars inevitably to inforce us to evil: wherefore had Mr Homes (as it had beſit a learned man) firſt examined his Authors with good obſervation and deliberation, and not ſo readily taken hold on every thing he finds delivered by others, that he imagineth will ſerve for his turne; I'm confident, he had not thus inconſiderately alleadged St Auguſtine againſt Aſtrologers, for (as I defined before in the ſecond page, what Aſtrologie is) ſo the ſame Ptolomy confeſſeth the Stars not to have any fatality as working by or with a fatal neceſſity on the will or ſoul of man, as much as St. Auſtine himſelf; giving them no farther operation in theſe matters then the moſt orthodox and learned Divines do.

The fifth opinion is, which neither eſteemeth the Stars of their own wils, ^[43] (as if they were living ſouls) to decree future events, nor neceſſarily to uſurpe power over our minds, but onely to ſignifie the inclinations of the elements, and of all things compounded of them.

Now that St. Auſtine meant not ſuch Aſtrologers as deny neceſſity (as Mr Homes would faine perſwade the vulgar to believe;) but onely aſcribe power unto the Stars to worke upon ſublunary bodies; is evident by his words, Non uſque quaque abſurde dici poſſit, ^[44] ad ſolas corporum differentias, afflatus quoſdam valere ſidereos, ſicut in ſolaribùs acceſſibus, & receſſibus, videmus etiam ipſius anni temporae variari & lunaribus incrementis, & decrementis angeri & minui quaedam genera rerum; ſicut Echinos, & conchas, & mirabiles aeſtus oceani, non autem, & animi voluntates poſitionibus ſyderum ſubdi: where we ſee nothing exempted from ſubjection to the Stars that is bodily, but onely our ſpirituall part:^[45] And he aſcribeth not this power to the Stars in generall, as that their ſpecifical vertues are not poſſible to be known to man, for he concurreth with Aſtrologers, that the quality of ♄ is cold, &c. as you may farther ſee at the beginning of this Chapter. So that you may ſee how falſely and injuriouſly he brings in St. Auguſtine againſt Aſtrologie; by which (I will onely add this) the Reader may clearly ſee the envy and malice of Mr. Homes, how he ſtudieth (by the learned and Fathers) to perſwade his reader againſt this moſt apparent truth, viz. ASTROLOGIE.

SECT IV. Wherein Aſtrologie is defended againſt his allegations, from Mr. Perkins his words.

MAſter Homes comes then to tell us Mr Perkins a learned man and famous, writ a Treatiſe againſt it, ſo did Melancthon, a greater ſcholler then he, and as knowing a Divine, write as much and more for it, then he ever did againſt it; what if I ſhould tell him of ſome that have writ againſt the Scripture, is the Word of God therefore falſe and to be rejected? he ſaith Mr Perkins cals it prophaneneſſe, and idolatry; but let the Reader ſeriouſly and diligently but obſerve what hath been here already ſaid, and he cannot but underſtand Mr Perkins ſpake onely againſt the abuſe of the Art, not as it is in its ſelf; againſt the ſuperſtitious confidence and truſt in the Stars, not the ſearching and ſtudying of the influences and effects of the Stars on elementary bodies; and as much as this comes to, all that ſtudy the Art will confeſſe, Ergo, Mr Homes is miſtaken to thinke by theſe words of Mr Perkins to condemn Aſtrologie, ſince he ſaith no more then all Aſtrologers themſelves will ſay; wherefore to dwell longer here, were but vain and ſuperfluous; and to as little purpoſe as to bring a man a bag-pudding when he hath filled his belly with pie. We come therefore now to his eighth learned man which condemnes Aſtrologie, which he tels us is Mr Geree, who hath (ſaith he) written a Treatiſe againſt Aſtrologie, I could if need were, cite as many, and more that have written againſt the Divine word of God, then he can make appear hath written againſt Aſtrologie; ſhall any man be therefore ſo impudently wicked to conclude the word of God is not true, or not to be credited, no ſure, this were altogether as impudently wicked as Mr Homes his ſequel or concluſion is ridiculous, ſophiſtical and envious. Mr Chamber alſo writ a booke againſt Aſtrologie, which I wonder he remembred not alſo, but that learned Sir Christopher Heydon returned him ſuch a repulſe, as that none of the Antagoniſts or ill willers to the Art, ever durſt undertake to give a reply thereunto; for he doth not onely refute Mr Chamber, but alſo Picus mirandula, Melton, Perkins, and Geree to boote; wherefore I refer all thoſe that would be further reſolved herein, and deſire to diſcerne between truth and falſhood, to the peruſal of the diſcourſe it ſelf, it being a piece of that exquiſite wit and learning, that none can be able to ſurpaſſe it, if (in the whole world) be worthy to compare with it; it was never as yet undertaken to be anſwered, neither I beleeve wil it ever be attempted by any of theſe cavilling punies, that gain-ſay indeed what they know not, but by tradition or Theorically, and if practically, it is ſo ſlenderly known by them, that they imagine the Art to be no better then meere Conjuration, and the Artiſts Conjurers.

SECT. V. Wherein his cavilling Mr. Briggs, and others, are convinced.

WE now come (not to be too tedious) to heare what he can tel us of learned Mr. Briggs, againſt Aſtrologie, which is briefly thus much, That after an earneſt deſire to attaine the perfection thereof, he ſeriouſly applyed himſelfe unto the ſtudy, but in concluſion, when he thought to have had joy of his weried labours, he was ſatisfied with nothing but uncertainty, and meeting an other Astrologer, told him how he had beene deceived in the rules of the Art, (who for his comfort) concluded alſo as he did, that there was no certainty therein, upon which he left off further studying thereof. Now I would very faine know of any man (which ſhal be all the anſwer I ſhal give to this ſophiſtical cavil) whether by theſe words Aſtrologie, be convinced as uncertain, becauſe Mr. Briggs and another, or (ſuppoſe halfe a dozen more) could find no certainty therein; when Ptolomy, Galen, Hippocrates, St. Auſtine, and thouſands more, found not only certainty therein, but concluded and agreed that it was the moſt beneficial and pleaſant Art under the Sunne; and whereas he cites Phavorinus againſt Aſtrologie in theſe words, Aut adverſa eventura dicunt, &c. which is, They foretel either things of proſperity or adverſity; if of proſperity, and they faile, then thou ſhalt be proſperous or happy in hoping for that good, if of adverſity, and hit not right, then thou wert miſerable in fearing in vaine, &c. which agrees with what he ſayeth Mr. Briggs would undertake to do, viz To prove the rules of Aſtrologie contradictory, viz. It ſhal be ſo, and it ſhal not be ſo, which is the meereſt cavil of all the reſt, to ſay, Ergo Aſtrologie is uncertain. I wil undertake then a greater matter then Mr. Briggs, for let there be what Art or Science that Mr. Homes can deviſe nominated (though never ſo true) I wil undertake to ſpeak as much, nay and with more proof againſt it, then all theſe his learned men hath done in this his Character of the preſent times (he forgot to put in thoſe that denie the truth; nay, and not onely ſo, but ſophiſtically and maliciouſly maintaine it to their utmoſt indeavours, thinking the citing of St. Auſtine to be proof enough to terrifie the Reader from undertaking this ſtudy, or continuing therein, not obſerving the words of his Author,^[46] and together with the Fathers to include the Councels, but tels us not how and upon what grounds and reaſons they diſallowed of the Art, leſt then his malice be diſcovered. Wherefore let me then for a concluſion, as wel to this Chapter, as his cavils, aske him theſe two queſtions; whether a man may not (if enviouſly diſpoſed) ſpeake againſt the moſt manifeſt truths, nay againſt the very word of God, and wreſt the Scripture to their owne inclinations and intentions? And ſecondly, if he be proved hereof guilty, in the next Chapter, to wreſt the Scripture ſence to confute Aſtrologie; whether he be not more fit to be brought under the laſh of the Law, then Aſtrologers? ſo have you his learned men againſt Aſtrologie confuted; we come now to the maine point of all, viz. whether Aſtrologie be condemned by the word of God?

CHAP. III. Wherein his divine proofs againſt Aſtrologie, are examined and confuted.

BUt before I begin, I ſhall deſire the Reader to have a ſpecial care to remember what Aſtrologie is, which is now in controverſie, and either to be confuted and condemned, or defended and cleared; the definition whereof you have at the beginning of the firſt Chapter, for otherwiſe our paines and arguments are but frivolous on either ſide; wherefore I commend Mr. Homes in that he did not firſt ſet downe the ſtate of his queſtion, before he began to confute it; but thinking pleno ore, to condemne Aſtrologie, will be enough to ſcare the Reader from the ſtudy thereof, leaveing him to conſider what it is he condemnes, although he be altogether ignorant of the ſame; that ſo his words may have the more force, and take the deeper impreſſion in the Readers heart to believe what he would faine, and as much as in him lies, ſtudies to maintaine.

SECT. I. Wherein his firſt Scripture proofe, viz. Deut. 18 verſe. 10. is convinced and cleared, no wiſe to condemne Aſtrologie.

COncerning his firſt proof, Deut. 18.10. I have formerly in my reply to Raunces Declaration againſt Aſtrologie ſayed ſomething, and referred the Reader, to that never to be enough honoured and remembred, the learned Sir Chriſtopher Heydon, to be further ſatisfied in the reſt of his divine proofs, who in his anſwer to Mr. Chamber, hath ſo excellently and learnedly handled, that the wit of man is not able to performe better, and that ſo learned a piece may not be kept from the knowledge of the vulgar, under the cloud of ſilence, I wil here along in the confutation of Mr. Homes his divine proofs, uſe his very arguments and words (as neare as I can) againſt the ſame places alleadged by Mr. Chamber.

^[47]His Firſt proof then is Deut. 18.10. There ſhall not be found among you any one that uſeth Divination, or an obſerver of times; which words ſaith he, by the common conſent of the learned of all ſorts, Signifie Aſtrologie and Aſtrologers; and for the which ſinnes,^[48] the Nations were driven out before the Children of Iſrael: Now that you ſhal ſee how farre Mr. Homes is miſtaken to think hereby to perſwade the world againſt Aſtrologie (as I ſayed before) I will give you that (learned, and never enough remembred) Gentlemans words, againſt Mr. Chamber hereon, viz. Sir. Chriſtopher Heydon Knight,^[49] where he ſaith, Picus urgeth that Achinas underſtandeth the word in the Original, to ſignifie ſuch, as obſerve lucky and unlucky houres, which our Engliſh tranſlate, a regarder of times, and Tremelius, Planetarius, and from hence they think they have pregnant evidence to condemne Aſtrologie by this Law.

I may reckon up here alſo Mr. Homes his Mercer, R. Kimchy, and Schindler, who, ſaith he, take the words in the worſt ſence (which I may very wel ſay indeed, and ſhall appeare by and by) viz. The curious and Diabolical Arts, [•]s Magi of the Egyptians, ^[50] Ergo ſaith Mr. Homes, Aſtrologie is not lawful, but what affinity aſtrologie hath with Diabolical practiſes; I deſire the Reader to remember what Aſtrologie is. But to proceed with Sir Chriſtopher Heydons diſcourſe hereon, ſaith he, But notwithſtanding all this, I wil make it appeare, that theſe Tranſlations are of ſmal force; and being admitted, little or nothing impeach this Art.

And firſt, I incounter them with the authority of the Church, even from the time of Moſes until they wrote, being wholly againſt them. For to begin with the Septuagint, They have Tranſlated the word Gnonen, in this place [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which ſignifieth Augurare, or to divine by the voice and flying of Birds; St. Hierome and the vulga[•] expounded it, of ſuch as divine by obſervation by Dreames. Pagnine in his Tranſlation interpreteth it Hariolus, by a general name, or ſuch a one, as divineth at the Altar by ſacrifices. Arias Montanus, uſeth the word Praeſtigiator, that is [〈◊〉] Jugler or Coſiner,^[51] that wi[••] Legerdemaine deceiveth the eye-ſight. (See that that [〈◊〉] alſo confeſſed by Mr. Hom[••] himſelfe) So that beſides a[••] antiquity, and conſent of the whole Church againſt him, we ſee that divers men have diverſly interpreted the word; and therefore I leave it to the judgement of the Reader, whether we are to give credit to the new Expoſitors, rather then to the ancient and learned Hebrews themſelves, who beſt underſtood their own Language, or to the common underſtanding of the Fathers and the Church, even from the firſt, until theſe men (which hath been long ſince) expounded it otherwiſe then all that had gone before them. And now to come to the Engliſh Tranſlation, as we have it expreſſed in our Bibles; ſee with what reaſon and ſound arguments Mr. Homes is ſilenced, who is not onely thus miſtaken in the ſignification of the word, but moſt ſlanderouſly intrudeth Aſtrologers with, or at leaſt makes them the ſame with Wizards, and thoſe that have familiar ſpirits, for ſaith he, So that indeed (as 'tis in Levit. 20.6.) to follow ſuch kinde of Arts, (ſpeaking before of Divination, by obſervation of times, and jugling which he all along concludes to be Aſtrologie, as his interpreters there have it) Is to goe a Whoring (ſpiritually) from Chriſt, and God will (ſaith he) ſet his face againſt ſuch, and cut off ſuch from among his people, weighty reaſons againſt Aſtrologie (ſaith he) when the words of the Text are meerely wreſted by him, not having in the leaſt any mention of this Art, or Artiſts; but of thoſe that have familiar ſpirits, and Wizards, and how he wil prove Aſtrologers to be any of theſe, I know not. Yet I can tell him when he wil doe it, though I never ſee him, and that is when he can make the 18. of Deut. to condemne the legality of Aſtrologie; but to come to our engliſh Tranſlation, the ſame Sir Chriſtopher Heydon ſayeth, Concerning our engliſh Tranſlators, I find they rather leave us in doubts, then reſolved; for whereas here they take the word Gnonen for a regarder of times, in other places they interpret it otherwaies, as in 2. Chron. Chap. 33. verſ. 6. for Witchcraft, and in the 5. of Micah For South-ſayers. So that in this inconſtancy to themſelves, they muſt either give a better reaſon (then any thing I know they are able) why in this place of Deut. it ſhould not be interpreted as wel a Witch, or a Sooth-ſayer, as a regarder of times, or elſe they muſt underſtand ſuch a regarder of times, as makes his election by Witchcraft and Sooth-ſaying, and not by Aſtrologie. Againe, ſuppoſe the word be admitted as the Engliſh Tranſlate it; yet neither is all regarding of time prohibited, neither doth it prove that regarding of time by Aſtrologie is unlawful. For Solomon (the wiſeſt of men) ſayeth, That the heart of the wiſe man knowes time, and that to every purpoſe there is a time, as to Plant, to pluck up, to ſlaie, to heale, to breake downe, to build, to weepe, to laugh, &c. which none but the foole neglecteth. As in Eccleſiaſtes farther in the third Chap. and more at large: and he that obſerveth not time, but ſhall laugh when he ſhould weep, and ſow when he ſhould reap, is unſeaſonable and maketh himſelf ridiculous, according to that of the Poet Virgil.

"Multi ante occaſum maia caepere, ſed iſtos

"Expectata ſeges, vanis eluſit ariſtis.

Wherefore if this be the true interpretation or ſignification of the word, he muſt ſpeak againſt that ſuperſtitious obſervation of times, which the Heathen uſed, and that ſuperſtitious people at this preſent do uſe; the very ſame I may ſay to Mr Homes, if he know any practitioner of the Art that maketh any ſuperſtitious uſe thereof, let him be brought forth and condemned, I'le aſſure him, he ſhall ſee me as ready to aſſiſt him therein, and be as forward as himſelf: But that it can be applyed againſt obſerving of ſuch times as depend upon evident cauſes and reaſons in nature, which onely Aſtrologie preſcribeth (as aboveſaid) none but that man that hath no judgement can imagine:^[52] And you have heard before Ptolomy himſelf as well as St. Auguſtine, and all the beſt learned Aſtrologers do abſolutely neglect the ſuperſtitious and ſortilegious elections of the Heathen: wherefore the Reader ſeeth that this text (were the interpretation admitted) impugneth them nothing at all.

But in anſwer to Mr. Homes his expoſitors, take the interpretation of the word Gnonan, as the ſame Sir Chriſtopher Heydon delivers it by Mr Edward Lively, profeſſour of the Hebrew in Cambridge to Queen Elizabeth; being a man (for his ſingular knowledge in all kind of good learning, but eſpecially in Divinity, and the tongues) of great eſtimation and authority in that Univerſity; who was ſolicited by Sir Chriſtopher Heydon to deliver his opinion and judgement of the Hebrew word, becauſe it was objected by Mr Chamber, that Tremelius did interpret it planetarius, wherefore for the Readers better ſatisfaction, I have hear delivered it verbatim as that worthy Knight hath it.

I have looked in all the Hebrew Scripture, wherein that word is uſed, examining as well the judgements of the Hebrew Scoliaſtes in their Commentaries, as alſo many of the beſt tranſlations, Caldee, Greeke, and Latine, among whom for the ſignification of that word, I find this general agreement, that it ſignifieth an unlawfull and forbidden Art of Soothſaying, or Juggling, or Sorcery, or Witchcraft; but touching the certaine and ſpeciall kind thereof, there is ſuch diſſention and diſagreement among them, as thereby it may ſufficiently appear, the very proper and clear ſignification thereof in ſpecie, to be utterly unknown: for Aben Ezra in his Commentary upon the 19. Chapter of Levit. ver. 26. deriving it from the word Gnonan, which ſignifieth a cloud; underſtood thoſe thereby who by the formes and movings of the clouds, foretold things to come: Avenarius from the ſame root underſtood Juglers which caſt a cloudy miſt before their eyes, to cover and hide their deceitful ſlights. R. Solomon on the ſame place referreth it to a word Gnonah, which noteth time, ſuppoſing ſuch to be meant, as took upon them to define times of good or bad luck for the doing of things; others fetching it from the word Gnanath, which ſignifieth to anſwer, underſtood Soothſayers, which being asked of ſecret matters, anſwered according to their skill; as by like reaſon barioli were ſo called, quaſi farioli, a fando, as ſome of the ancient learned have obſerved: ſome from gnajin, ſignifying an eye, thought Juglers to be noted, which do perſtringere oculos, that their legerdemaine may not eaſily be eſpied: here is great diverſity of opinions, but none commeth to Tremelius his mind, for a planetary, (or of Mr Homes his Arabrick verſions, which it ſeems he is loath or at leaſt aſhamed to nominate, yet he might as well have wronged them as Moſes, who, he ſaith, bringeth five ſtrong arguments againſt the Aſtrological Art, when al the world cannot ſhew that in all thoſe verſes, viz. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16. of the 18. of Deut. nor indeed in the whole chap. that Aſtrologie is ſo much as mentioned) yet ſome for a Jugler have agreed with him, which ſignification of this word, even Tremelius himſelf retaineth in the 19. Chap. of Levit. ver. 26. and in the 2. of Eſay, ver. 6. and divers other places, thereby ſhewing the vanity of his own planetarius: for if it properly and truly ſignifieth Preſtigiatorem in any place, I dare boldly ſay, that it ſignifieth Planetarium in no place; I may here omit anotable place in the 57. chap. of Eſay, ver. 3. where this word is taken for Witchcraft, beni gnonenah Witches children: So it is interprepreted in our Geneva tranſlation; ſo likewiſe expounded by the Hebrew Doctors on that place, Jarchi and Chimchi; ſo tranſlated by Mr Calvine (a man for underſtanding of the Scripture, indued with an admirable gift of judgement) filii veneficae, which by Kimchy is proved to be true by this reaſon,^[53] that the word Gnonenah there uſed is for the foeminine gender, pertaining to a Woman; becauſe women (ſaith he) for the moſt part are given to the practiſing of this devilliſh Art, it were madneſs to thinke women ſhould have given themſelves to the ſtudy of Aſtrologie, or Planetary aſpects (a thing never uſed in any Commonwealth that ever I heard of) but for Witchery, every where to be found in them rife and common. Here therefore I end, for this matter confidently affirming, that neither Tremelius if he were alive, nor Junius, nor any for them can prove that Planetarius is the clear and ſure ſignification of Gnonen, in any place of Scripture. Thus far Mr. Lively. And I may conclude this point with Sir Chriſtopher Heydons words next enſuing, viz. Wherefore I do conclude, that if that which is before ſpoken be indifferently conſidered, there is no man able demonſtratively to argue to the condemnation of Aſtrologie out of this text.

SECT. II. Wherein his ſecond proof is refelled, viz. Eſay 2.6.

ANd if ſo, or rather, ſeeing it is ſo, then I may with more confidence affirme his ſecond paſſage of Scripture to be leſſe materiall in all reſpects, for the blindeſt of people may clearly ſee, it doth no whit (by his owne words, nay and argument) ſo much as either hint or mean Astrologie, Eſay 2.6. Therefore thou haſt forſaken thy people, the houſe of Jacob, becauſe they are repleniſhed from the Eaſt, and are Soothſayers like the Philiſtims; where is Aſtrologie in all this? the text tels us God had forſaken his people becauſe they were Soothſayers, but as for their being Aſtrologers, I ſee nothing mentioned: is not this a pretty ſcarecrow? thinking any paſſage of the Scripture enough to condemn Aſtrologie, whether it ſpeaketh of it or no? what does he thinke Aſtrologie to be Soothſaying? then he ſhould prove it ſo, and I will aſſure him I ſhall endeavour then to ſpeake as much againſt it as he can; but if it be not firſt proved ſo, this wreſt of Scripture and ſophiſticall cavill is already refelled; but he begins to make up the matter with the interpretations of ſome men, but all will not do, they are at leaſt a mile ſhort of the marke, yet if I ſhould ſee any of them within an inch thereof, I ſhould conclude him to be as fas from hitting it, as he that is a yard wide; but let us ſee but how he tugs to bring this far fetcht argument or proof to ſerve his turne; he ſhews us firſt that the word clearly ſignifieth Soothſayers, which is enough alone to refell all his Interpreters therein, let them ſay what they will to the contrary, Vatablus in his notes (ſaith he) rendreth it Diviners; and Junius, Praeſtigiators, that is (ſaith he) that make ſhew of that they cannot do: you have heard Junius opinion but now, but what of this? Votablus ſaith the word imports Diviners, muſt this conſequently and infallibly be Aſtrologers, why not Necromancers, Auguries, Inchanters, Sorcerers, Auruſpicers? do not all theſe Divine? but I need not inſiſt longer hereon, for, he anſwers this point in his following words himſelf, the Septuagint (ſaith he) rendreth it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that is (ſaith Budeus) ſaith he, a kind of foretelling: as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (ſaith they) ſignifieth Divination, and generally the Caldee, Syriacke, Arabicke, Arias montanus, &c. renders it Augurers or Auguries, Ergo, not Aſtrologers, but ſaith he, farther becauſe antiquities tell us that that the Augurers did Divine as well by the aſpects of the heavens as by flying Birds; Authors of late times commonly uſe that word to expreſſe Divination in general: O brave reaſon! becauſe for brevity ſake in Oration, or the like, Authors (as he calleth them) perhaps uſe this word, therefore he will uſe it (being as he confeſſeth himſelf general) to condemn particularly Aſtrologie? and becauſe the text ſpeaketh againſt Augurers, and they know the aſpects of the Planets; therefore, it alſo condemneth Aſtrologie? all that believe ſhall be ſaved (ſaith the Scripture) it is clear the Devils believe and tremble; Ergo, I ſhall conclude them not damned? rare logick indeed! which is as affirmative, I'm confident, as his argument in every particular; ſo that you ſee then I hope by this time, the infatigable pains Mr Homes taketh to ſwim againſt the ſtreame, and when reaſon and truth will no wiſe ſupport him, he laies hold juſt as he is ſinking, on the ruſhes and weak props and ſupporters of logick, which neither is ſufficient to ſave him, but together with him they ſink down with perpetual ſhame and ſilence, into the pit of forgetfulneſſe: Alas poor Doctor Homes; I muſt confeſſe this would make any one Pitty the poore Paſtor. ^[54]

SECT. III. Wherein his third text is convinced, viz. Eſay 44.25.

THirdly, he produceth the 44. Chapter of Eſay, verſe 25, &c. I am the Lord thy redeemer, which do fruſtrate the ſignes of Wizards, making the Soothſayers mad, foiling their wiſe men, and making their skil fooliſh: This is to as little purpoſe brought to condemn Aſtrologie, as it is weakneſſe in him to alleadge it or affirme it: but before I begin to meddle with the words, I thinke meet here firſt to remove his injurious wrong he doth impoſe upon Aſtrologers, to reckon them Soothſayers and Wizards, Diviners, or Augurers, &c. But I deſire here the reader to obſerve that Mr Homes in his book, ſtudieth to condemn thoſe that profeſſe Aſtrologie here in England, and this City of London, and yet he will needs intrude Aſtrologie, or rather perſwade the vulgar, that Aſtrologie is the ſame with theſe above named; from all which Aſtrologie is as far, as black from white, or Mary-ſtainings from Bred-ſtreet, or as different as a^[55] ſick bodie is from one that's well: which becauſe he can bring ſome proof againſt them, will therefore terme Astrologers, by the ſame to be underſtood; when all Aſtrologers will not deny to condemn (in as much as in them lies) theſe aforeſaid ſtudies as well as he. But to the purpoſe, how can Mr Homes, or any one living, prove Aſtrologie to be ſignified by any of theſe names, when it is clear (as aboveſaid) it dependeth meerly on the natural influences and effects of the Stars? which is not to foretel by the flying or voice of Birds, obſervation of the intrals of Beaſts, and the like; nor indeed is it properly to be termed Divination, for to divine is not, or doth not naturally ſignifie the foretelling of future events by natural cauſes, but by ſome divine inſtinct. Wherefore Mr. Homes might have diſcharged his duty much better both to God and his Country, if he had imployed his pen to vent all the Gall both in his Inckhorn, heart and brain, againſt thoſe enemies of the truth, that maintain their owne opinions, before the word of God, and make no Conſcience of perjury, profeſſing the form of Godlineſſe, but (in effect) denying the power thereof. And not againſt Aſtrologers (nor the Art) who attribute all their knowledge, and the power of the Stars to the Omnipotent Creator of them; and in all points of Religion, ſhew themſelves conformable both to the diſcipline of the Church, and obedient to the Laws of the Land.

But to come to the words in the Text, which he would needs inforce againſt Aſtrologie; the ſame Sir Chriſtopher Heydon, further ſayeth upon theſe words. That they are purpoſely uttered to advance the omnipotency of God,^[56] ſo greatly diminiſhed by Idolatry, but to imagine that God would ſet forth the greatnes of his power, by oppoſing the ſame againſt that, which in it's ſelf is fruitleſſe, infirme, and of no force at all, were not onely againſt ſence, but in truth to fruſtrate the words and meaning of God himſelf; wherefore it doth neceſſarily follow, that ſo long as it pleaſeth him to ſuffer the courſe of nature to proceed without interruption, Aſtrological ſignes muſt be confeſſed effectual, and not to be fruſtrated but by miracle, and by his omnipotent power, to which that the Starres are ſubject, all our Aſtrologers do confeſſe, and none but an Atheiſt wil deny. For as God is the Creator of all things, ſo is he the firſt cauſe of all cauſes, to whom all cauſes are but his inſtruments; and therefore as the inſtrument worketh not of it ſelf, but when it is imployed by the Artificer, ſo the heavens being Gods inſtruments, doe not exerciſe their force upon theſe inferiour things, but as God doth uſe their miniſtery in the Government of the world. And this he ſayeth is taught us by the Prophet Hoſea (as aboveſaid) Chap. 2.21.22. where (ſaith he) he ſayeth, not ſimply, the heavens ſhall heare the earth, but firſt, I wil heare the heavens, to ſhew them the power the heavens have over the earth, and that it dependeth on God. In which ſence, the Scripture ſayeth alſo, God worketh all in all things, and that we live, move, and have our being in him. And therefore whether we reſpect the natural courſe of things, or thoſe accidents which happen beſides the order of nature, we are to acknowledge it to be the ſupereminent power of God, as the firſt cauſe of every thing, which nevertheleſſe can be no impeachment to Aſtrologie, becauſe God doth govern ordinately, and therefore ſeldome perverteth or diſturbeth that order, whereby in his eternal providence, he doth govern his workmanſhip.

Wherefore ſeeing he can not properly make the words above-ſaid to ſignifie Aſtrologie, and ſeeing the Text doth not in the leaſt expreſſe Aſtrologers, but onely Sooth-ſayers, and Wizards; I may confidently affirme and conclude this Text no whit at all to impeach Aſtrologie; and then conſequently his argument to be meerely ſophiſtical, raſh, and inconſiderate, malicious, weak, and inconſiſtent with either reaſon, ſence or honeſty. This may ſufficiently ſerve to refel this his wreſt of Scripture, but if the Reader deſireth further the diſcuſſion hereof, and how it is in every point cleared and handled, let him peruſe the 2 Chapter of Sir Christopher Heydons defence of Aſtrologie againſt Mr. Chamber, to whom (for brevities ſake) I refer him, where you ſhall not onely finde theſe his owne reaſons and words, but likewiſe the opinions and judgements of as wel the Ancient as latter Divines; all which could never pick any thing in the leaſt, juſtly to be objected againſt Aſtrologie. Ye ſee clearly therefore Mr. Homes his palpable miſtake, or at leaſt wilful wreſt of the Text; to ſerve his owne turne, to condemne Aſtrologie, but all wil not do, which is a moſt pittiful caſe, and doth almoſt perſwade me alſo, to Pitty the poore Paſtor.

SECT. IV. Wherein his fourth proofe is refelled, viz. Eſay 47.12.13.14.

FOurthly, he brings the 47. of Eſay, 12.13.14. Stand now with thine Inchantments, and with the multitude of thy Sorceries, Let now the Aſtrologers, the Star-gazers, the monthly Prognoſticators, ſtand up and ſave thee, &c. Behold they ſhal be as ſtubble, the fire ſhall burn them, they ſhall not deliver themſelves, &c. This very place (as I would have the Reader obſerve) is enough to confute his former injury to Aſtrologers, in reckoning them no other then Sooth-ſayers, Wizards, Sorcerers and the like, when he ſees clearly the Lord here makes a particular diſtinction between the one and the other; for you ſee, Aſtrologers, Monthly Prognoſticators, Sorceries, and Inchanters, particularly named, here I may alſo put the Reader in mind,^[57] that he take him as he is, viz. a Sophiſter, in wreſting the Scripture to his own purpoſe, and interpreting it to maintaine theſe his arguments, which he cannot otherwiſe in the leaſt ſupport with either reaſon or truth.

But to come now to the claring of the Text, which he thinks doth abſolutely ſtrike the fatal blow to Aſtrologie; inferring from thence, that Aſtrologie is oppoſite to confidence in God, and that Aſtrologers are much of the ſame abomination, with Inchanters and Sooth-ſayers, (which you may ſee is falſe, and as for Sooth-ſayers they are not in the leaſt mentioned in the Text, where you ſee he againe hath his owne interpretation) and that they are to be derided, and no wiſe to be truſted in, &c. But as I ſayed before, the wit of man is not able to anſwer theſe his vaine wreſts and interpretations of the Scriptures, better then by that Honourable Gentleman, Sir Chriſtopher Heydon, I heare give you, as he hath it in his 2. Chapter, in anſwer to Mr. Chamber, bringing the ſame place of Scripture, and indeed with the ſame concluſions as doth Mr. Homes. I wil not deny that, becauſe God and his Prophets were not beleeved by the Chaldeans, (who repoſed in their Magicians, Sooth-ſayers, and Mathematicians) the Prophet here in a ſcorning Sarcaſmus, biddeth them ſave their Empire from ruine, therein contemning their Power, and not their Predictions, and expreſly noting that it ſhall not be in them to ſave themſelves from the judgements to come. This I do plainly acknowledge, although were I diſpoſed to ſtand upon all advantages with Mr. Chamber, ſith both Vatablus, and Mr. Calvin, in their Commentaries, confeſſe that word Chabar, doth indifferently ſignifie ſuch obſervers of heaven as were Inchanters thereof; I could eaſily avoid him as not diſputing ad idem, ſith not Aſtrologers ſimply, but ſuch as withall joyned Magick, ſeemes here to be mentioned. And it is manifeſt by the example of Moſes, and the Egyptians, and of Balaam and Balacke, that though they were Aſtrologers, yet they repoſed their ſafety againſt God and his people, onely in their Magical power, by which (as their Poets and others report) they profeſſe themſelves able to pull the Moon and the Stars out of Heaven, and ſo doth Diodorus Siculus teſtifie, Lib. 2. Cap. 8. that though they were cunning in Aſtrologie, yet they did onely prevent the evils which they did fore-ſee, by Inchantments and Charmes. For in truth, Aſtrologie profeſſeth onely to fore-ſee natural mutations and accidents, and not power to prevent and ſave. ^[58] But to returne to that which he moſt expects, I will admit as much as Mr. Chamber himſelf can deſire, that the Prophet here derideth the truſt which was put in the skil of Aſtrologers, ^[59] (which is indeed Mr. Homes his chief drift alſo) now let him frame his argument, and he ſhall never be able to bring the propoſition of this Chap. (which is, That Chriſtianity and Aſtrologie cannot ſtand together) (which indeed is Mr. Homes his argument alſo concluding Aſtrologie, to be oppoſite to confidence in God) within his concluſion. For it followeth not, that becauſe upon ſome circumſtance a thing my be derided, that it is unlawful. If this were any conſequence, then becauſe confidences in Princes, Pſal. 1.16. in Riches, Pſal. 52. in Horſes and Chariots, Eſay 31. in Cities, Jer. 5. in Phyſitians, 2 Chron. 16. in Negotiation or trade of Merchandize. In the laſt verſe of this ſame Chapter of Eſay, (where the very ſame words and phraſe are uſed againſt Merchants, that before were uſed againſt obſervers of heaven, or Aſtrologers, as Arias Montanus and Tremelius Tranſlate it) is prohibited, derided, and puniſhed; we muſt hold the permiſſion of Princes, Riches, Horſes, Chariots, Cities, Phyſitians and Merchants, to be againſt Chriſtianity, and unlawful. He ought therefore firſt to have diſtinguiſhed of the truſt that is here derided, and not thus to deceive by any elench, à dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter, as if all truſt were taken away, becauſe ſome truſt is derided. For in theſe places, and the like, onely ſuch a truſt as excludeth confidence in God is underſtood, and no other. As in our caſe, where notwithſtanding God by his Prophets had threatned the deſtruction of the Babyloniſh Monarchy, it was not believed; but theſe heathen preſuming rather upon their owne power and skil, in contempt of God broke forth, as appeareth verſe 10. into theſe blaſphemous ſpeeches, None ſeeth me. Quaſi dieat (ſayeth Tremelius) ne deus quidem novit rationes meas, nay God himſelfe knoweth not my waies, and again, I am and none elſe, and verſe 7. I ſhall not ſit as a Widow, nor ſhall not know the loſſe of Children: Thus denying both God and his power, while they preſume upon their owne. But is this heatheniſh preſumption and confidence to be imputed as a fault to Aſtrologie? or is it not truly to be reputed the impiety of the profeſſors, and others, with whom the Prophet dealeth? who denying that to God which is due, and aſcribing more then they ought to the Stars, and their own knowledge and power, doe that which Aſtrologie never taught them, and therefore is not guilty of their ungodlineſs.^[60] He ought then to make a difference between the heathen, with whom the Prophet hath to doe, and Chriſtians againſt whom he writeth; for though it be true that Chriſtian Aſtrologers do monthly prognoſticate, as is mentioned in the Text, by the conſideration of the Stars; yet is he not able to tax any of them with that derogation from God, or impiety,^[61] which is here derided. For to place confidence in Stars, as in divine cauſes and powers, is one thing, and to eſteeme them but as ſubordinate and ſecond cauſes in nature, is another; the one maketh them Gods, the other but Gods inſtruments, which (as our Aſtrologers doe acknowledge with one conſent) it is in his power to alter,^[62] as beſt pleaſeth his divine will; and therefore they are very far from that heatheniſh preſumption and confidence here taxed, whereby ye may ſee, that the trust may be reproved, yet the Art unchecked. For I omit here to ſhow, that monthly prognoſtications grounded upon obſervation, deduced from cauſes in nature,^[63] have ever been permitted and ſuffered, in all wel ordered and Chriſtian Commonwealths, ſo far as I know; and that not only the Fathers, and thoſe latter Divines by me before remembred, but even Mr. Calvin himſelfe, in his admonition, with others (that attribute as little as they may to this Art) do allow thereof, ſo far forth as they extend to the ſtate of the Weather, of Health, Plagues, Plenty, Dearth, and to the direction of the Phyſitian, when to Purge by Pill, when by Potion, when by letting of blood; this being as far as our prognoſtications proceed;^[64] which nevertheleſſe would not have been ſuffered, if God by his holy Prophet had ſhewed any deteſtation thereof, or reproved the ſame as unlawfull, and unchriſtian. Wherefore when theſe adverſaries condemn the Art for the abuſes of Artiſts, it is cleare that they do but play the ſophiſters, deceiving by a plain fallacy, ab accidente. And laſtly, if it be conſidered what St. Hierom, Hugo, Aquinas, Lyra, Haymo, and other ancient Expoſiters,^[65] have written upon this Text, it is moſt certain, that not one of them is ſo ſharp ſighted as to eſpie out any thing in this place that may prejudicate Aſtrologie, but they all defend the ſame as fully as my ſelf. Wherefore if in this proof of Scripture Mr Homes be not as far miſtaken as in all the reſt of his fore-going cavils, and maketh not himſelf appear to the eyes of the world to be a meere ſophiſter, let the impartiall, judge: for I dare confidently affirm, that by the concluſion of this his cavill concerning this text, he is as ignorant in the Art of Aſtrologie, as from the true ſenſe and meaning of the Prophet; or from the art of adminiſtring Phyſick to ſick women, ^[66] nay I am moſt confident he is herein farther a great deal out of the way, then it is from Mary-ſtainings to Bred-ſtreet, wherefore I cannot chuſe but Pitty the poor Paſter, both for his miſtake, and abſolute miſſe of his plot and purpoſe, both of the one, and the other: I proceed therefore to his next Scripture proof.

SECT. V. Wherein his fifth proof is proved weak, as to his purpoſe, viz. Jer. 10.2, 3.

FIfthly, he ſtrives to condemn Aſtrologie by the 10. of Jer. v. 2, 3. but to as little purpoſe as in all the reſt, but with no leſs craft and deceit, Juglar-like, he indeavours to caſt the miſt of errour and miſtake before the eyes of his reader, that ſo he may carry on his deſign with more dexterity and agility: the words are, Learn not the way of the Heathen, and be not diſmaied at the ſignes of heaven, for the Heathen are diſmaied at them, &c. whereupon he inferreth, Aſtrologie not to be lawful, (becauſe as he thinks God here by the Prophet prohibiteth the Jewes to give credit to the Star-gazers) but as I ſaid before,^[67] Aſtrologers do not make the Stars gods, but Gods inſtruments; not in the leaſt attributing fatall neceſſity to be in their power: wherefore then conſequently he argueth not againſt, nor contradicteth, nor condemneth Aſtrologers by theſe his cavils, ſince they are as far from being guilty thereof as himſelf, nay and I believe more; for certainly he that will wreſt the Scripture to condemn what he underſtandeth not, meerly to ſhew himſelf a Time-ſerver, (as it is known ſufficiently Mr Homes is) is a hypocrite, and much to be feared whether he is not altogether as ignorant of God, as of this Art: But for the farther clearing of the text, and the manifeſting of Mr Homes his miſtake, if not wilfull malice, let us hear what the ſame Sir Chriſtopher Heydon ſaith in anſwer to the ſame place of Scripture alledged by Mr Chamber alſo to condemn Aſtrologie: Whereupon Mr Chamber inferreth, that the Prophet willeth the Jews to give no credit to the Star-gazers, (and Mr Homes, truſt or confidence, page 134, oppoſite to the confidence and comfort in God:) But ſure he that maketh this collection out of theſe words of the text, never (I think) either gazed or looked upon them with half an eye: for the Prophet prohibiteth fear, Mr Chamber, credit, (Mr Homes truſt or confidence;) again the Prophet ſpeaketh of the Stars themſelves, Mr Chamber of the perſons that obſerve them, (ſo Mr Homes alſo) wherefore what difference there is between the one and the other, ſo far ought we to be from giving Mr Chambers aſſertion any credit (and how ſhall Mr Homes his then take?)

For if he will truly informe the reader, he knoweth there is nothing prohibited in theſe words, but that the Jews ſhould not learn the way of the Heathen; ^[68] which when he wreſteth againſt Aſtrologie, he doth both ſhew himſelf to be out of the way, and to ſeeke to ſeduce others, for to the creature, as in theſe words, fear, not the ſignes of heaven; where the word fear, is not ſimply underſtood, but for Religious reverence, and Divine worſhip: for that it is often taken in this ſence, is no novelty to thoſe that are acquainted with the ſpeech and phraſe of the holy Ghoſt: As for example, Eſay chap. 29. verſe 13. And their fear towards me, was taught by the precept of men: where fear is (by Chriſt himſelf, alleadging this place of the Prophet, Mat. 15. v. 9.) expounded for worſhip, ſaying, in vain they worſhip me, teaching for doctrines, mens traditions: As likewiſe the very ſame word is uſed in other places, for the Idolatrous worſhip exhibited to falſe gods: as 2 Kings chap. 17. verſe 7. when the children of Iſrael ſinned, &c. it is ſaid, they feared other gods. I could confirm this by infinite like teſtimonies, were it not ſuperfluous in ſo clear a caſe: But to prove that the Prophet even here, under this word, likewiſe revoketh the Jews from worſhipping the heavenly bodies, is yet more evident by the words following: for after he hath in the two next verſes, expreſſed the vain cuſtomes of the Heathen, in erecting and adoring thoſe Images which they worſhipped; he likewiſe reſtraineth them from this ſecond Idolatry, ver. 5. in the very ſame phraſe, that he did at the firſt: fear them not, for they ſtand up as the Palm tree, but they ſpeak not, &c. whereby there is no colour of wrangling left to him, that diſpoſeth not himſelf to be obſtinately perverſe: but of force it muſt be confeſſed, that the Jewes are here onely forbidden to imitate the Heathen in both theſe kinds of Idolatry.

This may clearly ſatisfie any juditious impartial eye, for the clearing of this proof of Scripture, and that notwithſtanding it, Aſtrologie doth ſtand in its full force no whit more eclipſed, (if ſo much) then the Sun, by being overcaſt with a cloud: wherefore let all Aſtrologers proceed in their ſtudy in this heavenly and moſt lawful Art, except there could be more palpable witneſſe againſt it, then hath been hitherto produced. But to confirm what hath been already ſaid concerning this text, let us hear what this worthy man further ſaith. To confirm this more fully, by the conſideration of other places: the Scripture giveth us plentiful teſtimony, that the Jews did follow the Heathen in their Idolatry to the Stars, but are never reprehended for learning Aſtrologie of them: Wherefore the Prophet Amos, chap. 5. propheſied to them long before, even this captivity wherein the Iſraelites were held in Jeremies time, becauſe they had born (that is worſhipped) the Images of Siccuth and Chiun. Abenezra and and with him Montanus, underſtanding the Planet Saturne by Chiun: and St. Hierome expounding this word Coeab, thinketh it to be Venus whom even the Saracens in his time did worſhip: But St. Luke, Acts 7. ver. 42. & 43. following the Greeke doth explaine Amos, and ſaith, then God turned himſelf away, and gave them up to ſerve the hoſt of heaven, as it is written in the booke of the Prophets: and you tooke up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the Star of your God Remphaim, figures which you made to worſhip them, therefore I will carry you away beyond Babylon: and therefore not unaptly have ſome expoſitors conceived the Images by which the Prophet doth here exprobrate the Heathen, to have been the Images of the Signes, and that not without reaſon; becauſe that after the Prophet hath reſtrained them from this Heatheniſh fear of the Sgnes, immediately he giveth this reaſon, for the cuſtomes of the people are vaine: and declaring wherein, he addeth, for one cutteth down a tree in the Forreſt, &c. which ſhould want ſence, if this verſe depended not on the former: thus alſo 2 Kings chap. 17. verſes 15, 16. the hiſtory ſaith, they followed the Heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they ſhould not do like them: But now if Mr Chamber would know, wherein the Imitation of the Heathen offended God, the ſpirit of God himſelf reſolveth him, that this was not in the ſtudy of Aſtrologie, but in that they left the Commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten Images, even two Calves, and made a grove, and worſhiped all the hoſt of heaven, and ſerved Baal: Wherefore in the 23. chap. 4, 5, 11. of the ſame booke of the Kings, the Jews are again particularly reproved for offering incenſe to the ☉, ☽ and Planets, and for dedicating horſes and chariots to the Sun: and to return to our own Prophet; doth he not chap. 7. verſe 18. expreſly teſtifie, that their children gather wood, their fathers kindle the fire, their women knead the dough, to make cakes for the Queen of heaven, and to powre out drink-offeings to their gods? and is it not for this defection, not for Aſtrologie, that he doth likewiſe threaten, chap. 8. verſe 2. that the bones of their Kings, Princes, Prophets, Prieſts, and Inhabitants, ſhall be ſpread before the Sun and the Moon, and all the hoſt of heaven; whom they have followed, and whom they have ſerved, and whom they have followed, and whom they have ſought, and whom they have worſhipped? to be ſhort, the Prophet remembreth their like Idolatry to the hoſt of heaven, ch. 19. ver. 13. & ch. 44.15. all which conſidered, it is plain enough why the Prophet in this 10. chap. ſeeketh to withdraw the Jewes from fearing the Signes of heaven, ſith in every place their Idolatry to heavenly bodies, is reprehended; But their imitation of the heathen in the ſtudy of Aſtrologie no where. But for tediouſneſſe I might here give you the expoſitions of the chiefeſt and beſt Expoſitors as he alſo ſets them down, who from all ages have interpreted the text in this ſenſe, but theſe my labours would then ſwell to a greater bulke, then I would willingly they ſhould; beſides it would be in ſome ſenſe ſuperfluous, ſith what hath been already ſaid may ſatisfie any one who doth not willingly blind his eyes, and abſolutely deny ſatisfaction; wherefore I refer the curious reader to his moſt learned booke, chap. 2. and haſten to Mr Homes his remaining ſophiſtications.

SECT. VI. Wherein his ſixth proof is refelled, viz. Dan. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

HIs ſixth wreſt of Scripture is Dan. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. where we read Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dreame, and for to underſtand the interpretation and meaning of the dreame, he commanded to call all the Magitians, Aſtrologers, Sorcerers, &c. before him, to tell him the ſignification of his dreame; which if they could not do, they ſhould be cut in pieces, &c. upon which Mr Homes infers, that becauſe they could not ſhew the King his dreame, with the interpretation thereof, Aſtrologie is falſe, which I may ſay is a very falſe aſſertion; for if he had known what Astrologie is, he had never thus made himſelf ridiculous to condemn Aſtrologie by this aſſertion or place of Scripture, the reader may remember what Aſtrologie is,^[69] and how far all Aſtrologers hold it effectuall; as ye have alſo before. Now that this place of Scripture doth no wiſe condemn Aſtrologie, I ſhall deſire him to obſerve, that God in his ſecret wiſdome and counſel, Dan. 2.18. had decreed what ſhould happen in the latter daies, and had revealed it to the King by a dreame, viz. the ſubverſion of his Monarchy, and together with his, all others whatſoever, and the comming of Chriſt which is the ſtone cut out without hands, which afterwards grew to a mountain which filled the whole earth, both with his power and glory, by the clear Sun-ſhine of the Goſpel; by which I am confident Mr Homes cannot prove then, Astrologie to be condemned or to be falſe, when it is not in its power to reveale the ſecrets of God, but onely extendeth to the knowledge of natural accidents and mutations, and their cauſes; which was not (you clearly ſee) the Kings dreame, but a revelation of Gods ſecret will and intent by dreame: wherefore ſince his argument will not hold, his concluſion muſt needs faile him. Moreover you ſee, as the dreame was really a revelation, ſo was alſo the interpretation thereof, for you ſee in that ſame ſecond chap. that Daniel prayed to God to reveal it unto him, which you ſee accordingly was in a viſion by night,^[70] and thought he was as great an Aſtrologer and Magician as any of the wiſe men; yet he knowing it was a ſecret beyond nature, Dan. 2.13, 14. applyed himſelf to God for the revelation thereof, not to the ſearch thereof in any booke of naturall cauſes, as of Aſtrologie or Magick: wherefore you ſee how far Mr Homes runs himſelf into an errour, for want of knowing what Aſtrologie is, and the extent thereof. And then laſtly, he as raſhly concludes with his divine proofs, as in all his progreſſe before; intruding and falſely impeaching Aſtrologers to be ſome of thoſe that brought and burnt their books upon repentance of their wicked practices,^[71] which I muſt confeſſe (were they as he alſo moſt raſhly and inconſiderately tearmes them to be, and as he ſaith ſet forth in the 21. Revel. 8. to have their parts in the lake that burneth with fire and brimſtone) they had at that time done very well in burning their books, had they been worth a thouſand times as much againe as they are there reputed or valued at; but ſith their Art and ſtudy depends upon onely the knowledge of the nature and influences and motions of the Stars; I know not what reaſon he hath to include them to be thus penitent for ſtudying Nature onely, Ergo, not condemned under the word Sorcery in the Revelation, 21.8. wherefore ſeeing this is ſo apparently falſe, I ſhould counſel him (and that ſpeedily to) to burn his books that thus hath lead him into an errour, and to contradict the Scriptures; for I find in that very 21. of Revelation 8. Lyers expreſly nominated, and when he goeth to the fire with his books, let him remember to go by Bred-ſtreet, that ſo he may ſorrow for all together: that ſo the Lord may have mercy and Pitty of the poor Paſtor.

CHAP. IV. Wherein his reaſons and arguments againſt Aſtrologie, is particularly examined and condemned, neither to conſiſt with reaſon or truth.

SECT. I. Wherein his firſt four-fold reaſon is convinced.

HIs firſt reaſon then is, (to prove Aſtrologie is falſe) that Aſtrologers themſelves confeſſe, that either the prudence of a moral wiſe man, or the piety of a Godly man, or the tutelarity of Angels, or the providence of God, over-ruling all things, may prevent their predictions. Whereupon be concludes that Aſtrologie is falſe; for ſaith he, what humane providence cannot doe, grace can; if not, Angels may; and wehre all faile, providence doth order according to the mind of God, &c. To anſwer this his moſt weak cavil, I ſhall begin with what he ſets down laſt, viz. The providence of God over-ruling all things, which he ſayeth himſelfe (as well as the other three clauſes) is the conceſſion of Aſtrologers themſelves, and if ſo, I would demand then what advantage he hath hereby, againſt Aſtrologie; when he can ſay no more againſt it, then what the Practitioners in the Art do confeſs themſelves? there is certainly none but wretched Atheiſts, that will deny, that God hath not an over-ruling, and a reſtraining power over all things, as well celeſtial, as terreſtrial; but whether his will and pleaſure be to alter their naturall courſes, is a queſtion, but he hath heard that Ptolomy himſelfe, nay and all Aſtrologers in general, do attribute nothing (farther then natural things, which are in ſublunary elementary bodyes) to the power and influence of the Stars;^[72] he might then as well have ſayed, the eye hath no power to ſee, or diſtinguiſh from black and white, (becauſe by the power of ſenſe, it may be cloſed) as weakly to infer the Stars not to have power, becauſe God can alter, or is able to alter their motions, influences and effects, or the piety of a Godly man, which neither is in the verge of nature, all Aſtrologers will condeſcend and agree, that the Stars (as alſo Ptolomy himſelf) hath no power of what is beyond nature; and if piety be not as far beyond nature, as heaven is from earth, let the weakeſt capacity judge. He might then as well have ſaid, a fiſh is no living creature, nor hath any life, becauſe it will not live on the Land; for it is altogether as far out of the element (as I may ſay) of the Stars, or their power to extend their influence to divine matters, as for a fiſh to fly, or a ſtone to ſwim, or the like ridiculous things, (if affirmed) which is contrary to nature. Wherefore his third clauſe alſo, is to as little effect, as the two former, when all that knows any thing in divinity, will acknowledge the tutelarity or guard of Angels, to be adminiſtred onely to the elect; and if this be not as far out of the bounds and confines of nature as the other, I would deſire Mr. Homes to make cleare to the contrary; and for his fourth clauſe, it is as witty an one, as if one ſhould ſay, Mr. Homes is no Divine,, becauſe he is not as yet a Biſhop,^[73] or that a man is not married, becauſe he lives from his wife. The prudence of a moral wiſe man, may alter or prevent the effects of the Stars. This is not onely confeſſed by all the learned in Aſtrologie, but alſo ſapiens dominabitur aſtris, a wiſe man may rule the Stars; but they do not conclude therefore they have no effects at all, as the ignorant in the Art do with Mr. Homes; but they farther ſay, aſtra regunt homines, ſed regit aſtra deus. The Stars rule men, but God ruleth the Stars; this is the doctrine of Aſtrologers (I meane thoſe that are Aſtrologers indeed, and know the fundamentals and true ground of the Art, not ſuch ignorant Practitioners as Mr. Homes and Raunce) neither do they mean,^[74] when they ſay, aſtra regunt homines, any fatal neceſſity to be attributed to thoſe heavenly bodies, nor to have power over men, further then ſuch men are guided only by ſence as bruit beaſts, and not by reaſon; for they further affirm, that they niſi agunt, non cogunt, they act, or incline, but no wiſe compel; but where grace or reaſon ſupports a man, there, or on ſuch a man, the Stars have no power; wherefore then (by the way) I may aske Mr. Homes or Raunce, if they with all their pretended zeale, can find fault with this Doctrine, or teach better themſelves; or whether any Divine whatſoever, or all put together, can in the leaſt carp at this; or whether Aſtrologie then be Diabolical, Idolatrous, the Doctrine or Language of the Devils, or wicked, as theſe two ſeeming zealous blades, moſt falſely, maliciouſly, inconſiderately, and ignorantly traduce it? and then I demand, ſince as the Philoſopher ſayeth, ignorance is the enemie of all good learning,^[75] whether they deſerve not exemplary puniſhment, to condemne ſo noble, ſo profitable to the Common-wealth, ſo excellent, ſo divine, and ſo pleaſing a ſtudy, as Aſtrologie is, teaching and traducing their vile ignorance to the world; and truly as one of them moſt wiſely ſayed, if he ſhould make appeare what he knoweth of ſome Aſtrologers, the Parliament would make a Law againſt it, as ſometimes was done in the Senate of Rome; but would he be content all Divines ſhould be ſilenced, becauſe ſome are Knaves, and prate non-ſenſe, and ſo conſequently conclude no verity or truth in Divinity? Truly might I be worthy to adviſe that High Court; in the ſtead of condemning and prohibiting this moſt worthy ſtudy, they would do well to prohibit all ſuch Pamphleters, which without either feare or wit, undertake to condemne what they are ignorant of; and that none ſhould be ſuffered to condemne, or falſely undertake to traduce any Art or Science whatſoever, without firſt before the publiſhing of their writings, to make appear to the world, that they are throughly verſt and read in the Art they undertake to condemn. And this would not onely be a diſcouragement to the ignorant traducers of Arts, but alſo an incouragement to all ingenious ſpirits, to apply themſelves to knowledge,^[76] which is the onely thing that diſtinguiſheth men from bruit beaſts. For I dare confidently affirme, that if either of theſe two zealous time-ſervers, knew the depth and ground of Aſtrologie, they had never thus enviouſly carped at it; The verity whereof, as alſo it's legality, I dare undertake to defend, not onely againſt what they can ſay againſt it; but alſo all the Divines in England (put together to helpe them) can imagine or contrive to ſay. But to return to our buſineſſe in hand, Mr. Homes on his four-fold argument, brings this concluſion, that God worketh not by the ſtars as ſecundary cauſes, but Ephe. 1.11. he ruleth all things after the counſel of his divine wil. O rare Divine! which underſtands not the meaning of the Holy Ghoſt better in this place, then becauſe God ruleth all things after the counſel of his own will; he worketh not by cauſes: then, to what purpoſe I pray you are Armies, and the ſucceſſe ſometime this way, ſometime that, till in concluſion the victory is fully obtained on one ſide or other? will he ſay, (notwithſtanding the various ſucceſſe of the buſineſſe in time of the warre) that it was not concluded in the counſel of Gods own wil, that the victory ſhould be given on that ſide? ſure he will not be ſo impious: yet you ſee he worketh it by inſtruments. (Many of the like inſtances might be here produced, but for brevities ſake) but he might underſtand this place of Scripture to ſpeak of the Omnipotency, and Omniſciency of the wiſedom and power of God, in the Government of the world, (as to any one that peruſeth the Chapter will appear) will he therefore deny that God worketh by cauſes or meanes? Sure this were obſtinate wilfulneſſe, or abſolute madneſſe; but that he worketh by the Stars, what he preordained,^[77] is clear from what hath been already ſayed, wherefore here againe to rehearſe, would but increaſe this ſame volum to a larger ſize then my firſt intentions; wherefore I leave you to look back to what hath been hereon aboveſaid, and haſten to his ſecond frivolous reaſon or argument.

SECT. II. Wherein his objection touching the diverſity of Twins, is refelled. As alſo ſome other quirks againſt Aſtrologie examined and convinced.

HIs ſecond Argument or reaſon againſt Aſtrologie is, (ſaith he) from cleare experience in Twins conceived at the ſame inſtant, and borne in the ſame houre or leſſe. Now Mr. Homes had done well to have made this his cleare experience, as cleare to his Reader, by demonſtration or example, and not to content himſelf with his bare word, this is but one Doctors opinion; but will he ſay that all Twins are conceived at the very ſame inſtant of time? ſure he will not; but admit ſome are, yet will he not affirme, they are therefore borne in the ſame inſtant of time; I will appeale to any one of diſcretion and underſtanding in ſuch matters, if it hold with reaſon, that two Children ſhould be borne both together; and to make it more cleare, that all Twins are not conceived at one and the ſame inſtant of time,^[78] I refer him to the peruſal of thoſe he finds in the Margent; but let me aske him what he thinketh of the ſtory of Proconeſia, who as the ſtory goes, lying with her Maſter, and his man her fellow ſervant both in one day; conceived by both, and brought forth one Child like the Maſter, and the other like the man. Wherefore the firſt part of his argument is not available; neither (upon good conſideration) will his following words; for he confeſſes himſelfe that the neareſt time of their birth is, in the ſame hour or leſſe, when all that knows any thing in Aſtrologie, knows that four minuts of time in the birth, gives near upon a yeares time in directions; wherefore certainly when he made ſuch clear experience in the birth of Twins, they were not born at the ſame inſtant, but at leaſt four and four and four minuts difference, for the neareſt time he confeſſes, may be ſomewhat leſſe then an houre; which certainly muſt breed very much difference indeed; wherefore except he could have proved that they were born both at an inſtant, or giue us an example of any ſuch that he hath made cleare experience of, ^[79] his argument and reaſon is a meer ſophiſtical cavil. And whereas he alleageth for this ſtrength of his cavil, that Pharez and Zara did put forth themſelves interchangeably in one hour; but how he can prove it was in one hour, is I beleeve too hard a taske for him to do, he having no Warrant therefore, from the word of God. But all this is nothing to the point, for though Zarah put forth his hand firſt, and for diſtinction had a red thread tyed about it, yet be plucked it back again, and Pharez was born before him, Gen. 38. ver. 29. Therefore I am confident he cannot affirm, that Zarah was a whit the nearer his birth by putting forth his hand, for we ſee to the contrary; wherefore then how this aſſertion maketh againſt Aſtrologie, let the weakeſt capacity judge. And this is not ſo weak, but he can bring the example of Jacob and Eſau to condemne Aſtrologie,^[80] which is far weaker (if poſſible) and ſerves as little for his purpoſe (when he rightly conſiders it) he will ſay himſelf. For all that is acquainted with that ſtory in the Scripture, knowes that Eſau was borne firſt, and after him came his brother Jacob; and that this is cleare, the Scripture further ſayeth, the younger ſhall ſerve the elder, Ergo, they were not born at one inſtant of time, and therefore I may very well conclude, that this cavil ſerveth no whit to the condemnation of Aſtrologie; ſince for ought he can prove to the contrary, (or any one can tell) they were born many hours diſtant, and ſo conſequently they muſt needs have ſeverall ſignificators at their birth, which will cauſe very much diverſity of manners, fortunes, forme and ſhape, &c. but if he will tell me there was ſo ſmall difference in the time, as that Jacob had hold on his brothers heel; I ſay that yet notwithſtanding, doth this prove them to bee borne at one and the ſame time; but that there was ſo much time betwixt their births, as may cauſe much difference in moſt matters of their lives: but admit this objection, any underſtanding man knows it could no wiſe ſtand either with the ſafety of the Mother or Child, that he ſhould be thus born with one hand before all the body.^[81] And again, ſince it is no wiſe poſſible in nature, that Twins ſhould be born both at the ſame inſtant of time; this his frivolous cavil is of no uſe, unfitly brought for the matter in queſtion; and altogether inconſiſtent with reaſon.

But this by the way; we come to his example of Jacob and Eſau, which he ſaith, by reaſon of their differences, confuteth Aſtrologie: ^[82] But wherein the difference appears, I believe he knows not; however, if he could prove all the difference that poſſibly could be imagined, yet is not this a ſufficient ground for him to condemn Astrologie, ſith it hath nothing to do with Divine providence, or matters beyond the common courſe of nature; which may evidently appear, that this birth of Jacob and Eſau is, by the ſtory of their conception, which you may ſee was abſolutely a thing beyond the power of nature; for their mother Rebecka (the Scripture telleth us) was barren: Wherefore this being ſo, this I ſay alone, is enough to ſilence all that he can ſay againſt Aſtrologie, by this example of Jacob and Eſau. But ſure, notwithſtanding, if one ſhould particularly examine their lives, one ſhould hardly find ſuch great difference between them as could juſtly be alleadged to condemn Aſtrologie; for if we look to their qualities, they were both Princes, if to the number of their Wives and Children, ^[83] look into the Antiquities of the Jews, and you will find their children were alike in number within one, and we know that Jacob had Leah, ^[84] Rachel, Billa and Zilpah, to his Wives, 4. and Eſau, Baſhemah, Mahalah Adah & Aholibamach, 4. alſo; if we againe looke to their Riches or wealth, they were both ſo abundantly wealthy, as that one Country was not able to containe them both: but if any one ſay, they differed in the matter of their birth-right, I anſwer, that this ſimple objection is of no validity,^[85] for, Aſtrologie is not to decide or premonſtrate, or foreknow the cauſe of Divine matters, neither the ſecret will of God, which that this was Gods ſecret will, there is none but knows; for, as he was choſen to be the root or foundation of Gods people; ſo by the obtaining of the birth-right of his brother, did clearly premonſtrate, both this his election and the power of his ſeed, to exceed the power of the others ſeed, being the elder: And here I may alſo add, they were both roots and foudations of two great Nations; but as this maketh neither for, nor againſt Astrologie, being a ſupernatural birth; yet it may and doth ſerve very fitly to ſhew, that if Mr Homes be minded to cavil, here is matter enough for him: Wherefore you ſee clearly, this reaſon (or non-reaſon) and example of twins, againſt Aſtrologie to be of all reaſons and examples the moſt weake, and inconſiſtent with the matter in queſtion.

So that rather I may juſtly ask him here, where is the ſtrength of his reaſons and arguments againſt Aſtrologie? where is his victory over the Aſtrologians? where is Aſtrologie proved incertaine? where hath he proved the incertainty thereof? then for him to ask (upon theſe his bald reaſons) where then is the verity or certainty of Star predictions? where is the verity of Aſtrologie? as if he had obtained an abſolute conqueſt, over Aſtrologie and Aſtrologers: And therefore concluding theſe his reaſons to be moſt invincible, and not able to be anſwered by Aſtrologers, he anſwereth them himſelf his own way, in the behalf of Aſtrologers. It may be (ſaith he) they will read us a lecture of difference from magnitudes and motions, which anſwer I muſt confeſſe ſutes juſt well enough with the queſtion, neither of them both being fully to any purpoſe; but to be farther ſatisfied herein, let him looke Ptolomy, lib. 3.^[86] chap. 7. of his Quadripartite, where he ſhall be clearly taught the reaſons of differences in Twins, and convinced of his erroneous cavill, that they are born at the ſame inſtant of time; it is not from magnitudes or motions, though ſomewhat might be ſaid thereon, and that ſo much, as that I believe would trouble him to anſwer; but let that paſſe, and hear how he queſtions and anſwers for and againſt Aſtrolologers, if ſo (ſaith he) if the ☽ be leſſe then the earth according to Keckerman at leaſt twenty times, and the reſt of the Planets below the ☉, as ♀ twenty ſeven times leſſe then the Earth, and ☿ twenty two times, how then ſhall theſe at any poſture, at one and the ſame time effect or ſignifie any thing to all the world? it is the opinion indeed (and with very much reaſon) of all the Mathematitians and Astrologers that ever writ, that theſe three Planets under the Sun are leſſe then the earth,^[87] but amongſt the moſt learned of them there is much diſpute of the certaine magnitude thereof; but how equivalent this querke is againſt Aſtrologie, is wonderful! A candle is not able to give light to a bowle, or any thing as big as a peck, becauſe it is ſo much bigger then the candle; when we know and commonly ſee that it will give light to a great ſpacious roome, a thouſand times bigger then it ſelf; (a ſtrong reaſon indeed) we know and ſee, that the influence of a Planet extends it ſelf ten thouſand times beyond its viſible light to our ſight; but to come cloſer to the matter, hath not the ☽, ☿ and ♀, their ⚹, □, △ dexter and ſiniſter, and ☍, to all and every part or utmoſt parts of the heavens (that are millions of times bigger then both them and the earth) according to their ſeveral motions? and hath not theſe aſpects as much power and influence, as a perpendicular ☌? and whereas he asketh, what is the difference of natures in Twins? when the ſuperiour Planets are proportionably bigger then the Earth, but ſure he never read that part of Ptolomy, which I before cited, concerning the ſeveral ſignificators in Twins, which is the onely cauſe and reaſon that can be given for his frivolous quirke: but as he queſtions to bring his bald arguments about; ſo he anſwers his own queſtions in hopes to confirm them; If (ſaith he) this is becauſe of the ſwift externall violent motion of the Stars, why then I againe demand, how the Stars can have time to make any diſtinct impreſſion by any particular influence on one borne, eſpecially on one who perhaps may lie in the mouth of the womb partly borne, partly unborne; for a quarter or half an hour, or many hours; when the motion of the Zodiack is 60 times 60 miles in an houre, which is 60 miles compleat in one minute.

But to anſwer to this weake cavill, I ſhall ſay no more, but that though the Heavens be ſo ſwift, yet in compariſon of us it is not ſo much as an inch is to 10000 miles; for we ſee by dayly experience, that the ☉ (who is alſo by the ſame violence (contrary to his own natural courſe) carried in like manner) doth not as to us move at all in two or three hours; for marke how ſmall a thing in a Diall gives this 60. miles in a minute, ſo that this doth no whit at all hinder the influence of the Starres, if they ſhould be hurried ten times ſwifter; for this great courſe is in relation to the circumference of the heavens, not of the earth: beſides we know that thoſe ſignes that are of longer aſcenſions, as are, ♋, ♌, ♍, ♎, ♏, ♐, are ſometimes an hour and a halfe, nay perhaps two hours aſcending, or in the firſt Houſe, and ſo conſequently may be in any Houſe.

And for his long continuance of the Infant in the mouth of the wombe, this may ſomewhat refell, but there is no Aſtrologer that will take that part of a birth, or the beginning of the mothers travell, to be the ground or Radix of the infants Nativity; ^[88] but that inſtant in which He or Shee is perfectly ſeperated from the wombe, and entred this elementary world, ſince no man can properly call that a birth, which is but half a expelled, or but halfe perfected, when alſo ſometimes the Infant may draw back again.

So that theſe frivolous kind of cavillings, is neither available nor indeed any thing in the leaſt to the controverſie in diſpute; yet Mr. Homes is willing to help Aſtrologers to anſwer theſe his feeble queſtions, with far weaker expreſſions; and to ſay the truth, ignorance it ſelfe, for ſaith he, If Aſtrologers will plead and thing to helpe themſelves herein, from the ſlowneſſe of other motions of the Stars, that are natural to them, viz. that the fixed ſtars, move with ſo ſlow a motion from North to South back againe, as that their courſes are not finiſhed in leſse then 7000. yeares; Now I would very faine know of any rational man, how this anſwer of his in the behalfe of Aſtrologers, is able to availe them a ruſh, or himſelf in his purpoſe, ſince they are alſo hurried with the like violence as aforeſaid, every 24. hours once about the earth? but as all theſe his quirks are brought into his advantage (as he thinks,) ſo the advantage he ſtrives to gain hereby, he may brag of, as much as of the former; for all this his gaine is but the opportunity of this queſtion, viz. How then can any age ſince the beginning of the world have experence, what the conjunction of the Starres may produce? This is a great Conqueſt indeed, but how ſlender an Artiſt he herein renders himſelf, let the judicious judge, ſince it is moſt certain that theſe ſtars we call fixed, move not at all; Ergo, are nominated fixed, for they move unanimouſly together in their ſphere, which is about 7000. years finiſhing its courſe, not the Stars; but ſuppoſe they do move, yet they move not by ſeveral motions, as the one being flower or ſwifter then another, for they are all alike diſtant each from other continually, and if theſe come not to aſpect nor ☌ of the Planets; yet the Planets come to configuration with them, as ♄ commeth in configuration of them once in 29. years ſome odd months and dayes; ♃ in 12 years, ♂ in three years, ☉ in one year or twelve months; ♀ and ☿ in the like time or there abouts, the ☽ in 28 dayes and ſome odd hours. I hope then this experience may be learned in a far ſhorter time then 7 or 8000 years, and if the motions of the Planets are not exactly for ever calculated by Aſtronomers in former ages, and that of late to our hands, I would faine Mr. Homes would do them better; and ſince theſe is ſo apparently and vulgarly known, it is ſufficient ground for any one to take the exact poſition of the heavens, either in Twins births or any others, without the error that theſe motions he ſpeaketh of can cauſe, which indeed is none at all. Wherefore if theſe aſſertions of his, be not weaker then all his former cavils, as alſo moſt apparently inconſiſtent with what he would faine prove, I leave to the learned and judicious herein to judge, and haſten to his remaining cavils.

SECT. III. Wherein his indeavours to prove Astrologie of no truth or certainty, as alſo it's rules and principles, are themſelves of leſſe truth, or ground, nay and indeed ſenſleſs.

HIs third Argument againſt Aſtrologie is, to prove the Maximes, Theorems, Axiomes and Canons of the Art, inconſiſtent with truth or foundation; but firſt he denyeth abſolutely any ſuch (viz. ground or principles) at all to be in the rules of Aſtrologie, but with what apparent falſehood, malice, and invective wickedneſs, this is done, ſhall appeare to the world by theſe examples following, being ſome few queſtions and reſolutions, which by my own experience I can againſt all malicious adverſaries affirme to be moſt punctually true; wherefore I have thought good here to devulge them to the world, that ſuch envious carpers at this moſt true Art, may be for ever ſilenced, or at leaſt that their perverſeneſs may be apparently and vulgarly knowne in their colours; but ſee how inveterately they traduce it, notwithſtanding milions of the like examples, which they know not otherwiſe what to ſay for themſelves, unanimouſly (this ſurpaſſing the natural capacities of their profound judgements, when they ſo clearly ſee themſelves by experience convinced) they preſently ſay, it is impoſſible this ſhould be true! ſure this is very ſtrange? nay I am confident this could not be done by Art! this is a plaine dealing with the Devil! it is witchcraft! and the like ſimple and malicious cenſures, or rather ſcandals hereon, but to the buſineſs intended.

Die ♃ 10. Ian. 1649 10. h. 0. m. P. M. ☽. a. △. ♀. ad. ⚹. ♃. Shall I receive my money? and when?

[Image not included in the transcription.]

A Gentleman a very good friend of mine (having expected ſome money from an Vncle of his, a Fathers brother, and being diſappointed two ſeveral returnes of the Poſt; being therefore doubtfull of the receipt thereof) propounded unto me this queſtion. Whereupon I erected this Sceame, it being the punctuall time of his queſtion.

I find here but two degrees aſcending, and that of the ſigne ♎, which according unto the rules of ſome Aſtrologians, and indeed all that ever I met with) ought not to be judged on; yet I agree not alwaies with them in this point, nor in many more beſides this. The reaſon then I take this queſtion to be ſufficiently radicall, is, becauſe it ſo exactly diſcribeth the Querents body, together with his marks; beſides, the queſtion concerned not the aſcendant, but the ſecond Houſe, and there is 24. degrees aſcending, &c.

But to be ſhort, I find ♃ here ſignificator of the Querents Uncle (from whom this money in queſtion is expected) as being lord of the third from the fourth, yet the ſixth in the figure, he is located in the Querents ſecond, intimating therefore his intention and willingneſſe to performe the Querents deſire; which judgement was the more confirmed by being in ⚹ with ♀, Lady of the Querents ſecond; as alſo ♂ lord of the ſeventh, which is the Uncles ſecond in a △ to the Querents ſecond Houſe; and ☽ ſeparating from a △ of ♀ and immediately applying to a ⚹ of ♃ in the ſecond, both being friendly aſpects and principle ſignificators, (though ſhe ſeparated not from ♃ and applyed to ♀, yet they being both fortunes, and her application was to ♃ in the querents, 2d) I judged as aboveſaid, that his Uncle had a great willingneſſe to performe his deſire, and that he ſhould receive the money he expected, of the which I was the more confirmed, by reaſon I found ♁ diſpoſed of by ♀ and that within a fortnight after the time of the queſtion; the reaſon I nominated juſt that time, was, for that ♃ and ♀ lackt juſt two degrees of the perfect ⚹ aſpect; ♀ indeed as ſhe is in a moveable ſigne, might denote but dayes; yet by reaſon ♃ is in a fixed ſigne, which might ſignifie months, or yeares (but as the ancients teach, a te et a ſcientia) I tooke the medium therefore of theſe extreams, which was weeks; which accordingly happened, and not till then: for on the 25th. day of the ſame moneth he received it, notwithſtanding by a Letter preſently after the queſtion, a ſooner time was nominated, and after that, not above four dayes before the day I nominated, came a meſſenger from his Uncle, about other buſineſſe to him, and yet brought it not, which did ſeeme very ſtrange to the Querent. This Gentleman▪ viz. the Querent, till his acquaintance with me, had but a weake belief of Aſtrologies legality or veritie; I believe he is at this preſent in this Town, and can juſtifie this for a truth.

But becauſe ſome ignorant traducers of this Art, do affirme that Aſtrologers will never undertake (nay and that they cannot) to reſolve the querents doubts, without he comes to them with a great belief of their skill, and of the power of the Art; I will here give you my judgement on two figures, propounded not onely by unbelievers, but enemies of Aſtrologie; which were propounded by way of diſcourſe, and in their arguing with me of the verity of Aſtrologie.

The occaſion of this Queſtion was thus; upon ſome conference, of the verity of this Art of Aſtrologie we here undertake in this ſmall Treatiſe to Vindicate: a Gentlewoman of very long acquaintance with me, being then in company was very invective againſt it, inſomuch ſhe would no wiſe believe any one could reſolve her any thing ſhe ſhould demand, and wondred I would maintain (in the leaſt) the verity thereof; whereupon I deſired her to propound any queſtion to me; whereupon ſhe told me that ſhe was confident if there were any verity therein, yet I could not reſolve her queſtion; her reaſon was, becauſe no Aſtrologer (ſhe told me) would undertake to reſolve an unbelieving querent: ſo that I deſired then the willinger to be demanded ſome Queſtion, the rather, for that I was deſirous to convince her, of this weake opinion; but to be ſhort, ſhe at length after much intreaty, propounded this Queſtion, as followeth.

☿. 19. Decem 1649. 4. h. 30. m. P. M. ☽ a. ⚹. ☉. ad ⚹. ♂.

[Image not included in the transcription.]

Shall I receive the money due from the Parliament?

I find here the ☽ ſignificatrix of the querent in ♏ diſpoſed of by ♂ and he lord of the 11; whereupon I told her, ſhe depended much upon a friend (or ſo in pretence) which might happily be a ſouldier, which I was the more confident of, by reaſon I ſaw ☽ going ſtraight to the ⚹ of ♂, but becauſe ſhe ſeparated laſt from the ⚹ of ☉ lord of the ſecond; and ſo transferring the light of ☉ to ♂, I told her I feared her friend was not very faithful unto her, but did under-hand ſeek to defraud her of what ſhe expected of the Parliament, or of as much as in him lay he could do: I found alſo ♃ ſignificator of the Parliament diſpoſed of by ♂, as alſo ☉ lord of her ſecond, ſeparated from a ⚹ of ♃, I acquainted her they had lately promiſed her faire, but ſtill (I told her) I did believe her martiall friend did obſtruct their good willingneſſe unto her, and becauſe I ſaw ♂ ſo very near the □ aſpect of ♃, and that he was diſpoſed of by ♂, I told her I was confident (notwithſtanding all the faire promiſes (of which ſhe confeſſed ſhe did plentiouſly abound) the Parliament had lately made unto her) he or ſome man or men ſignified by ♂ would be her hinderance, ſo that ſhe ſhould no wiſe receive the money ſhe expected of them, which was the more certainly confirmed by his being in ☍ to the cuſpe of the ſecond.

She thereupon confeſſed that the friend ſignified by ♂ (whom I deſcribed) was indeed very forward (to outward appearance) to do for her, but ſhe had indeed (of late) found him very perfidious, but yet ſhe ſaid ſhe could not be perſwaded but the intentions of the Parliament were reall: but not long after (viz. within three moneths, as ♂ wanted three dayes of the □ of ♃) came forth the Ingagement, which her husband refuſing to take, was forced to loſe his debt: and who was the authors of the Ingagement? which when ſhe alſo found ſo marvellouſly to happen, ſhe was ſo converted from being an antagoniſt or enemy to Aſtrologie, that ſhe became a great lover and admirer thereof; often times ſince blaming her former raſhneſſe in condemning what ſhe was ignorant of.

But another example that the querents unbelief, is no whit material to the perverting of the Artiſts judgement, I will alſo here give you; for if the queſtion be indeed radical, the Artiſt having any skill, and not deviating from his rules, he ſhall ſeldome faile.

And this is of an incredulous Gentlewoman alſo; her Queſtion was, of her husband being abſent.

♂. 17. Oct. 1648. 9. h. o. m. A. M. ☽. a △. ☉. in △. ☿. ad △. ♀.

[Image not included in the transcription.]

Where is my husband? And when will he returne?

This Queſtion was propounded by a Lady very unbelieving in the Art of Aſtrologie, inſomuch that if poſſible, ſhe exceeded the former.

I find here ♀ ſignificatrix of the abſent huſband, and located in the twelfth houſe of the figure; whereupon I told her, her husband was in Priſon (but before (becauſe ♏ aſcended) I deſcribed his ſhape, as alſo the markes of his body) who when ſhe heard this, with much admiration began to tell me, he was indeed in Priſon, and was ſuch a manner of man exactly as I had deſcribed him; but ſhe could never have believed this could have been told her, which was the reaſon ſhe would ſay nothing to me of his condition; whereupon ſhe was very deſirous then to know farther, viz. when ſhe ſhould ſee him; but firſt I finding ☽ ſeparated from ☉ (by a △ aſpect) lord of the ninth, yet the third, from the ſeventh his aſcendant; & in △ of ☿ lord of the tenth in the figure, and then immediately transferring the light of both by a △ to ♀, the abſents ſignificatrix, I accquainted her that a brother or kinſman of his, ſhould make means to ſome officer in great authority, or the General (for it could not then be the King) which ſhould be the means of his inlargement,^[89] and for that theſe aſpects were ſo near the time, that the queſtion was demanded, I told the querent I was confident her husband was already or ſhould ſuddenly be inlarged, and be relieved alſo with money; which I ſaw alſo by ☿ his being in combuſtion of ☉ he was in want of; as for the time when ſhe ſhould ſee him, I find ♀ very near the aſcendant, and the ſame time ſhe comes to the cuſpe thereof, the ☽ comes to the ſame degree (or very near it) of ♊ the proper aſcendant of London, I told her I was confident when ♀ and ☽ came to theſe places, he would be with her, which was the 25. day of the ſame moneth, being Wedneſday, which accordingly happened; and when I came to the ſpeech of him, he confeſſed all that I had related concerning him was to the letter true; viz. That he was in Priſon ten weekes, and was by the means of his brothers power with the Generall (which was then Sir Thomas Fairfax) he had his liberty, and that his brother did (for his neceſſary occaſions) furniſh him with 20. l. I could here inſert many the like examples, but ſince they are ſo frequently divulged in other Treatiſes, I hold it here no wiſe neceſſary longer to inſiſt; but Mr Homes I pray, if one had asked whether a man had lived with his wife or no? or whether he loved another mans wife? might not theſe queſtions have been reſolved as well as any of theſe above mentioned?

But let us ſee how he can prove the rules or principles of the Art groundleſſe and of no verity; and firſt (he ſaith) becauſe of the foreſaid various varieties and uncertainties of the Stars, both in their own motions, and in compariſon with others, but you have alſo afore received a confutation of theſe aſſertions of his, and therefore this his firſt reaſon is not one jot equivalent to his purpoſe.

Secondly, Becauſe no man knoweth the particular qualities of the Stars, but this is but one Doctors opinion, and therefore I may as wel, and with as good reaſon and ſtrength of argument deny his words, and not ſhew him to the contrary; but this were to deceive my Reader Homes like. And with this word only he cannot be willing to content himſelf, but he muſt ſtrive to confirm it by his falſe allegations; No Artiſt yet ever undertook to ſpeake of more then the ſeven Planets, and ſome few nominated fixed ſtars, of ſome few ſeveral magnitudes; with what ſlight expreſſions are theſe his ſcandalous allegations vented,^[90] when it is clear and apparent to the world, that all thoſe Stars from the firſt magnitude down to the ſixth magnitude, and even to the cloudy and occult Stars as they call them, are made clear unto us, and the whole world,^[91] whoſe works are ſo apparently extant, and yet ſo openly traduced and ſcandalized; what will he not then indeavour to hide that is not ſo apparent? he doth not onely deny here neither ſo apparent a truth, but affirmeth as palpable an untruth in his very next words; they leave out ſaith he, or are ignorant of millions of Stars, that are neither named nor known. What non-ſenſe & ſimplicity doth this his hatred aganiſt Aſtrologie cauſe him to be guilty of? I would very fain know how he came to know theſe millions of Stars that he ſaith were never yet knowne or named? he knowes that that was never knowne, ſure he did not learn this great skill in Bredſtreet, truly theſe ridiculous whimſies, makes me beleeve he is not well in his ſenſes, ſince he was in the ſtreet aforeſaid, and cauſes me alſo extreamly to Pitty the poore Paſtor.

Thirdly, Thouſands of Stars cannot be ſo much as ſeene a minute together, as the Philoſophers confeſſe in their diſcourſe of Via lactea, the milkie way in the heavens, to be ſeene in a moſt ſtarry night, eſpecially in Winter. Before he was up with his millions, now he is come down to his thouſands, I am confident at the laſt he wil deſcend to his unites; yet here alſo may his Reader ſee how he ſtrives to deceive and delude him with vain conceits, and to take effect the better, he fathers them on the Philoſophers, I beleeve his Philoſophers will deſcend to be ſome whimſical Poets. For the Poets indeed fained that on a day Ganimedes who (as they ſay) was Jupiters Cup-bearer,^[92] carrying his Lord a ſack Poſſet or a cup of Milke, ſtumbled in in the way at ſome great fixed Star (or at the paw of the Beare) and let fall all his liquor, which ever ſince hath cauſed the heavens to be in that place white or cloudiſh even in the moſt clear nights, but perhaps if Canis major and minor had been called on,^[93] it had been otherwiſe; I may then with as good reaſon or ground conclude this ſtory, as true as his allegation, that they are an innumerable company of ſmal ſtars that cannot be diſcerned or diſtinguiſhed; but I would very fain underſtand this paradox, that they cannot be ſeen, and yet they are knowne to be an innumerable company of Stars, ſure he hath a very diſcerning eye, and rather one ſurpaſſing his judgement, for he but even now, knows more then all people ever yet knew, and now he ſeeth what was never yet ſeen: but theſe or any ſuch whimſical expreſſions or arguments, are enough to fright the ignorant from the beliefe, either in the verity or legality of Aſtrologie; he cares not how little he troubles them with reaſon or truth.

Fourthly, Becauſe all the Stars do ſhine on the earth at once joyntly and promiſcuouſly, ſo that they that are under them cannot by any rule from nature know what influences ſhall be predominant in their effects. But to anſwer this frivolous objection in every particular by plain proof, were too tedious here to relate, ſince for the inſtruction of the ſtudents herein, there hath been whole volumes writ, to whom I ſhall refer all that require farther ſatisfaction then what I here do ſay, which is onely thus, that to determine either generall or particular effects, it is not alwayes neceſſary to conſider all the Stars, for ſome never are ſeen in our horizon, and of thoſe that are, half are ever under the earth, and of thoſe that are above the earth, many are in ſuch places of the heaven, as they are of little or no uſe in our ordinary practice: Wherefore he moſt weakly aſſerteth this reaſon, ſince as I ſaid before, their vertues and natures are ſo plainly delivered us by the learned; and thus with ſuch like frivolous and weak arguments and ſuppoſitions, he indeavours to confirme his objection againſt Astrologie and its rules, as alſo that the complexions of people may be altered from their child-hood to their man-hood; and that there are cauſes between us and the Stars to alter their influence; and that Aſtrologers depend upon Clocks and Dials to know the ground of their workes, which Clocks and Dials may faile, and ſo conſequently needs muſt the Aſtrologer: and ſuch ſimple cavils not knowing what indeed to object, for certainly all that knows any thing in the world, muſt needs judge this kind of arguing to be meerly either for want of matter, or to patch up a ſimple diſcourſe: for what can hereby in the leaſt, or all that he doth farther rabble hereon be ſaid, to prove Aſtrologicall rules uncertaine; ſurely this is no more to the purpoſe, or to our diſpute in hand, then for me to ſay I will, when one aſketh me if Aſtrologie be lawful or no? or any ſuch ridiculous anſwer: But ſince in the ſubject of this preceding diſcourſe, all theſe, together with the reſt of his ſophiſtications, are already anſwered; I hold it moſt vaine longer here to dwell, but haſten to his fourth and laſt argument againſt Aſtrologie: for our diſpute is not to decide quicks and quillets, but anſwer thoſe objections that are brought to prove the vanity and falſeneſſe of Aſtrologicall Predictions.

SECT. IV. Wherein he thinketh the ground of the Art wholly ſhaken and overthrown, by affirming it meerly imaginary, viz. the ninth and tenth ſphere, and in them the Zodiack, therein proveth and ſheweth his own ignorance the more apparently manifeſt.

BUt what doth this ſophiſticall cavil availe him, to the ſubverſion of the verity or certainty of Aſtrologie, when the motions & effects of the Stars are known? but even as wel may he condemn the rules, & precepts of all Arts which are alſo gathered by experience and reaſon, as Aſtrologie, becauſe the ſignes of the Zodiack are deviſed by men; but the reaſon they attribute theſe names, as Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and the like, to the conſtellations of the heaven is by reaſon of their formes and particular vertues expreſſed under theſe figures;^[94] for Ptolomy hath delivered the nature of the particular Stars in them by themſelves, as alſo their particular complexions and efficacies, as alſo the Houſes, exaltations, triplicities, termes and faces, and other dignities, of the ſignes, as they follow the nature of the Planets: and ſince theſe are known, to what end are all theſe his cavils whether there be a ninth or tenth ſphere? for let there be none at all (as he ſaith) nor any thing called a Zodiack (as he would faine perſwade the world) yet ſince clear experience and practice evinceth him, as alſo demonſtration that there are ſuch conſtellations (call them what you will) his ſophiſticall weake argument will no wiſe ſerve his turne; for I may as well deny there is a Dog a Bear, both leſſer and bigger a Swan, a Crown, a Wagoner and the like, as he denieth there is not a Bull a Ram or a Lion in the heavens, when it is not deſired litterally (by any Aſtrologer) to be underſtood. Wherefore I leave him here to bait Ʋrſa major with Canis major and minor, till I am of his weak opinion, or till he can perſwade any judicious ſoul to believe this his doctrine: and haſten to conclude this our diſcourſe.

CHAP. V. Wherein the confutation of the objections that are brought for Aſtrologie is examined and refelled.

THere remains nothing more to be anſwered of Mr Homes his diſcourſe, but his confutations (as he cals them) of the objections that are brought for Aſtrologie; which indeed is already refelled in what hath been already ſaid; having conſideration to the definition of Aſtrologie, and the Tenents of Aſtrologers: but becauſe I will not give him occaſion to carpe or brag of my leaving him here, I ſhall go along with him in every particular of his remaining cavils; that ſo the reader may ſee on what ſmall grounds he builds up his tower of oppoſition againſt Aſtrologie, and what ſmall reaſon he hath to carpe thereat.

Firſt he ſaith Melancthon ſtandeth not for Aſtrologie; ^[95] but you have heard before how he alſo thus falſely abuſed St. Auguſtine and Galen; but admit neither of all theſe were one jot for it, but poſitively againſt it; yet will not this (if granted) make a whit againſt Aſtrologie; ſince he will not deny but theſe are men, and humanum eſt errare, man is ſubject to frailty and errour, and therefore is not Aſtrologie abſolutely condemned hereby; ſince already you have heard it no wiſe condemned by the word of God,^[96] but the effects of the Stars clearly thereby manifeſted; yet for the anſwer of this his deluſive quirke, I ſhall onely ſend him to Melancthon to be better peruſed, (which here to clear would be too too tedious) and then he will not thus inconſiderately wrong him, as the other two St. Auguſtine and Galen, the reaſon whereof was alſo a negligent peruſall of them.

Secondly, to gain-ſay (as he thinks) Aſtrologie, he ſaith, that ſome make a great matter of the Star that was ſeen at the birth of Chriſt: But I anſwer, that this appearance of this Star maketh neither for nor againſt Aſtrologie, ſince as before you have heard Divine matters are not to be judged by naturall cauſes; ^[97] and all the world knows what manner of Birth Chriſts was, viz. of a Virgin, and without the help of a man, this is rather a Miracle then a Naturall Birth, and Miracles alſo are before excluded from the power of the Stars: Therefore his quirkes of the nature of it, as alſo whether it be naturall or ſupernaturall, or whether it belong to Meteorologie or Aſtrologie, muſt needs fall: and the wiſe men might well enough, (who could diſtinguiſh between a natural and a ſupernatural Star) know it foretold the Birth of the Meſſias; when by all foregoing Propheſies the like and ſame was Predicted and pointed out.

But to come to the objections Logicall, which he ſaith are brought in defence of Aſtrologie and his anſwers, the firſt is, that God made the Stars to be ſignes, Gen. 1.14. therefore the knowledge of the ſignification of theſe ſignes are lawfull: his anſwer is, God made them to be ſignes of natural effects or events, not of arbitrary and morall, that depend on mans will. Wherefore here firſt the reader may take notice that Mr Homes doth now (contrary to what he hath all this while denyed) confeſſe the Stars to be ſignes of naturall effects and events,^[98] and whereas he denies them to be ſignes of arbitrary and morall events depending on the will, he gaineth little of the Aſtrologer, who as you have already heard acknowledgeth the ſame. Where is then the confutation of Aſtrologie, or the objections brought for it? it is the abuſe of Aſtrologie he meaneth, yet me thinks a wiſe man ſhould have diſtinguiſhed between the lawfulneſſe of an Art, and the abuſe thereof; ſhall any man be counted rationall that ſhall deny Religion to be, or that there is none lawful, becauſe there are abuſes therein? this is a ſtrange way of condemning an Art.

To handle here every particular objection and his anſwers hereon, would be too tedious, and indeed but vaine, and to little purpoſe, ſince he can ſay no more then what hath been already (if rightly underſtood) anſwered: for to inſiſt upon every vaine quillet (as is moſt of his diſcourſe) were an Herculean labour, and to render my ſelf more weak then the propounders or authors thereof; wherefore with this text I conclude; Prov. 26.4. onely I ſhall here make ſome Queries to the judicious Reader.

My fiſt Quere is, whether the beſt of Arts and Sciences hath not been in one age or other ill thought on, and by ſome ignorant therein, moſt vildly tratraduced, as alſo the very word of God it ſelfe?

Secondly, Whether the denying or writing againſt an Art, be a ſufficient condemnation thereof, or proof of the illegality of it? (which to conclude or grant, were to deny the Scripture, ſince it alſo hath by Atheiſts and ſuch like been cenſured.)

Thirdly, Whether the warrant from Scripture, the Fathers, the Learned, and experience; be not a ſufficient warrant for the lawfulneſſe of an Art?

Fourthly, Whether Aſtrologie be not thus (if with diligence thou haſt peruſed this diſcourſe) warranted and up-held.

Fifthly, Whether it may not then be practiſed by the beſt of Gods people.

Sixthly, Whether an Art that hath the word of God, experience and reaſon on it's ſide, be a Doctrine of Devils or Diabolical?

And ſeventhly and laſtly, whether ſuch ignorant traducers of ſo noble and worthy an Art, are not Diabolical teachers, and deſerve exemplary puniſhment, thus to deny and gain-ſay truth.

But whoſo is delighteed in ſuch like diſcourſes, let him peruſe that exquiſite piece of Sir Chriſtopher Heydon, lately publiſhed; wherein Aſtrologie is clearly proved by Mathematical Demonſtrations.

And likewiſe to that ſhort (but full) piece, of Magick and Aſtrologie Vindicated, newly publiſhed: Both ſold at the Angel in Cornhill.

For truly I know not whether I have rendred my ſelfe more weak in the Vindicating of ſo apparent a a truth, then theſe puny Antagoniſts thereunto have in striving to Eclipſe the glorious ſplendor thereof, in ſo much that let them henceforward, (or any one elſe) perſiſt in this vaine way of condemning truth; I ſhal take as ſlight notice thereof, as of a Dogs barking at a ſtranger whom he knoweth not: for did they know what they condemn, they would not render themſelves ſo ridiculous.

I thought here to have concluded this Treatiſe, but as I was upon cloſing, appeares a Pamphlet from one John Raunce, who had formerly put out a Declaration againſt Aſtrologie, yet declared himſelf more ſimple therein then at this time I will make known, yet becauſe in my reply thereunto, he (as well as ſome others that was not well acquained with his ſcope or intention therein, or what ſmall reaſon he had for the writing of his ſimple Pamphlet) found fault with ſome words I had therein againſt him; I thought good here, both for his and their better ſatisfaction, to give them the reaſons of my expreſſions againſt him. Yet in a Letter I ſent him the ſame reaſons which I here relate in anſwer to a part of a Letter I received from him, wherein he hath theſe words, Your Pamphlet is nothing to the purpoſe, being ſo full of expreſſions of hatred againſt me; to which I ſay, I returned him this anſwer, viz. that this was the worſt I was confident he could ſay of it, yet if he better conſidered it, he would find it deſerved not altogether this raſh condemnation;^[99] for, firſt I ſaid nothing but what I proved: and ſecondly, I play with him at his owne weapon; I wil begin with the latter, and would know of him, if I have not as good liberty to call him an inſtrument and child of the Devil, as he calleth the profeſſors of Aſtrologie, inſtruments of the Devil, Page 1. line 11. of his ſcandalous Pamphlet, and if in any place I call him Idiot (as in the third Page of my reply to his Declaration) it is for concluding his cavil as granted, before he either brought proof or reaſon for it; and in ſo doing, let any one or himſelfe judge, what he rendereth himſelfe to be: and in my ſixth Page perhaps I call him Dunce; I pray is it without cauſe, when hee telleth mee hee was ſometimes a Practitioner in Aſtrologie, and yet he is ſo ignorant of the rules thereof, as that he imagineth them to be Diabolical? upon which conſideration (as I remember) in the ſame place, I call him Shallow-braines, and alſo at the lower end of the Page Foole, to condemne what he neither underſtood nor apprehended, which if he had, he would have ſhewed by his arguments (which was no wiſe to the purpoſe, but onely his owne conceits and words) wherefore I thought good to acquaint the Reader herewith, that ſince nothing is therein ſpoken without reaſon or proof, they might not be ſo tranſported with negligence, to conclude or condemn my reply without better conſideration then a meer ſlight view thereof.

And ſince in that Letter he ſent me, he challengeth either my ſelfe or any, or all that profeſſe the Art of Aſtrologie, to convince him by argument or reaſon; he may perhaps expect I ſhould ſay ſomething to his latter diſcourſe (which is more weak and ſimple then his former) which ſince I have been of late acquainted with his quality, I ſhall not trouble my ſelf further, nor indeed my Reader but with this word,^[100] Ne ſutor ultra crepidam, let not the Cobler go beyond the laſt, or let no man meddle with what is beyond his reach or capacity; yet leſt I ſhould have given the vaine-Coxcombe cauſe of boaſting by my ſilence.^[101] I have by the laſt Carrier ſent him an anſwer (in a Box) to his ſimple paper, with a Letter, a Copy of which that the vulgar may not be ignorant of, as alſo that they may not be led away by the weak cavils of ſo ſophiſtical a Jack; I here commend unto their view. For indeed there is an old proverb yet true (though a homely one) which cauſes me take no more notice of him, being of that quality he is of, Stir in a — and it wil stinck the worſe. For had I had the relation of him before my Reply to his nonſenſe, I had never undervalued my ſelf to have appeared his Antagoniſt, but had buried both him & his brat in perpetual ſilence; what he is and was, you ſhal here have, as was ſent to Mr. Lilly by a Gentleman that knows his former and preſent way of living.

A Copy of a Letter ſent by me, to John Raunce.

Ars non habet inimicum niſi ignorantem. Nemo poteſt artem judicare, niſi Artifex.

Ne ſutor ultra crepidam. William Rameſey.

Die ☿ 4. Decemb. 1650.

A Copy of a Letter ſent to Mr. Lilly, by a Gentleman in the Country.

SIR,

I Doubt not but you have ſeen a tract written by one Raunce of Chippin Wickham where I live, which Raunce did formerly profeſſe himſelf to have been a ſervant unto you, but you denyed it before my ſelf and ſome Aldermen which were with me, at which he was much troubled; the tract is againſt Aſtrologie, but it is very wittily anſwered by one Mr. William Rameſey, and that you may the better know this Raunce, I ſhal tell you what he hath been, and what he is, he hath been a Shoomaker, and I think he did twice break, and had he not been of the Gentlecraft, Mr. Rameſey had wronged him extreamly in calling him Mr. Raunce; he confeſſes he hath often ſpoken with the Devil and that is very likely; for oftentimes being at work he would ſuddenly hit ſhooe and tools out of the window, and run the Devil knew whither for the ſpace of one, two or three weeks ſome times together, but not thriving by Cobling, he came to Wickham and taught Children to write and read, and after that he practiſed of a ſudden Phyſick and Chyrurgery, and ſo continues, but a pittiful ignorant ſneaking fellow; a fellow that goes not to Church, cryed up by ſome ſort of people, eſpecially the weaker and more factious ſort, one of Sedgewicks tribe as Mr. Rameſey ſtiles him; one which to my knowledge, being to diſcourſe of Aſtrologie, could not give any diſtinction of it, but onely that it was a ſpeaking of the Stars: ſome of his Companions and he are about to anſwer Mr. Rameſey, if they do, I deſire all Artiſts ſhould take notice what he is, and judge of him accordingly.

Thus with my hearty loving reſpects to you, I reſt your loving friend. J. B.

FINIS.

Marginal notes

Looke Pirovanu, Goclenius, Bellantius, Maraſeallettes and Sir Chriſtoph. Heydon. ↩
The Authors firſt inducement to the ſtudy of Aſtrologie. ↩
The whole power & ſubject of Aſtrologie. ↩
Aſtrologers moſt falſly impeached to be ſearchers of the ſecrets of God. ↩
Aſtronomy and Aſtrology both are one Art. ↩
Aſtrologie allowed of by Scripture. ↩
Mr. Homes himſelf rather to be imputed a teacher of the Devils Doctrin, then Aſtrologers. ↩
The ☽ the cauſe of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea. ↩
How doth he define (by all his rabble) the Art of Aſtrologie? ↩
The learned and famous Sir Chriſtopher Heydon recordeth them, which you have verbatim by and by. ↩
Aſtrologie is proved an Art. ↩
The lawfulneſſe of Aſtrologie. ↩
God prohibiteth not the ſtudy of Aſtrologie. ↩
Aſtrologie noe wiſe condemned by the word of God. ↩
Looke my reply to Raunce his Declaration againſt Aſtrology ↩
Nota. ↩
How farre the Councels in former ages hath or may lawfully condemn Aſtrologie. ↩
This is the Anima mundi, Adrop. ☿ Philoſophorum, leo veridus, the life of the world, which that learned Agrippa ſaith, is actuall and animal, created by nature, found every where, knowne by few, expreſſed by none under it's proper name, but in figures and riddles. ↩
The great eſtimation Aſtrologie was in in former ages. ↩
The antiquity of Aſtrologie. ↩
How the Egyptians learned Aſtrologie. ↩
Aſtrologie profitable for moral Philoſophy. ↩
For naturall Philoſophy. ↩
Aſtrologie profitable for Phyſick. ↩
The reaſon of Critical dayes. ↩
Aſtrologie profitable for health. ↩
Aſtrologie profitable for Husbandry. ↩
For rendrin a reaſon for Climacterical years ↩
Looke Ranzovius on this ſubject. ↩
Aſtrologie profitable for military affaires. ↩
Truth and reaſon, the touchſtone whereby all controverſies are decided. ↩
Looke what Aſtrologie is, pag. 2. ↩
Aſtrologie no way unlawfull. ↩
Nota. As anon ſhall appeare. ↩
The Stars ſignes and cauſes. ↩
Saint Auſtine on Job. ↩
Mr. Homes proved rather to be a teacher of the Doctrine of Devils, then Aſtrologers. ↩
Looke the ſecond Chapter of this Treatiſe, Sect. 2. ↩
Careleſneſſe in Aſtrologers cauſe errour. ↩
Lib. 5. chap. 4. & lib. 20. ch. 6. contra Fauſtum Manichaeum. ↩
Lib. 5. chap. 1. De civitate Dei. ↩
Lib. 2. de Gen. cap. 17. ↩
How farre we ought to attribute to the power of the Stars. ↩
Lib. 5. cap. 6. De civitate Dei. ↩
St. Auſtine concurreth with Aſtrologers. lib. 2. cap. 5. De Gen. ↩
Looke the firſt Chapter of his treatiſe. ↩
His firſt proofe of Scripture refelled. ↩
Look the ſeventh page of my reply to Raunce his Declaration againſt Aſtrologie. ↩
Chap. 2. page 41. and forward of his peece in defence of Aſtrologie againſt Mr. Chamber. ↩
In the ſecond page of this treatiſe, you have it defined. ↩
All theſe interpretations Mr. Homes himſelfe confeſſes is given to the word. ↩
Looke the 2 chapter of this Treatiſe where Aſtrologie is helpful o husbandry. ↩
Yet Mr Homes affirmeth Kimchy maketh mention of attributing good to one time and bad to another. ↩
A pretty jeſt, of a zealous Prieſt. ↩
A very Religious ſtory (if rightly underſtood) of a Divine and one that ſhould with ſuch zeal ſet forth the ſins of the times. ↩
Page 32. Chap. 2. of his defence of Aſtrologie. ↩
Mr. Homes his craft in wreſting the Scripture. ↩
Nota bene. ↩
The true meaning of the Prophet in this fore going Text. ↩
This had beene well done of Mr. Homes alſo. ↩
The difference between Aſtrologers and thoſe that are condemned in the Text. ↩
Nota bene. ↩
Nota. ↩
Nota. ↩
More you may read in the ſecond Chapter of his booke. ↩
He is known to be a ſpirituall Doctor. ↩
Aſtrologers hold no fatal neceſſity in the Stars. ↩
The meaning of the text. ↩
Page 2. it is defined. ↩
Daniel an Aſtrologer and Magician. ↩
Acts 19.19. ↩
The Stars have power but on natural things. ↩
Inquire of Mr. Homes. ↩
Aſtrologers hold no fatal neceſſity. ↩
Ignorance the mother of vice. ↩
Knowledge, the onely diſtinction between a man and a beaſt. ↩
Chap. 2. Sect. 2. of this diſcourſe. ↩
Ariſtotle, Pliny, Cardanus, Dodoneus, Laurentius Gordonius and Paraeus. ↩
His argument concerning Twins, Meerly ſophiſtical. ↩
The example of Jacob and Eſau no wiſe equivalent. ↩
His reaſon againſt Aſtrologie, in the matter of Twins, proved frivolous and inconſiſtent with either time or reaſon. ↩
But who ſo would be farther ſatisfied in the matter of twins, let him look Ranzovius in his book De certitudine Aſtrologiae ſcientiae. ↩
Philo his antiquities of the Jews. ↩
Gen. 36. ↩
Aſtrologie medleth not with Divine matters nor with the ſecret wil of God. ↩
Looke Ptolomy, Lib. 3. cap. 7. of his Quadripartite, to know the reaſons of the differences in Twins. ↩
See Ptolomy, Albotegnius, Alfraganus, & Tycho. ↩
When the Radix of a nativity is properly to be taken. ↩
He was then himſelf a Priſoner. ↩
Looke Ptolomeus Copernicus. &c. ↩
And for their natures, looke Ptolomy, 1. Quadripartite, Cap. 8. Stadius, Sconerus, and Lucas Gauricus ↩
Of Via lactea; or the milkie way. ↩
Then M. Homes had not had this Via lactea to have prated on. ↩
Ptolomie, 1. Quadripartite. ↩
Chap. 1. Sect. 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. of this diſcourſe. ↩
Chap. 3. of this Treatiſe. ↩
Chap. 4. Sect. 1 and Chap. 4. Sect. 2. ↩
Nota bene. ↩
A Vindication of the Authors reply to Raunces Declaration againſt Aſtrologie. ↩
I leave it to him ſelf to make application or interpretation. ↩
Aliquid latet quod non patet. ↩

Cite this text

Lux Veritatis, or Christian Judicial Astrology Vindicated. London, 1651. Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/ramesey-lux-veritatis/. Public-domain edition reproduced from the TCP transcription; its gaps and missing figures are marked.

Transcription

Text Creation Partnership, TCP A92033, released under CC0 1.0. Reproduction of the original in the British Library. Unreadable characters, unavailable passages and figures absent from the transcription remain marked.