ΑΣΤΡΟΛΟΓΟΜΑΝΙΑ: The Madness of ASTROLOGERS. OR An Examination of Sir Christopher Heydons Book, ENTITLED A DEFENCE OF judiciary Astrology. Written near upon twenty years ago, by G. C. And by permission of the Author set forth for the Use of such as might happily be misled by the Knight's Book. Published by T. V. B. of D.  Esay 44. 24. 
I am the LORD that maketh all things, that stretcheth the Heavens above, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself: that frustrateth the Tokens of the Liars, and maketh Diviners Mad, that turneth Wisemen backward, and maketh their knowledge Foolish.  
London, Printed by W. jaggard, for W. Turner of Oxford. 1624.   

To the Worshipful my very good Cousin M. THOMAS CARLETON, of Carleton Hall, in Cumberland, Esquire, and one of his Majesty's justices of the Peace for the Couties of Cumberland, Grace, and Peace.  
SIR,  
THE Sun hath run over the Zodiac, in his periodical Motion almost twenty times since this Learned Treatise was first penned. During which time, you have not been wanting, with diverse other intelligent and judicious Scholars, who had a sight of it, what by Letters, what by word of mouth, to solicit the Reverend and worthy Author, for a publication. And the Prayers of you, and the requests of others well affected, have (at the length) prevailed. Now then, then, that this Discourse hath gotten Feet to walk abroad in the Light, it desires earnestly to run into your embracements, being assured of welcome, upon that good experience of your former love & kindness towards it, while it was but yet a breeding. And for myself, sithence I have had the Honour vouchsafed me to confer a little pains (though it be nothing to speak of) in sending abroad of this worthy work into the world, for the good of Christians in general, and more especially, for their benefit, who have been a long time bewitched with Sorcery and Astrology. I was verily induced to think, that I could neither please myself, nor the Author better, then if I should make choice of you for the Dedication, whose heart as it is truly touched with Piety, to bear love unto the 
Psalm 16.  Saints of God, & such as excel in virtue; so I persuade myself, it is also affected with a Godly hatred of all 
Psalm 119.  such as imagine evil things, and that hold of Superstitious vanities. Superstitious vanity is a far spreading Tree; one main branch of it, is Astrology & Divination, whether it be a more Artificial delusion, which Satan worketh in the Learned and great Clerks of the world, or a more simple and gross kind of insinuation which he practiseth upon the ruder and un-lettered people, the matter is not much, neither is the difference substantial but gradual, the former exceeding only in compliment, being a more formal imposture and refined Villainy. Both are here evicted to be impious, both to be devilish, and the whole Art to be an unwarrantable profession, & 
PORISMA  superstitious vanity. And because we desire not to be mistaken in ipso limine, to open ourselves a little, here 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  we profess not to meddle with Astrology, as it is the same with Astronomia, or Ouranoscopia, which is an ingenuous part of good Learning, and one of the seven Liberal Sciences. But take Astrology for Astromantia or Genesiologia, as the Knight doth in his Book, and then we are right when we call it an Imposture, juggling, Superstition, Vanity: Quae nulla solidaratione firmetur, nullo certo experimento insistat, nulla sapientum 
Six. Senes. Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 6. Annot. 10.  authoritate probetur: sed quam Philosophi ceu ludibrium é scholis explodant, Caesarea iura damnent, pontisicum decretae Synodicaeque Sanctiones interdicant, divinae Scripturae detestentur & omnium Theologorum iudicia reprobent. Which I do find condemned by the Lord 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deut. 18, 9, 10 11, 12.  himself, Deut. 18. in the Canaanites, whom he destroyed before the Israelites for this very abomination; condemned by the Lord's Prophet, Esay 47. in the 
Esay 47, 11, 12, 13, 14. Acts 19, 19 Augustin. Origen. Theodoret. Ambros. Sexi. Synod. in Trullo C●…lui●… Perkins. Chambers. K. JAMES.  Babylonians destinied to destruction; condemned by the practice of those Converts in the prime Age of the Gospel, Acts 19 who had used those curious Arts, but they burned all their Books, and esteemed nothing of the great price of them, though it amounted to fifty thousand pieces of Silver; condemned by the judgement of S. Austen, other Fathers, Councils, and diverse famous later Divines; and lastly, condemned by the never-too-much admired Pen of the most Noble, and most Learned Prince incomparably, that lives this day in Christendom, and that is, His most Excellent Majesty, our Gracious Sovereign, whose judgement is clearly this: That the Devil, who is the Doctor and Teacher of the Black Art, according to a double curiosity in his Scholars learned or un-learned, hath a double means to feed their Curiosity, thereby to make them for to give themselves over to this study, and so at the last, to his service.  
These two means, He calls the Devil's Rudiments, and the Devil's School. His Rudiments are Charms and Spells, for simple and un-learned people. The Devil's School is judiciary Astrology, and that's for the Learned only. The place is in HIS First Book of Daemonol. cap. 3. & 4. where you may read more at large, touching this point. So then, this impious and vain Art, having received such a fair Trial, & full condemnation by competent judges, what withholdeth it from execution, but the methods and slights of Satan; who worketh in the Children of Disobedience such a liking of the Art, that (notwithstanding all that can be said against it) they will not stick to defend the Practitioners of it, and applaud them many times in their sinful and misguided speculations. And because they will not be mad without Reason, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they have a specious Argument, whereof they boast very much, which they are wont to produce for themselves in favour of all Diviners; and it is taken for the truth of Astrological Predictions. In brief it is this. 
Object.  The Events foreknown and foretold by these wisemen fall out true, therefore the Art of Divining is not vain, but useful and profitable in the life of man. Equidem haec est illa singularis ac praecipua divinatorum 
Sixt. 〈◊〉 supra.  demonstratio; cui, ceu immobili fundamento universum divinationis suae aedificium impon●…t. But as a Learned Writer of our own said in another dispute, Miseri homines mendicant argumenta; nam si mercarentur, 
W●….  profecto meliora afferrent. Silly men that they are, that are fain thus to go a begging for Arguments; for sure if they went to the Market where there is choice, they would bring home far better Ware than this. Let us examine their reason, and we shall find it carries no weight at all with it. Sixtus Senensis, according 
S 1. Bibl. Sanct. 1. 6. Annota. 10  to the opinion of Basil, chrysostom, and other Christian Doctors saith, That the truth of Astrological Predictions, is not to be referred to the Const●…llations of Heaven, but to four other more apparent causes; namely, Ad sortem, ad pacta, ad prudentiam consultorum, & stultitiam consulentium; the secret dispose of God's Providence, the society and complot with Devils, the prudence and sagacity of the Wizard's, the folly and overmuch credulity of the Inquisitors; which he exemplifies very well in each particular. We refer the Learned to the place itself, because it is somewhat long, and will take another course to give satisfaction unto this Argument, by a threefold Answer.  
1 First then we answer, that to come to the knowledge 
Answer.  of any thing by unlawful means, does not make the practice warrantable. Now it doth most manifestly appear in this ensuing Discourse, that out of their own mouths, who have been Masters and Professors in this Science, that the cause why the Diviner speaks true, is not by virtue of his Skill and Learning, but because it pleaseth God to deliver him over to Satan's illusions, from whom alone he hath the knowledge of those particular Events he doth undertake to foretell, either by an open compact with him, or secret instinct at the least; the Lord having by some means or other opened his will, and made known his counsel touching that matter. For this by the way must diligently be observed, that until that time, I mean till God have disclosed his will by some means or other; neither the Wise man, nor the ginger, nor the Devil himself, is able to foretell any thing.  
2. Secondly I answer, that those Predictions do not always fall out jump and true, as they would bear us in hand; but that either the Devil doth miss sometimes, or that his instrument doth mistake his informations. This I am able to justify and make good by a plain story of myself when I was a child, & went to School at Carleill where I was borne. There came an odd Fellow about the Country: He was reputed a Cunning man, and so called, for that he took upon him to tell Fortunes. The Fellow was dumb, or at least feigned himself speechless, but certain it was, he had an instinct or Familiarity with some Spirit. This Fellow being on a time in my Father's House, there were some there more simply honest then Religiously wise, made signs unto him, to show what should be my Fortune, and another Schoolfellows of mine that was then present. Whereupon, this Wizard having looked earnestly upon us both, and paused a little; for my Schoolfellow, he takes me a low stool, and gets up upon it, with a Book in his hand, and began to act after his fashion, signifying thereby that he should be a Preacher: and for me, he took a Pen and a scroll of Paper, and made as though he would write, signifying thereby, that I should be a Scrivener. Now it so fell out, that my Schoolfellow proved the Scrivener, and I prove the Preacher. By which it is plain to be seen, that either the Devil himself did miss, or his instrument was mistaken in his informations.  
3. Thirdly, suppose that th●…se Predictions fall out true, yet the wizard is never a whit the more to be believed, as it is plain in the 13. chap. of Deutro. verse 1. If there arise amongst you a Prophet, or a dreamer of Dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, & the sign or wonder come to pass, yet shalt thou not hearken unto him, for the Lord your God proveth you, etc. The Devil in samuel's shape foretold those things that were 
August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2.  true unto Saul, yet the Art by which he was raised & presented, was never a whit the less execrable. The Pythonisse in the Acts of the Apostles, gave a true testimony to the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour, yet the unclean Spirit won never a whit the more favour by it. The Devil telleth truth sometimes, and yet he is still the Father of Lies; and his Instrument (at haphazard) may light upon a Truth, and yet remain a Liar still. It is worth the while to observe, how that the Prophet jeremy puts upon these men their right name, Chap. 50. verse 36. Indeed, they are accounted of the world Wise men, and so they are called, verse 36. it is M. Calvin's Observation upon that place. A sword is upon the Chaldees, and the inhabitants of Babylon, upon her Princes, and upon her Wise men. A Sword upon the Liars, and they shall dote, a sword upon the strong, and they shall faint. Where, if we make a true resolution of the Text, we shall find that God threatens his judgements first in general upon Babylon the whole Country, and then the Inhabitants of it are specified and parted into these ranks, Princes and Wise men, Liars and Strong men. Those which in the former Verse he calls Princes, or principal men, in the next are called Strong men, and the Sword upon them, or their judgement, is, that they shall faint. Those whom in the former Verse he called Wise men, in the next, are called Liars, and the Sword upon them, or their judgement, is, that they shall dote. That of the Psalmist, is most true, though it were spoken in haste, All men are Liars; but for Astrologers, and Figure-flingers, and Nativity-casters, and Fortune-tellers, they are doting Liars. It is their judgement, A sword is upon the Liars, and they shall dote.  
The Conclusion now I take it is clear, that judiciary Astrology is a superstitious Vanity, and that the whole Art of Diviners, is an unlawful study. The Corollary thereupon is as clear, that it is not lawful 
COROLLARIUM.  to seek unto these men for their advice or help, in any matter whatsoever. I could here (if I would take leave to expatiate) greatly inveigh against the common custom of the worlds, too too rife in those parts, and other blind corners of the Realm. For, if there come about but a Gipsy, or Canter, or Fortune-teller, presently you shall have the whole country flock about him, to learn somewhat. If our little finger do but ache, or be a little diseased, presently we send with Ahaziah to Baalzebub the god of Ekron, to know if we shall recou●…r: If we be but in a little strait & trouble either of body or mind, we cannot rest till we run with Saul to the Wuch at Endor, to know what will be the event of it. And what hath bewitched the people thus to do, but a strong delusion of Satan, and a firm opinion conceived of the Skill and Cunning that such a man hath, to tell strange Farlyes? They will say, they know such an one well enough, he is a very skilful man, they have had experience of 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  him in other matters, and he hath told them true, and why should they not seek to him now? I remember I have read it of Archimedes the great Mathematician, when he had by his dexterious Skill in his Profession, made Hiero King of Sicily draw a huge Ship along with his little finger, which an infinite number of his Subjects with joint Forces were not able so much as to stir, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (said the King) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that from that day forward, Archimedes was to be believed, in whatsoe'er he said. Say that the Wise man thou consults withal, or rather the Devil by him, hit on right at the first, and satisfy thy desires in some unlawful and curious enquiry; Well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from that day forward, thou dost resolve with thyself to believe whatsoever he shall tell thee hereafter. And though his Magical Skill, and Diabolical Art fail him many times (as indeed it must; for defuturis contingentibus non datur Scientia) yet the opinion of Man, and the Illusion of Satan hath so besotted thee, that sure the fault is in thyself; when things prove not true, it is either by reason of thy heedlessness in misunderstanding some words, or mis-applying some means; the blame must be laid on any thing, rather than on the Devil.  
Is it not a shame, that Christians, who live under such a bright Sunshine of the Gospel, should suffer themselves to be led away with such superstitious Vanities? Men forget that they have Learned Christ, when they will needs be beholden to the Devil for his counsel in any matter. If they would but remember that solemn Vow and protestation they once made before the face of the Church in holy Baptism, wherein they promised to forsake the Devil, and all his Works, it would readily prompt them to their duty: and what is that? Not to regard them that have Familiar Spirits, neither to seek after Wizard's, to be defiled with them, as the Lord commandeth, Levit 19 31. Where mark this by the way, that you cannot seek after these things, but you must needs be defiled with them.  
In which respect, Saint Austin excellently calls this running after Wizards, genus quoddam fornicationis, A spiritual kind of Fornication. And the reason is evident, 
August. de doct Christ. l. 2. c. 23  because the unclean Spirits are desirous to illude the Soul of man, and to make a show of Obedience, to catch the Soul in their snares; requiring a strong Credulity, and excessive desire to learn. So drawing the heart from God's fear, and bringing it by little and little in their Slavery (as is plain by the following Discourse) which is the grossest kind of Spiritual Whoredom that can be devised, when the Soul goes a whoring from GOD, after the Devil.  
But I fear I have out of a zeal to the Church, exceeded the bounders of an Epistle. I will not trespass further upon you, by keeping you any longer (as it were) at the Threshold, from entering the Discourse itself. Wherein you have these things, and the whole matter, with sound judgement, and varieie of Learning, perfectly hanled, and the Adversary driven from his starting holes, by main force of Argument. And so ceasing to be further troublesome unto you, I humbly take my leave.  
Your assured Loving Cousin, THO: VICARS.   

In Authorem & eius Opera.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
—— Non ego te meis  
Chartis inornatum sileri, 
Horat. Ca●…. lib. 4. Od. 9   
Totue tuos patiar labores  
Impunè (Praesul) carpere lividas  
Obliviones.——  
Maiorum titulis magnus, sed maior haberi  
Vis magè Musarum titulis (dignissime Praesul.)  
Dordrechtum tua fama capit, quòd 
a Oratio habit. coram Illustrif. Ordinib.  missus ab oris  
Angliacis doctus Synodo consederis ampla.  
Qui 
b Heroici Characteres.  Characteres heroum legerit, ipsum  
Vergilium, versú ve paren●… legat ille Poetam.  
Sacrilegos 
c Tithes proved due by divine right.  tuadocta manus prostravit, & inde  
Laus tibi, nec minor hinc, quod ineptos Astrologastros  
Fuderis in terram 
d This Discourse against judiciary Astrology.  docto conanime, surgit.  
Nempe & condignos norunt tibi pendere honores,  
Sceptra 
e The threefold jurisdiction.  tuo calamo firmata. referre molestum  
Non erit. Et pleno meritas Ecclesia laudes  
Concinet ore tuas, 
f Consensus Catholica Ecclesiae contra Tridentinos, and Directions to the true Church, gathered out of the Consensus.  Consensum si bene seruat.  
T. V. posuit S. T. B.    

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: OR RECAPITULATION of the Chief Passages in this Treatise.  

CHAP. I.  
TO the Confusion of Astrology, one witness more is added, by the writing of this Book.  
judiciary Astrology is no part of Natural Philosophy, nor of the Mathematics, neither is it Media Scientia, betwixt them.   

CHAP. II.  
The means of knowing aforehand particular Events, is not Natural, but Diabolical.  
Those that have been most blockish in other Learning, have been quick and sharp-witted in Astrology.   

CHAP. III.  
Astrology and Augury in the judgement of the learned are alike.  
The truth in a Prediction doth not make an Art warrantable.   

CHAP. IU.  
The ginger foretelleth that is true, by the help of Satan.  
Henry the second King of France, and Ahab King of Israel's death, compared together.  
Astrological Predictions depend not upon Natural Causes.  
Natural Effects are not Contigent, but Necessary.  
Of future Contingent Events, there is no certain knowledge.  
Astrological Predictions stand not by learning, but by some instinct.   

CHAP. V.  
Astrology considereth the Fortune's only of Fools, and the wicked.  
The Knights invincible Syllogism dashed to pieces.  
Natural Effects must be distinguished from Contingent Events.   

CHAP. VI  
No place for a definition in the beginning of a Controversy.  
Ars is not the Genus for Astrology and Astronomy.   

CHAP. VII.  
The first Inventer of Astrology was the Devil.  
The first spreader of it, Zoroaster.  
Eudoxus an Astronomer against Astrological predictions  
Panaetius and Cicero, Varro & Pliny against Astrology  
Pythagoras, Democritus, and Plato, studious of Magic, silent in Astrology.  
A brief rehearsal of the points delivered in the Book hitherto.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Those things which have supernatural Causes, cannot be foretold by the Stars.  
divers things depending on Natural Causes, cannot certainly be foretold by the ginger: as Rain, Weather, Dearth, Sickness.  
Those things which depend partly on Natural Causes, on Man's Will, cannot be foretold by Astrologers.  
Those things which are merely Contingent cannot be foretold by the Stars.   

CHAP. IX.  
Magic, no part of Natural Philosophy.  
The ginger hideth his sleights under the name of Celestial Influences.  
The Influences confer nothing to a Prediction, without a strong Credulity, and excessive desire of learning, in the heart of the Enquirer.  
Astrology and Magic in practice inseparable.  
The ginger attaineth not to his intended end in a prediction, without the help of Magic.  
The learned Fathers of the Church, namely, Origen, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, against Astrological Predictions.   

CHAP. X.  
That place Esay 47, 12. cited by M. Chambers against Astrologers cleared: where the destruction of Babylon there threatened, is shown not to have been miraculous against the Knight's cavil.  
Cicero denieth fatum Stoicum, granteth fatum Physicum.  
That place, job. 38. 33. sound interpreted.  
That place, judg. 5, 20. opened, and expounded.  
That place, Gen. 1, 14. Catholically expounded, and vindicated from abuse.  
That place of Chrysost. in Math. 2. interpreted.  
God worketh in some things against his revealed will.  
Blasphemy is not only against God, but against his truth and against the Saints that maintain the truth.  
Ignorance of Astrology, is tolerable in a Christian Knight, but ignorance in Theologie cannot be excused.  
An irreligious speech of an ginger, who thought by Numbers, to attain the Mystery of Salvation, sifted punctually.  
A place in Cicero Lib. 2. de Divinat. commended to the Knights reading.  
The King's Majesty as judge of the whole Controversy, pronounceth sentence against Astrology judiciary.    

Ennius, apud Cic. Lib. 2. de Divinat.  

—— Non habeo denique Marsurn Augurem,  
Non vicanos Aruspices, non de circo Astrologos,  
Non Isiacos coniectores, non interprete somnium.  
Non enim sunt ij aut Scientia aut Arte divini,  
Sed superstitiosi vates, impudentesque harioli,  
Aut inertes, aut insani, aut quibus egestas imperat.  
Qui sibi semitam non sapiunt, alteri monstrant viam,  
Quibus divitias pollicentur, ab iis drachmam ipsi petunt,  
De hisdivitijs sibi deducant drachmam, reddant caetera.    

CHAP. I.  
Wherein the Grounds which the Knight taketh without proof, and upon which he buildeth his Book, are called in question.  
M R Chambers (a man for his Life and Learning worthily honoured of all that knew him, & by his learned Labours known f●…r and near) hath written against judiciary Astrology, as many of the best learned before him have done. Wherein having done no less than a Christian learned man ought to do, he had reason to look for another reward of his Labours, than he found: For in stead of thanks and commendation for his learned Labours so well placed, he is roughly entertained by Sir Christopher Heydon Knight, a man that hath taken much pains to hold up a Cause, which cannot be holden up by man's strength. For albeit the illusions of judiciary Astrology have long been maintained by the policies of Satan; yet when the light shineth upon it, it will never be able to stand. And in truth, in the hearts and Consciences of the godly in the Church, or of the wise and learned without the Church, was never yet thought able to stand. Now, after so many men, my coming into this cause, can add nothing unto it. What can I bring hereto, which hath not been brought by the Learned long since? Yet, that the same truth may be confirmed by the mouths of many witnesses, and that others may not be abused by the Knight's Book, and that himself also may have occasion to consider the whole matter afresh; I will examine this matter once more, and open to the Knight the weakness & unsound foundations of his unprofitable Labours. Wherein I leave not only the intemperancy of words, with which he hath so much enlarged his Book; but even so much as the cause will suffer the multitude of words: For the pleasure that some ●…ke in long writing, neither can I allow in judgement; nor for my business, practice.  
I purpose to examine the grounds that the Knight hath brought, or any other may bring for Astrology, wherein the Reader may know who they be that stand against Astrology, and who for it. I shall also open to what part of knowledge Astrology is referred, that is, to speak shortly, to Magic.  
One principal ground upon which he much resteth, is, that Astrology is a part of natural Pholosophy: for thus he writeth, Pag. 18. concerning Nativities and Predictions. I confess that Astrologers containing themselves within the bounds of Natural Philosophy and reason, do take upon them so much as lawfully they may, etc.  
And this is the common Answer almost to every objection, Pag. 19 No man, I think, of indifferency or common sense will censure the ginger (who judgeth no farther of future effects, then as they are contained and revealed in the stars, and second and remote causes) to busy himself farther in God's unknown Secrets. Pag. 29. Astrology professeth only to foresee natural mutations & accidents. Pag. 30. To place confidence in Stars as in divine causes and powers, is one thing, and to esteem them but as subordinate and second causes in Nature, is another. Pag. 36. The question between us is, whether the Stars be signs or second causes of natural mutations or events; and whether the study thereof be unlawful. It were too much trouble to recite every place where he repeateth thus much. It is in a manner all he saith; take away this Answer, and ye take away all from him.  
Now Sir, we charge you for abusing your Reader in writing so long a Book, and throughout the whole Book, never once making offer to prove the thing in question. For you confess the question between you and us, is, whether the Stars be second causes of natural mutations (which I admit to be part of the question, but not all.) But by your own grant if this be the question, than a man of your learning & understanding should have spoken somewhat for the proof of the question. Could you find in your heart to write so large a Book, and yet not once prove the question, upon proof whereof all your Book must rest? And thought you (Sir) that men of judgement would take these things at your hands? It is an easy matter, I perceive to write Books, if this liberty were granted: were it not better with modesty to hold your peace, then to be called to such a reckoning? I say your Book is idle and to no purpose, as long as that is not proved, which yourself maketh the question between us.  
But least this might seem to be rather an imperfection in the man, then in the cause itself: (For my meaning is not to take any advantage of selected oversights or slips, as he seemeth to fear.) Let us consider this thing a little farther. Then let this be the first question, which you confess is the question between us, whether the Stars (as they are the subject of Astrology) be natural causes remote or subordinate of such events: Or (which is all one, and delivered likewise by himself) whether the Astrologers in their Predictions contain themselves within the bounds of natural Philosophy. You hold the affirmative, through all your Book, though never proving it: whensoever you find yourself thrust to the wall, and held hard, than you run continually to this help, as the halting man to the horse, and without this poor shift so often repeated, you are not able to go one foot forward. First then, let us reason this point, we deny that the Stars are natural causes of those events which the Astrologers presume to foretell by them, or that herein the ginger contains himself within the bounds of natural Philosophy. That the truth may the better appear in this point; first we move this question, To what part of learning Astrology belongeth? We look for your Answer: you tell us it is a part of the Mathematics: And that Astrology, which you say is the same with Astronomy, hath two parts, the one speculative, the other practical, which you call judiciary Astrology, pag. 2. I omit the escapes of this unwarranted division: We examine now to what part of Learning this judiciary Astrology is referred? You tell us sometimes, it is a part of the Mathematics; sometimes you say it is a part of Natural Philosophy. These things are so diverse, that you cannot bring them to any accord: For the Mathematics are distinguished from Natural Philosophy so far, as when you set Astrology sometime in the one learning, sometimes in the other, we are persuaded that you do herein as men shifting, and not using plain dealing, & not being able sound to speak to the point, you confound yourself by confounding things which are in themselves distinguished. This confusion in speech, is a sign of fear & confusion in your cause. For if Indiciary Astrology be a part of the Mathematics, as you would have it, than the subject thereof is certain, true, no way subject to error, as is the subject of the Mathematics. But because you dare not say that it handleth such a subject, therefore you reserve this hole to hide yourself in, that it handleth natural causes and events. But no part of the Mathematics handleth natural causes and events, which are never separated from the matter, wherein there is mutability; but the Mathematical considerations, are abstract from the mutability of natural matter: And the Mathematician frameth thence such conceits, as whether we regard the manner of knowledge, or the subject, are no way subject to error or mutability: and in this respect deserve only the name of Sciences, because no humane knowledge, can be so certain as this knowledge is. If therefore this be a part of the Mathematics, it is not contained within the bounds of Natural Philosophy; if it be within those bounds, it is no part of the Mathematics. If this were a true Art, or if the Professors thereof were plain dealers, they would not thus collude between these startingholes of Mathematics & natural Philosophy. Now Sir, we whom you account unlearned opinion-Masters, gravelled with the difficulties of the mysteries of this deep Art, maintaining a senseless scruple, and as you say, monsters of opinions, in denying Astrology, entreat your Worship with your great learning to edisie us in this point here in the entrance, and to certify us to what part of learning you will refer judiciary Astrology? You tell us a tale, that Aristotle calleth it Scientiam mediam, between the Mathematics and Natural Philosophy. To prove this, you cite Aristotle, Li. 2. Cap. 2. Physic. and your reason is, because the Principles thereof are purely and merely Mathematical, which in the practice are applied to sensible matter, as the Physical subject thereof. Sir, you dreamt so; for this is no better than a dream, to tell us of an Art that hath Principles purely Mathematical, & a subject Physical. As for Aristotle, it seemeth you cared not whether he said so or no, it was enough to bring his name: For Aristotle doth not say, it is Scientia media, between those two, as you father upon him: but disputing quo Mathematicus à naturali Philosopho differat, doth consider that which we now call Astronomy, as a part of Mathematics, and not of Natural Philosophy; neither doth he leave it hanging in the midst between them, but giveth it directly to the Mathematics. If the Knight here shall catch at a word to help himself, it is but a poor help: For the Learned know well, that the use of words receive great change in diverse Ages. In some Age Astrologia and Astronomia were the same, especially in those old times, when no man did ever dream, that they who then were called Chaldei, should at any time be called Astrologi, or that Art Astrologia. For they were called Astrologers long after Aristotle his time, who are now called Astronomers. Now Aristotle, who little wist (God wot) how the use of names should run after his time, useth the word Astrologia as then it was used, for that which we now for distinctions sake call Astronomy, for saith he, Astrologia est in iis rebus de quibus Mathematicus considerate: which words, if they had been written in those times, when the Chaldei were called Astrologi and Mathematici, they might have served the Knight's purpose; but being written in Aristotle his time, to turn them to this purpose, is either palpable ignorance, or wilful collusion, wittingly wrangling to no purpose. For, who is so ignorant, that knoweth not that Mathematicus in Aristotle his time did not signify a Chaldean (as afterward it did) but only a Professor of those Arts which then were called Mathematicae, whereof that which now is called Astrology, was not thought to be any. Then where he saith, that Aristotle maketh it Scientiam mediam, between the Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, he is found many ways faulty. For Astrologia in Aristotle his opinion, and the Knight's meaning is not the same thing. Further, Astrologia in Aristotle his meaning is not Scientia media, but a part of the Mathematics: and Aristotle doth not once say that the natural Philosopher meddleth with it: For he understood then by that word that which we call Astronomy. Much less doth Aristotle admit the Knight's reason, that it should therefore be Scientia media, because the Principles thereof are purely Mathematical, which in the practice are applied to sensible matter, as the Physical subject thereof: which words without understanding the Knight often repeateth: Those be the Knight's dreams, not Aristotle his reasons. Then still we urge for an Answer, to what part of learning you will refer your Astrology? You think perhaps you have said enough, if you refer it in some respect to the Mathematics, and in some respect to Natural Philosophy: but we will not leave you so. We say, in no respect it can be referred to either of them. Not to the Mathematics, because it considereth not things certain and infallible, which the Mathematics do. It will not help you to say it considereth the Stars, and the Stars in some respect are the subject of the Mathematics. For it were a foolish and unlearned speech to say, because the natural Philosopher considereth a Body, as in a place, and the Mathematics consider a body as with his dimensions, that therefore natural Philosophy should be referred to the Mathematics: so unlearned and unreasonable is the assertion that saith, because the ginger considereth the Stars as causes of inferior events, and the Mathematics consider the stars, so far as toucheth their bodies or motion; that therefore Astrology should be a part of Mathematics. Now if we drive this your pretended Art from these two parts of Learning, it will never find any resting place in any other part of good learning. And therefore, wheresoever it is found, it will be taken for a Rogue that hath no certain abiding place, as it hath been taken for the same, by the learned in former times, and for the same whipped by them.  
First then, Astrology is no part of the Mathematics, because it proceedeth not by demonstration from certain and known Principles, And even they who would have it a part of Natural Philosophy acknowledge so much.  
Now let us examine whether it be contained within the bounds of Natural Philosophy. If they tell us that the Stars are causes remote and Subordinate of inferior effects, they come not to the point: For that is not here in question, whether the Stars be causes of some effects in these inferior Bodies? For that influence which is apparent in the Moon and Sun may be gathered in other Planets. This is granted concerning such Bodies as are subject to their Virtue.  
But here to cut off their long & idle discourses, & to bring our disputation to a short issue, the question is, Whether the Stars are natural causes of those events which the Astrologers presume to foretell? For these men meddle only with men's actions. If Astrology stayed itself in this, to foretell the natural Humours or their effects, which shall be in such Plants and Bodies as are somewhat governed by Planets; it might seem to have some likelihood. But with this they meddle little or nothing; their curiosity is about men's Fortunes.  
Now the Principles by which the ginger cometh to his conclusion, are no natural Principles, but Sorcery. For curious men wand'ring after the knowledge of hid and unknown things, seek the cloak and pretence of an Art, and have called it Astrology; which they seek to bring within the bounds of Natural Philosophy: when as their Principles have no Affinity with natural causes; but with those illusions which Satan inventeth to deceive and draw away simple and unstable Souls into an admiration of curious and impious sleights and vanities. Let Philosophers judge of these Principles. That a Sextile and Trine Aspect are fortunate, but a Quadrate unfortunate. That the first House signifieth the life and body of him that is borne; the second, his riches; the third, Brethren; the fourth, Parents; the fist, Children; the sixth, sickness; the seaventh, Marriage; the eighth, Death; the ninth, Religion and God; the tenth, Rule and Dignities; the eleventh, the good Spirit; the twelfth, the evil Spirit. That in each of these, the three Lords of the Triplicities have their several Virtues and significations. As in the first House, the first Lord of the Triplicity, must show the Life and nature of him that is borne: The second Lord of the Triplicity, the force and strength of his Body: The third, his oldage; and with such conceits you must-runne through the rest. That in whose House Mercury is found to occupy the dignities of Mars, Aries then ascending, it will dispose him to Contention. Are these and such like natural Principles? Or, are they means subordinate between a natural cause and a natural effect?  
The way to bring any thing to the knowledge of a man, is either by probable syllogism, or by demonstation, or by faith. Now these things stand not by demonstration; themselves do not challenge that: neither can they stand by Logical deduction. For, what absurdity or improbability would follow if a man deny any of these things? Nay, what absurdity were it withoutreason to yield to any? It remaineth then, if any man know these things, he must know them by faith; but not by that faith which God taught his Church: therefore by that faith which the Devil teacheth.   

CAP. II.  
That the Conclusions of Astrologers, cannot by natural Reason be drawn from their Principles.  
THat these things may the more clearly appear, we will show, that those men who have farthest pierced, and with greatest Learning and judgement searched through all the points of Natural Philosophy, have rejected these vanities, and branded them with the Title of Magical Superstitions and Sorceries: excluding them from all parts of natural knowledge, and good Learning. But of this in his due place: here let us follow this point in hand a little further.  
We may better understand the meaning of these men, by their own examples: For in their Disputations they are never willing to come to the point; but they mince the question: and like men oppressed with fears, (which judgement followeth the maintainers of an evil cause) they seem to look every way for help: and thus forsooth they come warily to the matter. The stars incline the humour, the humour inclineth the body, the body inclineth the mind; through all these inclinations the stars come at last to work upon the Soul. But the force of the Stars is spent in many inclinations, before it come to the Soul, that they dare not say it worketh directly upon the mind, no not upon the body, but only upon the humour: for so the Knight saith. This being brought either to a Mathematical demonstration, or to a probable syllogism, would prove a feeble consequence, and yet in disputation they are afraid to proceed any further: here they stick. But if you look upon their examples, wherein they set the glory of their Art, you shall find another matter: For in the examples of their Predictions, they foretell the deaths of Princes upon such a day: the fortunes of Kings, the ruins of Kingdoms, the overthrow of Armies. Compare their Principles with their Conclusions, and there is matter to wonder at the absurdity, or to laugh at the folly: For, from these Principles, the Stars incline only the humour, the humour only inclineth the body, the body only inclineth the mind: this Conclusion will hardly be gotten, that therefore the Stars incline the mind.  
But they proceed from these inclinations, to Predictions of the greatest Events: which events, whether they can be concluded by natural Reason, let us consider. And because this Gentleman might happily deny the examples brought by others, as not proceeding from natural causes; therefore to prevent all his exceptions, I will insist only in those examples which himself bringeth, & wherein he glorieth much.  
Paulus tertius, warned his Son long before of the very day of his death. Pag. 81.  
Picus, being foretold by three Astrologers, that he should not live above the age of thirty three years, confirmed the Prediction. Pag. 193.  
Gauricus warned Henry 2. French King, not to run at Tilt in the 41. year of his Age, for that the Stars did then threaten a wound in his head. Pag. 194.  
The Bishop of Vienna, by Astrology, assured Don Frederick then serving the Duke of Bourgundy, that he should be King of Naples. Ibid.  
The same Bishop of Vienna, did foretell the two overthrows of Charles Duke of Bourgundy. Ibid.  
These examples he rangeth with the forewarnings of Spurinae to Caesar, of Publius Nigidius, and Theagenes concerning Augustus: of Scribonius and Thrasillus touching Tiberius: of Ptolemy and Seleucus to Otho: of Ascletarian to Domitian. Pag. 193.  
Now if this Knight, or any other man of Learning can show us, that these events were natural events of the Stars, or that the Stars were natural causes of these things, and that by Astrology these things may beeforeseene, as in their natural causes: then will we honour Astrology. But how will they conclude? It will not serve to say, the Stars moved the humour, the humour moved the Body, the body affecteth the mind; therefore King Henry 2. shall have a wound in his head in the 41. year of his Age. Neither will it serve to say, at his Birth the Lord of the ascendant did behold Saturn the greater misfortune, and Mars the less misfortune, with quadrat Aspect or Opposition, or the Lord of the eight House, with a Trine or Sextile Aspect. And the greater or less fortunes, as jupiter and Venus, were cadent, and not found in their Angles; therefore he shall die at such a time, such a death: For who will yield unto you, that these be natural causes of that effect. There is a dependence and coherence between the cause and the effect, in natural things; in this none. Before you can conclude, you must conjure a man to believe these superstitious Sorceries, which Satnan hath persuaded the ginger to believe. The natural man receiveth them not, natural reason doth not comprehend them. For, take any of these examples; if you will, the Example of Henry 2. to insist in one; and tell us by what means the ginger could see the wound in the head: what humour did the Stars incline to this? Or, how was it possible by natural means, that in the Stars he should see the 41. year of Age? The humour stirred by the Stars might have carried him to many other courses, to other kinds of death. We would know by what natural Reason, the tilting was foreseen: the year, the stroke of the head? And why are you so fearful, as to mince the matter, as always you do when you reason of the causes? The Stars are only as you say causes of humours, not of actions, they have no force directly over the will: Here is a particular action that proceedeth from the will; if this could be seen in the Stars, than what reason can be brought why the Stars do not directly work in the will? I deny not but that Gauricus might foresee this, and warn the King thereof; but the question is by what knowledge he did it, whether by natural knowledge, or by other means. For here is a particular event: and you know that one of your Masters in his Centiloquie hath this position. Fieri nequit, ut qui tantum sciens est, particulares rerum form as pronunciet: soli autem numine afflati praedicunt particularia. This testimony of one that was so great a Master in your Art, telleth us thus much: That if Gauricus in a particular Event did make a true Prediction; then he was not therein tantum sciens. But besides his skill in the Art, he had another help, namely the familiarity of some spirit: Because particular events, saith he, cannot be foretold but by the help of a spirit.  
In the narration of Paulus Tertius, who warned his Son Aloisius of the day of his death, the Knight doth not deal fairly, and Knight-like: For he minceth the Narration, and leaveth out a part of it, which if it had been fully declared, would plainly open, that though the Stars are there pretended; yet that prediction was done by Necromancy, or by Familiarity with a Spirit. For john Sleidan (from whom the Knight hath taken that narration) saith plainly, that Paulus 3. was for certainty h●…ld not an ginger only, but also a Necromancer. His words are these. Sub hoc tempus Aloisio scribit Paulus tertius pater, ut decima 
joh. Sleidan Commentar. Lib. 19  Septembris die sibi caveat: Astra enim ei praenunciare cladem aliquam insignem. Erat enim Paulus 3. Pontifex non Astrologiae modo, sed & Necromantiae, sicut pro certo affirmatur; admodum studiosus. When Astrology, and the black Art are joined together; then may some Predictions be told: But the Knight should produce examples of Astrological Predictions, without the help of that Art, which we say cannot be done; because one best known in both Arts hath plainly told us a Prediction of a particular Event cannot be made but by the help of a Spirit.  
Now Sir, if this be the Art you glory so much in: if the company of unclean Spirits be your natural Principles, and natural causes; this Philosophy we entreat you to keep to yourself, and not to reach it to others. In the mean time, we have the confession of one, who was a principal man in the Profession of Astrology, whereby, as by a rule of that Art, we judge of all your former examples, wherein you glory so much: For they are of all particular events, and therefore if they were foretold, your Master hath opened to us the means: it was not by natural, but diabolical means. Thomas Aquinas saith as much. Si 
Secunda Secundae Queen 95. Art 1. Qu. Seq.  quis consideratione Astrorum utatur adprecognoscendos futuros, casuales, vel fortuitos eventus, aut etiam ad cognoscendum per certitudinem futura opera hominum, procedit hoc ex falsa, & vana opinion, & sic operatio daemons seize immiscet: quare erit divinatio superstitiosa & illicita? If it were not for these tricks, who could not be an ginger? The Knight saith, that they who 
Obiectio.  speak against Astrology, are such as being gravelled with the difficulty of the Art, before they were half through, to excuse their own dulness, and lack of industry, have broken into choler against it. Let wise men judge, whether without the Church, Eudoxus, 
Solutio.  Panaetius, Cicero, Varro, Pliny; within the Church, Origen, Austin, Ambrose, Hierom, with the rest of the Fathers: In later times Picus, Calvin, Chambers, Perkins, and for Learning and Piety, the honour of this Age, King james. I refer it I say, to the judgement of all that are wise and learned; whether all these who have expressly written against Astrology, were gravelled with the difficulty of this deep Art: or whether Sir Christopher Heydon be able to pierce farther into learning, than these could: this we leave to judgement: my meaning is not to detract from the Knight's Learning. But I know such, and could name them, saving that I will not touch the name of any man in that sort, who through a blockish incapacity, being judged by their proof in the University unapt for all good learning, have proved men of name and reputation in this sottish profession: Shall I think, that these wits can go farther in the apprehension of any part of good Learning, than others? especially than they who I have named before? Will any man think, that these men, whose wits were exercised in all the parts of good Learning, were gravelled with these difficulties, when half-witted men go through? No, no, there is another thing in it. For these men proceeding as far as by the warrant of natural Reason they could go; and finding in the end, that by natural Reason they could not come to the Conclusion of such Predictions; but that they must leave natural Reason, & admit unnatural Principles proceeding from the illusion of Satan, & in the end to have familiarity with Spirits: This indeed gravelled them; and will gravel the greatest wits in the world, that seek knowledge by lawful means, and no other.   

CHAP. III.  
The Conclusions of Astrologers are not from Natural Principles, and are not to be justified for truth in a Prediction.  
Here then, either the Astologers must inform us in the mysteries of their Art, by better reason, or be contented to be informed in the mystery of Truth. When a Prediction Astrological falleth out true, we seek by what means the ginger came by that knowledge: There are but two ways to know the truth hereof; By the light of Nature, or by the word of God. The Natural men that have been guided by the light of Nature, could never find out the Affection of the Stars to such an Event: they could not understand why the Stars should either cause it, or incline it, or signify it more than the flying of a Bird; and as many (as wise and learned) have held the flying of Birds, or the entrailes of Beasts, to be Causes or signs of such Events. Then it would trouble you to give a good natural Reason (for your supernatural superstitions we reject, otherwise we should receive Aruspicine as well as Astrology) we look, I say, for one good reason from you, why you should not judge of Astrology, as you do of Augury? One great Master of this Profession, Corn. Agrippa, Lib. 1. Cap. 53. perceiving such affinity between Astrology and Augary, both depending upon Principles, so like affected to the Conclusion; seeketh likewise to confirm, that Divination, which is from Augury and Auspicie. The best learned in Natural Philosophy, and the best learned in Magic, have adjudged these things like.  
And because we strive to do this service to the truth, we must examine and follow you into these blind corners, whereunto you fly: you must be holden up to some particular Event. For, the question is not whether the Stars signify any thing; but whether they cause, or incline, or signify such a particular Event, as that of Henry 2. the time of his death or danger, the wound in his head, or any such as your other examples imply. If they show such particular Events, than all your Answers of a general inclination, of the humour only, but not of the actions of men (which you every where lay down as grounds) are in truth brought in by you but as cloaks to cover some secret, to try, whether in the mist of these clouds, you can escape from such Arguments as press you. This is the very point that troubled Cicero and other Philosophers: for when they came to this point, they were at a stand, and could proceed no further; not through dulness of wit (as you impute) but because they following the matteras far as the light of Nature did direct them, would go no further then natural Reason could warrant. It is agreed upon between Cicero, and his Adversary in that disputation, de Divinatione, that no natural Reason can be given. Cur à dextris coruus, a sinistra cornix faciat ratum: cur 
Lib. 1. de Divinat.  Stella jovis aut Veneris coniuncta cum Luna ad ortus puerorum salutaris sit; Saturni Martisuecontraria: He joineth these together, as always his manner is, the flying of Birds, and Aspect of Stars; because toward a particular Event, there is just like affection in both these Causes.  
And whereas the common reply of Astrologers is; sometimes their Predictions fall out true: may we not answer them in Cicero his words? Ipsa varietas 
Lib. de Divinatione.  fortunam esse causam non naturam docet. Si tua Conclusio vera est nonne intelligis eadem uti posse & Aruspicies, & fulgatores, & interprete ostentorum, & Augurs, & sorti legoes, quorum generum nullum est, ex quo non aliquid sicut Praedictum sit, evaseret. Now if Augury Aruspicine, and all such Sorceries are justly condemned, as not standing with Christianity; yea, even by natural men, as not standing with Nature, though their Predictions were sometimes true; what reason hath any man to maintain Astrology, and condemn these? Or to think, that the truth of a Prediction should Privilege Astrology more than these? Neither is it any reasonable or tolerable Answer to tell us of the truth of a Prediction, when we see the Cause. And yet this Gentleman confesseth, Pag. 195. ay, for my part (saith he) do freely confess, that there is no one thing that hath made me so confident in the validity of this Art, as that which I have seen to fall out true. If no one thing have made you so confident herein, than you have freely told us, that in your own judgement, you do not so much esteem of your long Discourses of the natural Causes, that the Stars are natural Causes of such Effects, these be not the things that move you most; but you are most of all moved by the Events. Yet the wise and learned, are not carried to such a confidence upon the sight of the Events, but upon the knowledge of the Cause and Reason. And therefore Cicero, and before him, as he witnesseth, Eudoxus a Platonic, whom he and others much esteem for Learning; and Panaetius, whom he accounteth the worthiest of the Stoics; and diverse likewise after him, men of great Learning in Philosophy, did reject this Art, for that these Causes are not Natural, albeit some Events fell out true. For, if the question be of a thing determinable, by the light of Nature, that Rule of Cicero holdeth always: It is a foul shame for a Philosopher, to speak any thing without a natural Reason. And if this be a sufficient warrant to make a man confident in the validity of an Art, because he seeth Predictions to fall out true; then must this Gentleman be very confident in Witchcraft: because he seeth, that all that which was foretold to Saul by Witchcraft, 1. Sam. 29. fell out true. And shall the truth of that Prediction make a man so confident in the validity of that Art? They who are governed by the Spirit of God, and seek knowledge according to Godliness, may not be confident upon the truth of Events. And seeing by this example we see evidently, that God in his just judgement against the wicked King Saul, did suffer Satan thus to deceive and illude Saul, even by foretelling him a true Event, because by unlawful means he sought the knowledge of things to come: They that would judge the like of the like things, must needs think, that God in the like sort suffereth the Devil to deceive and illude Astrologers, by suffering them to foretell true things sometimes; that curious men, that will not contain themselves within lawful knowledge, may be deceived, and drawn into a great confidence of the validity of this Art. Herein God's judgement is fearful, but just against such as seek the knowledge of things to come, by unwarranted means.  
Now this Gentleman writing for Astrology after so many Ages, and coming to that very point, which so much troubled Cicero and the rest, and caused them utterly to abandon the Art; because by the light of Nature they saw no way to go through this difficulty: He coming (I say) to the same point, is to be observed well, how he in his imagination goeth through, where they all stuck: For he useth no other means to inform us in the Mystery, but this. Pag. 99 If Spice and other hot Simples are of force to stir and alter our humours by their specifical qualities; why can you not as well conceive, that Mars and the rest of the Stars, on which the qualities of these inferior things depend, ma●… exercise their qualities, and do the like in our Constitutions? Thus you think you have spoken sound to the point. Awake, Sir Knight, and defend your Cause: You have with great confidence encountered with a man of great Learning; you have undertaken to satisfy the Learned: We are come to a main point, whereat others have stuck; Whether these be natural Causes, or comprehended by natural Reason? You tell us a tale of Spices, and hot Simples, and entreat us to conceive the like of Mars his operation. Sir, here remember, that you are come to that difficulty, wherewith you say others were gravelled; you go smoothly through, thus: Because Spice and hot Simples increase choler, why can we not as well conceive, that Mars may stir and incline an Humour? How do you compare Effects together? The one from a known Cause, the other from an unknown? The one a thing in Nature, the other only in Conceit. And if we yield you the Conclusion (which you confess by this manner of writing you cannot prove) what have you gotten? The question is not of an Elementary humour, but of the particular Event, that upon such a day, in such a part of his body, by such means, befell Henry 2. French King; (for in one Example, for brevity's sake we insist.) When the question is of such a particular Event, whether there be any natural Cause thereof in the Stars? Who can bear this idle answer; that the Stars may move a humour as Spice doth? And who will grant you this Comparison, betwixt Simples that go into the Body, and work immediately upon it, and the Stars that are so remote? These things you beg, and when you have them granted, you can never frame a Conclusion from these Principles, to such a particular Event, as that is whereof we speak.   

CHAP. FOUR  
The Conclusions of Astrologers depend upon other Principles, than themselves are willing to publish.  
NOw Sir, seeing you cannot satisfy us in this point; we will try if happily we can satisfy you. Philosophy, and the light of Nature have led men thus far; that when the ginger telleth a true Event by the Stars, they could say that the Stars were not the true Cause of that Event. But the ginger rageth, and saith the Events are true, therefore there is some true Cause. here the Natural Philosopher leaveth him: For he seeth that the Stars were not the true Cause of that Event; but what was the true Cause, he knoweth not. And because he findeth none in Nature, therefore he casteth it upon Chance and Fortune: thus far the light of Nature leadeth. Let us come now to a greater Light, that may lead us where this faileth, that is, the light of God's Word. And as we took one of the Knight's Examples, examining it by the light of Nature; so let us take it again and examine it by the Word of God. To insist still in the same Example, That Henry 2. French King should receive a sore wound in his head, in such a year of his Age, this Event proved true: We now seek the Cause and means, how the ginger might come to this knowledge. You say, he saw it in the Stars; but that is the thing in question. We say, that he might come to the knowledge thereof by some unlawful means, and yet use the pretence of the Stars, to colour the unlawfulness of the means. If a Chaldean had been asked in the flourishing estate of job, what should have been jobs Fortune? You say, by the Stars he might foretell his fortune, which we deny: But when the Devil had gotten leave to vex job, if after that time and before his troubles, the Chaldean had been asked of jobs fortunes, than we see a means how he might have come to the knowledge thereof, as Saint Augustine saith, Illudentibus eos praevaricatoribus Angelis. And he might use the Stars as Signs, not framed by God to that end, as also the flying of Birds was not, but by Sorcery framing Signs thence; as the same St. Augustine doth wisely admonish. Nam iste 
De Doctrina Christ Lib. 2. Cap. 2●….  opiniones quibusdam rerum signis humana praesumptione institutis ad eadem illa quasi cum doemonibus pacta & conventa referendae sunt. So that in Divinity this question might with no great difficulty be decided. For we may say, that the cause why the ginger sometimes speaketh true, is not because he seeth it in the Stars, as in natural causes of that Event (which thing you repeat often, but never prove) but because either by plain compact, or else by a secret illusion of Satan, he cometh to the knowledge thereof: which illusion may be so great, that the ginger may believe that he readeth it in the Stars. Albeit, before that God hath opened his will by some means, neither the Devil, nor the ginger, is able to foretell it, as may appear in the example of job. If here you return (as often you say) that the Stars cannot foreshow the actions of the regenerate, and therefore that the Chaldean could not answer in the actions of job: I think it would much trouble you to bring a good or probable reason, why the Stars should not as well foretell the actions of the regenerate, as that particular Event of Henry 2. Did the ginger, trow ye, first consult whether that King was regenerate or no? Will you have us to think that such things are incident to the study of Astrology? If it were so, then should the knowledge of the ginger go far beyond the knowledge of the best Divines: and we must repair to the ginger to know, who are regenerate in the Church, and who are not. But go which way you will: Nunquam bodie effugies: we will follow you even in this, and we will bring your ginger to such a King, who was as vnregenerate, as ever was Henry 2. French King. Let the deaths of Henry 2. and Achab King of Israel be compared together. Do you think that any ginger could have told Achab, that he should either be slain, or hurt with an Arrow at Ramoth Gilead, at such a certain time? It is impossible to prove, and absurd to think, that any Chaldean could have foretold this by the Stars, because it was a secret which God kept in his secret Counsel, until it pleased him to reveal it, 2. Chron. 18. 19 Now after that God had once revealed his will herein, that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gilead, and to that end given him over, to the permission and means which Satan devised, as we read in the same place, verse 21. then may we well understand how a Chaldean (having by some means warning thereof from Satan) might foretell the death of Achab, the place, the time, as the ginger did in Henry 2. (if happily he did so) and as they do in all such Events. For what can you find unlike in the deaths of these two Kings? Was not the death of Henry 2. as well directed by God's Providence, as the death of Achab? Was not Achabs' death as much seen in the Stars as Henry's? And if it be blasphemy to say, that either the Devil, or any ginger could foretell Achabs' death, before such time as God had revealed it; is it any less to pronounce the same of Henry 2.  
But he telleth us, that if Mr. Chambers or any other, know any ginger that useth the familiarity of evil Spirits; those he will not defend, or excuse. But we say, that no ginger can make a Prediction of such particular Events, wherein himself giveth instance, but by the familiarity of an unclean Spirit: And yet unless we drive them to confess it, he will still shift us off with this Answer, that he knoweth none that doth it. What shall we do here? Must we not believe it, till we hear the Astrologers themselves confess it? It is plain enough by that which we have already proved; because to know a particular future Event, is beyond the compass of Nature, beyond the Reason of natural men: therefore, if a man attain to this knowledge, it is not by natural means. Yet the Knight laboureth to prove this to be natural from contingence. But how is this proved, forsooth? First, that there are some things contingent: For thus he saith, Pag. 210. The ginger inquireth not whether he shall dye, or no; yet the time when, the place where, how, and by what kind of death, or by whom to dye, is contingent, and not necessary, and in that respect subject to Astrology. Thus far the Knight. You tell us that Astrological Predictions are not in things necessary, but contingent: When necessary and contingent are opposed one against the other: Necessary importeth always the dependence between a natural Cause, and his Effect: Contingent is a fortuitall Effect, whereof there is no natural Cause apparent: Have you not thus confirmed to us, that the Stars are not natural Causes of such Effects? Surely, if you can make any sense of your words, it must be to exclude Predictions from natural Effects: For no contingent Effect hath any apparent natural Cause; apparent, I mean to the natural man. Here it must be observed, that Astrologers have bid Nature farewell, and have betaken themselves, and the hope of their cause, to fortune and chance; therein their Trade standeth by their own confession. Now, that the thing which consisteth in fortune and chance, is out of the compass of natural Causes, it is apparent; because no Philosopher to this day, did ever acknowledge the Cause of a fortuitall Effect, to be natural: but because they know no natural Cause thereof, therefore they call it Fortune. Now they called Chance and Fortune a Cause accidental, which cannot be reduced to a natural Cause, but may be reduced to some other Cause, namely, to God's Providence. Aristotle admitting, that Chance and Fortune may be reduced to some Cause, doth not express how: But Hypocrates doth; for he teacheth, Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fortunam medicam a Dijs esse. Where he saith also, Medicos quando cum fide Artem adhibuerint, reliqua fortunae committere. And expressing the same in other words he saith, Medici Dijs locum daunt. So that the Philosophers that would reduce it to a cause, can reduce it to no other, than the providence of God. And it is chance only in respect of man's knowledge and purpose, otherwise there is no chance at all. Now saith the ginger, all Astrological Predictions, are of such things which are in Chance: than it followeth that they are not natural, neither to be reduced to a natural Cause; but only to God's providence. By this, Astrology must be reduced not to Philosophy, but to Divinity, if it be an explication of such Events as belong to God's providence: Then must you tell us no more of natural Causes, but teach us these things out of God's word.  
Now where you take pains, Pag. 227, to prove that there is contingence in Nature: which when M. Chambers hath taken away, (you say) if he shall dare to defend his Assertion, you will not fear likewise to affirm, that with contingence, he takes away the Prescience of God; or otherwise induceth fatal necessity. You strive not against M. Chambers, but you speak at random like a raving man, you know not what. For he that taketh away contingence in Nature, or that which men call Fortune, doth not take away God's prescience, but rather confirmeth it. For in regard of God's prescience there is nothing contingent: In this point you trouble yourself more, than M. Chambers doth trouble you. For to prove contingence in Naeture, you tell us of contingent Propositions in Logic, Pag. 227. you take exception against this Proposition of M. Chambers. If Predictions be true, they are of necessity, the consequence you say, is not only false, but draweth with it impieties and absurdities: It is false, you say; because in Logic, every true Proposition is not necessary, it may be contingent. To prove it impious and absurd, you say, would require a longer Disputation; and therefore you will not enter into it. We return, that M. Chambers his Proposition, is neither false nor impious, as you are pleased to term it. For admitting your Principles, that Astrological Predictions are no other than the foretelling of natural Effects, from the knowledge of their natural Causes; then we say it is a most true Proposition. If their Predictions be true, they are necessary; for true and necessary, is all one in nature. Tell us not here of contingent Propositions in Logic; for what Logic or Philosophy taught you so to proceed in Disputation, from a contingent Event in Nature, to a contingent Proposition in Logic? These differ toto coelo. Then we yield that a Proposition may be true, and yet not necessarily true, but contingently: but every Effect, that is, a true Effect of a natural Cause, followeth his Cause, non contingenter, sed necessario; by a natural necessity, not by hap hazard: For if it be a true and natural Effect of the fire to heat; than it heareth non contingenter, sed necessario: So, if it be the true and natural Effect of the Stars, to work such a particular Event as you speak of; than it must be necessary: For you cannot show us any natural Effect, depending on a natural Cause, which dependeth thereon contingently. Then, that which M. Chambers saith is true, you have nothing against it. But mark good Reader, how the Knight disputing of contingence, openeth his meaning. For he perceiving belike, that if he should attribute these Predictions wholly to contingence, he must needs thrust them out of natural Causes; is much troubled, wrestling with himself, and interferring he cannot tell what, to make of the matter which he hath begun. For to make us understand how these Predictions may be true, though not necessary, he telleth us Pag. 283. It is not simply necessary that the fire should heat the water; yet if it be applied in due manner, upon supposition, it must needs heat. So he saith, presupposing that the matter or subject whereof the ginger speaketh, be convenient and well disposed, that which they conclude by the Position of Heaven will come to pass. Before you can conclude any thing, you must have liberty granted to coin a new Philosophy. For how many errors are contained in these words? Consider your words. First, whereas you would show in these words, the difference between absolute necessity, and that which is called ex hypothesi: It seemeth you were never careful to understand what is absolute, and what upon supposition. And whereas you call it necessity upon condition; when the fire heateth or burneth: this is not necessity upon condition; but it is necessity secundum consuetum naturae ordinem, natural necessity. That the fire should heat or burn matter applied to it, is not necessary upon condition. For that which is necessary upon condition, doth infallibly follow the condition, being admitted, & therefore is called necessitas infallibilitatis: but fire doth not infallibly heat or burn the matter applied; for it is hindered by a Miracle; if a Miracle cease, than it heateth necessarily: but this necessity is natural necessity, and not necessity upon condition.  
Consider yet another error in those words, and in Philosophy not tolerable. Having taught, that Astrological Predictions are of things not necessary, but contingent: to prove this, you give instance in the fire, whose effect is to heat; yet it heateth, you say, not simply necessarily, but upon condition: whereby you infer, that the Stars work upon that which you take to be their Subject, as the fire worketh upon his Subject: Then, it must needs follow, that either in the work of the Stars there is natural necessity, or in the work of the fire upon an apt subject there is contingence.  
You impute to M. Chambers errors, ignorance, impiety, absurdity, forwriting that which agreeth with good Learning, and will be justified. But are you Sir, or any man in the world by disputation able to justify these things? That the Stars work upon their Subject, as the fire upon his; & yet that the Stars work contingently, or that the fire worketh contingently? Or, that a thing contingent is necessary? Or, that an Effect, which is granted to be contingent, is an Effect of a known natural Cause? These things neither yourself, nor any for you, can make agreeable to Philosophy. These are the nets wherein you have will fully entangled yourself, and your Astrology cannot help you out. Keep the distinction of things that in themselves are distinct: distinguish natural necessity, from absolute; because the one may be hindered, the other cannot: then distinguish it from necessity upon coaction, and from necessity upon condition: place natural necessity in things that are according to the ordinary course of Nature: distinguish all necessity from contingence; that is, of things Philosophical: speak like a Philosopher, and then shall you never be able to answer these things, whereunto the iniquity of your cause hath drawn you; but by plain confessing of your error. Now lest you might think, that this was rather your evil luck, than any fault in the Cause and Art of Astrology; we will admit (for your pleasure) all these errors unsaid again. And if you can take better advice, defend the Cause as you will, you shall be brought about to the same absurdities again: For your Predictions are either of things necessary, or contingent; answer what you will, you are caught. If of things necessary, then holding (as you do) the Stars natural Causes of such Effects, this necessity must be according to the ordinary Course of Nature, the bond whereof is not broken but by Miracle: then your Predictions cannot be hindered but by Miracle. But you see they are hindered ordinarily, and without Miracles; and it is a greater Miracle to see them fall out true, then to see them prove false: which yourself perceiving, dare not affirm to be of things necessary, but of contingents only. But now when you say, they are of things contingent, you exclude them from the ordinary Course of Nature: For those Effects that are produced according to the ordinary Course of Nature, are not contingent, but always necessary by Natural necessity. Thus say what you will, your Predictions fall to the ground: Yet if words will hold them up, they want no help. For, having brought yourself into a great perplexity concerning Contingents, you go through, as though you would see no danger: and you tell us, that Astrologers do not meddle at all with rare Contingents, or such as have an indifferent respect to the Opposites, which may happen one way or another, Pag. 283. It is, as if you should say, Astrological Predictions are in things contingent, not necessary; and yet Astrologers meddle not at all with things contingent, but only with things necessary; For you call that a rare Contingent, which hath an indifferent respect to the Opposites. Now the truth is, there are no other Contingents but only such: For all Contingence is in respect of man's Will and purpose, which hath his natural freedom and liberty; where some things fall out besides the purpose and Counsel of man; there, and there only, Contingence hath place. This is always in such Actions, as (in respect of the liberty of the Will) have an indifferent respect to the Opposites: If you say true; then they meddle with no Contingents.  
But see good Reader, when a man is once over the shoes, how he runneth through thick and thin.  
This he saith to persuade (if he could have a Reader that would believe him) that their Predictions are not in such Contingents as these; but in another so●…t of Contingents, which he dreameth to be such, as when the fire burneth; this he calleth Contingence. But this is so hot and heavy, that it would burn his fingers that maintaineth it; it needeth no Refutation.  
Moreover, whereas M. Chambers (proving that there can be no Predictions, being of future particular Events) for that purpose allegeth a sentence of Aristotle, that of future Events there is no certain knowledge, or things that are so to happen, can neither be said true nor false. Thus Aristotle expresseth a thing contingent like a natural man; the Knight sore troubled with this sentence, at last giveth that Answer which bruiseth Astrology in pieces: His Answer is Pag. 282. To affirm, that there is no truth of future Events contingent; because it appeareth not to us, is erroneous; for all things are present to God, and all axioms, or affirmations of future Accidents appear to him, as they are either true or false. Neither is it alone known to him; but farther to such, to whom he shall vouchsafe to reveal it, or otherwise to them that are able to discern Events in their determinate Causes. Thus far the Knight.  
Were it not better utterly to renounce the defence of Astrology, than thus to defend it? The question is whether future particular Events can be foretold by natural means? Aristotle saith they cannot be known being of Contingents, and no man can say that such an Event is true or false before it be accomplished; therefore it cannot be foretold. This Knight answereth, that they are known to God. The question is not whether they be known to God or to his Prophets, when he revealeth them; but whether they may be known by natural means. Now how is the foreknowledge of God brought in here, and his Revelation to his Prophets? Unless that it be to prove; that Astrologers are Prophets, to have this Knowledge by Revelation, as some of them confess; that without the help of a Spirit, these things cannot be known: Either he must confess, that Astrologers have this knowledge by Revelation, not by natural means, or else he answereth nothing to Aristotle. For that which he addeth, that these things are known also to such as are able to discern Events in their natural Causes, is but a begging of the question which Aristotle will not admit, who saw Events in their Causes, as far as the Knight. Aristotle doth deny that these things can be known in their natural Causes, and we with him. Remove from your Answer that feeble begging of the question, and then what else do your words contain, but that Astrologers foretell future Events by Revelation, as the holy Prophets of God have foretold such things by Revelation. Was not he fore driven, trow you, that leapeth at one jump out of the Course of Nature? But Aristotle will not so be satisfied: For he keeping still within the bounds of Nature, made that Objection. The Philosopher thrusteth you on the one side from the Course of natural knowledge: The Prophets, thrust you out of their company, on the other side: And the Church will never admit, that you do these things by divine Revelation: then look you better to your standing.  
What greater evidence against Astrology can we look for; unless we stay till we hear themselves confess against themselves; that these Predictions cannot be foretold by Art; or from any natural Principles, but only by the illusions of the Devil. If nothing can serve, but their own confessions (though this seem hard to such as are brought to strict examinations, as witches are, between whom and Astrologers the difference is not great, both being brought up in the same School, saving that the Astrologers (under a pretence of more learning) seek to hide themselves) yet is it not impossible to wring it out of their own Confessions.  
The Knight telleth us, Pag. 203. That the Papacy was certainly presaged to Paul 3. by Paris Caeresarus, as Cardan testifieth. And by Richardus Ceruinus unto his Son Pope Marcellus 2. as Panuinus and Garimbertus report, and again by one Erasmus a German, and Marcilius Ficinus to Pope Leo 10. whereof I take to witness Paulus jovius, saith he. And thus (forsooth) he thinketh he hath answered an Objection of M. Chambers, of certain false Predictions given by some Astrologers. For if M. Chambers show him false Predictions, he thinketh it enough, that these whom he citeth were not false: And how doth he prove them? Forsooth, because Cardan and Paulus jovius witness so much. This is very strange dealing. He taketh exception, Pag. 202. at the testimony of Cicero; witnessing a thing of his own knowledge, that the Astrologers of his time were convinced daily: For Cicero knew them, that they assared Pompey and Crassus, and Caesar, that none of them should dye till he was old, and of good reputation, and famously. This which Cicero speaketh of his own knowledge, the Knight will not receive. He saith, that Tully his testimony is worthily suspected; but none that lived in his time, did ever charge him of such a crime: yet must Cicero be rejected. But if Cardan or Paulus jovius once say the word, he taketh that up as an undoubted truth. Was not Cordan commonly noted throughout all Italy, by the name of Cardan the Fool? And who knoweth not, that jovius is (of the learned) noted, that where he would have spoken the truth, that is in the Turkish and Persian affairs; there he could not. But where he could have spoken the truth, that is, in the affairs of Europe, and especially of Italy; there he would not. They who speak most moderately of him say thus. But M. Askham in his Discovery of Germany, writeth much more sharply of him, charging him with flattery, lies, forgery, and that he wrote his History to no other end, but to deface the truth of the Story with lies. Yet the Knight will reject Cicero, whose credit in reporting a matter Historical, was never in question; but Cardan and jovius are Authors for his tooth. But let us follow him a while in this humour, and see what he will make of this matter.  
Admit all this true that he saith, that these were true Predictions. What followeth? Then saith he, these true Predictions prove the validity of the Art, and maketh him confident in it. But we say, if they speak true (which thing we deny, till we hear it better proved) yet it was not from the knowledge of natural Causes; but from the Devil. If we could make one of these Astrologers (on whom the Knight so much glorieth) confess the truth, whether these Predictions were done by Learning and natural Knowledge, or by the help of a Spirit: could any proof be more pregnant than that? But how shall we wring this Confession out of them? Paris Caeresaruis, and Richardus Ceruinus, and Erasmus the German, are men not famous for any writings. But Marcilius Ficinus is a man of name for his Learning, & he will tell us the truth. We will entreat him to clear us this doubt; seeing the Knight taketh it upon the report of Paulus jovius, that he presaged the Papacy to Leo 10. Whether may this thing be done by learning, or no? Let Ficinus answer. Marcilius Ficinus answereth thus. lib. 3. Aeneid. 2. Platin. Such Predictions stand not by Learning, but by some instinct. And after some Discourse, wherein he showeth, that such Predictions are not by Learning, but by an instinct, he saith thus; Hinc efficitur ut plerique vel inertes, vel minus in artibus eruditi praesagio doctiores excellunt. And after, speaking of the same knavery, as he termeth it, he saith thus. Quam fallaciam doctissimi quique Astronom●… deprehendentes iudicia neglexerunt. In which place he showeth, that diverse Astronomers well-known to him, men of great Learning, did scorn this folly. And addeth, that Paulus Florentius, being a man of singular skill in Astronomy, did utterly scorn these Predictions; who living till he was 85. years old, & (with all exactness) considering the Figure of his own Nativity, could find therein no sign of long life. Briefly, Ficinus giveth this verdict of them. Astrologi fingunt, non docent. This testimony is such, against which the Knight can take no exception: For he hath commended Ficinus unto us for a great ginger. Which thing, for his pleasure, we will grant him; albe it Ficinus is ashamed of the Profession. But wee-must believe the Knight, that-hee was an ginger; yet that he did presage by Astrology, therein we cannot believe him; unless he will exclude Astrology from all Learning, and call it an Instinct. For Ficinus is resolute, that their Predictions cannot be known by Learning, but only by Instinct. Now what he meaneth by instinct, let the Learned judge; whether an Instinct of the Spirit of God, or of another Spirit. Again whereas Ficinus, a man of such Learning and skill in Astrology by your own confession, telleth us, that men without Art and Learning proceed further in Predictions, than men of greatest wit and Learning; let it be remembered, that which you so much glory in, that Picus, Chambers and such like, were gravelled with these difficulties, before they could get half way through; but yourself (with some others) pass through pleasantly. Ficinus telleth us plainly, that which otherwise we have observed; That they who pass so far, as to presage things to come, do it not by wit and Learning; but they are either inertes, or minus in Artibus exercitati. Then if learned men come not to the knowledge of Predictions, it is not because they want any parts of wit and Learning; but because they are wise and learned: For if they had less parts of wit and Learning, then by the judgement of Ficinus; they could also know that, which you say you know. This witness hath spoken well for you. Another witness speaking to the same purpose, is he that wrote the Centiloquie. Who writeth thus. Abs te, & a scientia; fieri enim nequit ut qui tantum sciens est, particulares rerum formas pronunciet: soli autem numine afflati praedicunt particularia. He saith, if thou wilt learn this knowledge, thou must learn it partly by thyself, partly by Science and skill; by Science, in things universal; by thyself, in things particular. Which things by Learning thou canst not foretell, but by the help of a Devil. Against this witness he taketh no exception, neither can he; for it is the confession of an ginger: Only, he expoundeth his words thus, Particulares rerum formas, that is, saith he, either the essential form of a thing, or the Platonical Idea: Then this must be the sense: He that hath knowledge only, and not the help of a Daemon, cannot foretell the essential ●…orme, or Platonical Idea: But what is this for Predictions? He is there giving Precepts for Predictions of particular Events, & saith, that the thing cannot be done without the help of a Daemon. And himself declareth what he meaneth by particulares formas; in speaking of Predictions concerning pa●…ticular Events. Soli numine afflati praedicunt particularia. But saith the Knight, he showeth in diverse Aphorisms of the Treatise, that the ginger dealeth with many particular Events; therefore his meaning cannot be of particular Events, but of essential forms. Let M. Chambers reconcile these things together, saith he. M. Chambers is not bound to reconcile the absurdities of your Astrologers; for that work were infinite: Yet this may well be reconciled. For, where he saith particulars cannot be foretold, but by the help of a Daemon; and yet himself in many Aphorisines declareth, how the ginger may come to the knowledge of particulars; Here is no contradiction at all: For either he speaketh of such particulars, as the ginger shall know by the help of his Daemon: or of such as himself (knowing by that means) did publish in writing. Wherein we have an open confession of their impiety; but no repugnancy in the words. So we may proceed to the examining of another witness. Plotinas, as Porphyry writing his life doth testify, as well studied in Astrology, and after great pains taken therein, did find, that no credit was to be given to judiciary Astrology, and did refute the same, both in his private speeches, and in his Books: Thus much Porphyry recordeth. Marcilius Ficinus reporting this, lib. 3. Ennead. 2. Plotin. addeth farther: That Plotinus refuseth judiciary Astrology, Lib. de fato atque libres de providentia, & lib. de Coelo. This testimony is double. for it witnesseth what Porphyry & Plotin both did find in this Study, which they both some while professed. Other testimonies to the same purpose, we refer to the Sixth Chapter.   

CHAP. V.  
That Confession of the Knight examined, that Astrological Predictions reach not to the regenerate. An invincible Syllogism of the Knights examined.  
HItherto we have proved, that Astrological Predictions have no place or ground among natural means: that the Stars are not natural Causes of such Events: that the natural man receiveth not such knowledge: that the knowledge of these things cometh by an instinct or familiarity with a Spirit, by the confession of those, whom the Knight much esteemeth for their knowledge in Astrology. What proofs can we seek more evident? Therefore we conclude, that the broken staff faileth him, upon which all his Book resteth: That the Stars are natural Causes of such Effects, as Astrologers foretell, it is broken in pieces, and the shivers thereof strike the Cause through the sides. Seeing Philosophers have rejected the Art for this cause, the Knight coming to the same point, should have informed us with some convincing reasons, and not entreat us to conceive that which he should prove. And yet we must both pardon and pity him. I will admit, that he is able to say much for the Cause; that his Learning is much better than his Book maketh proof of; that it is pity so good parts should be so evil employed. How the Knight taketh it, I know not: But unto me it seemeth strange, that so good parts and gifts should be spent upon so sottish a Subject; and failing in the main point, that he should not have feeling thereof. What can we think, but that with Astrology there is always joined some Magic? And that your understanding, oth●…rwise so quick and lively, is in this particular bewitched with an Astrological illusion, as it were with some Magical Incantation? I wi●…h his good, from my heart. Neither can I fear such a base fear, that he will take it in evil sort, which is meant for his good. And if he be the man which I take him for, he will one day thank him, that is not afraid to deal roundly with him, to pull him out of the fire; I mean, to draw him, if by any means, so it be the will of God, from this sottish Superstition: But I must proceed.  
One common evasion he useth, which I have mentioned before, that Astrological Predictions reach not to the Church, nor to the regenerate in the Church: and sometimes he saith, neither to the regenerate, nor to the wise. Now, because properly every Art ought to be defined by the Subject; by this, Astrology should be defined an Art, that considereth the fortunes of fools and wicked. For that every habit of the mind ought to be defined by the Subject; it is well proved by Aristotle. And is not this, think you, the reason why the Regenerate and wise forsake the Study of judiciary Astrology? For, by your confession, it profitteth them nothing, it reacheth not so far as unto them. For what other reason can you give us, why Augustine, Picus & such like, being both thoroughly enabled by natural abilities, & having a desire to that knowledge, utterly forsaked the Profession thereof; but because they were either regenerate or wise? then what are they who profess it? I move nothing but from your own Principles. And do you not handsomely persuade men, to think honourably of your Profession, when you say, it concerneth neither wise nor regenerate? Or what account do you make of all such, as come to seek your help in this Art? Do you not say, that they can have no help of you, unless they be fools, and wicked men? Perhaps true. But here I entreat that it may be well considered, what a manner of Art this is, that by the Professors thereof is confessed, wholly and only to concern them, who are in Regno Diaboli. All lawful Arts do concern alike the Regenerate and unregenerate; and the work of regeneration, maketh no distinction, no manner of alteration in the use of a lawful Art. And is not this enough, to prove the whole Profession not to belong to Nature? For can any man show any of the Liberal Sciences, any Art or Profession in the world, that dependeth upon natural Knowledge, and goeth no further, which concerneth not all men alike, of what quality or disposition soever they be? And what warrant can any man have to profess or practise such Art, as is wholly conversant about the members of Satan, and goeth no further? But as soon as ever they have bidden the Devil farewell, the Art biddeth them farewell.  
Again, they who grant that Astrological Predictions touch not Religion, nor the regenerate, nor the Church, have no reason to use Predictions within the Church. Let them be shut out of the Church, and illude the Reprobate, for whose use they hold their Art by their own confession. Now within the Church every one receiveth the Sacrament of Regeneration: And therefore the Children that are baptised in the Church, are taken for Regenerate, albeit the effect thereof, is more or less apparent, or not apparent in process of time. What then hath the ginger to do within the Church, where all receive the Sacrament of Regeneration? Further, we say, that the Art which concerneth only those men which are in the Kingdom of the Devil, and none else, is Diabolical, and nothing else: This is manifest from the contrary. For, as that Profession which concerneth the godly and obedient, and none else, is only of God; so that Profession which concerneth the wicked, and none else, must needs be only from the Devil: For over the wicked the Devil, ruleth Ephes. 2. 2. and not in the godly; for they are freed from the Kingdom of darkness, from Sin, and the power of Satan. Now when they are once freed from the power of Satan; then saith the Knight, they are freed from Astrology. Could any man more plainly prove, that Astrology is one part of the power of Satan? Bodin 
Lib. 4. Daemon  proveth by many Examples & Confessions of Witches, that Witchcraft hath 〈◊〉 ●…ower upon the Regenerate, or upon Magistrates, who execute the Laws against them; which is fully confirmed by his Majesty, Daemonol. lib. 2. cap. 6. Now if Astrological Predictions have no power over the Regenerate and wise, what do they differ from Wi●…chcraft? Saving that here in a greater show of Learning, they have gotten, as they think, a deeper hole to hide themselves in? But this is but the deepness of Satan. In the mean time, we cannot but observe one especial mark of an unlawful Art: the godly are excluded, it meddleth not with them. Lawful learning and Knowledge excludeth none, but worketh upon all sorts of men alike. Only Sorcery, Witchcraft, and Astrology, declared herein to be the inventions of the Devil, are confessed by the Masters of these Arts hereein to be unlike all other lawful Arts.  
The Knight saith, it is not his part to prove, but to answer; but no man will yield it to be an Art or Profession, without proof: And therefore, Pag. 507. he undertaketh to prove, and warneth us of an invincible Syllogism, which, saith he, is of that force, that neither Hemminga, nor all the Adversaries of Astrology, shall ever be able to avoid it. This Syllogism is worth the learning, it will give full satisfaction, and make us all recant what we have written, or can write against Astrology. Let us therefore hear this wonderful Syllogism. This it is. The Sun and Moon work upon these inferior matters, but the other Stars have the same nature and substance: therefore the other work and govern in the same manner. But how are we disappointed? For we looked for a Syllogism concluding Astrological Predictions, and that so forcibly, as could not be avoided. Here is nothing concluded touching Astrological Predictions. This Syllogism, M. Chambers hath answered, & so battered it in pieces, that I do marvel, how the Knight could think it fit for any Service: but he that hath no better, must make much of the best he hath.  
To satisfy the Knight, I must set down how he refuteth M. Chambers: by this the Knight can take less exception, and the Reader may better understand the manner of his writing. M. Chambers admitting this Argument, saith, the operations of the Sun & Moon are evident; and nothing belonging to Predictions. How repugnant, saith the Knight, is he to himself? For if their operations be known before hand, they must serve to Predictions: and to deny it is all one, as if confessing a man able to know when the Sun shall arise, he should yet deny it possible for him, to foretell when it shall be day. And again, if the operations of their Lights be also first known unto us in overy part of the Zodiac; why should not their operations by like reason, belonging to Predictions? For the ginger doth no less know their effects; as their motions do diversely apply their Influence to the matter of things, than the Physician doth the operation of those Simples, which be doth minister. But fully to stop his mouth in this point, what hath he brought but a begging of the question, which nevertheless is confirmed by Moses, who expressly witnesseth them to be created for Signs? And to oppose his own Confession against him, M. Chambers himself in his 15. Chapter, acknowledgeth them to be Signs to foretell the changes of the air, plenty, dearth, plagues, drought, & such like: with what face then can he here deny, that which he hath expressly affirmed before? I have set down the Knight's words at large, because the Reader may judge of the proof of this invincible Syllogism. M. Chambers saith, the Argument proveth not Astrological Predictions: the Knight saith, it is, as if granting that one knoweth the time of the rising of the Sun, should not know when it would be day. Either this instance is nothing worth, or else he holdeth, that as the day followeth the Sunrising, by such a natural course, which cannot be broken without Miracle; so the particular Events in men's actions foretold by the ginger, follow the Positions of the Stars in such a natural course, as cannot be broken, without Miracle.  
The operation of the Sun and Moon that are natural, are confessed. The Husbandman can tell when it will be day, as well as the ginger. The Husbandmen and Fishers, by marking the course of the Moon, can foretell the full Sea and E●…be, more exactly than any ginger: what then? Are th●…se Astrological Predictions? No verily, no more than the foretelling of an Eclipse. For, of these things that naturally follow, and without a Miracle are not broken, our question is not. This M. Chambers granteth: But what affinity hath this with your Astrological Predictions? Or, how will you conclude from this grant, a particular contingent Event in a man's life or state: as that Henry 2. shall be at such a time wounded in the head: or that Ioh: Medici's shall be Pope, or any such like. For M. Chambers by Astrological Predictions, meant only particular contingent Effects, as yourself say they are such, Pag. 210. Now, when as yourself confess, that Astrological Predictions are in things contingent & not necessary; you grant directly with M. Chambers, that the day following the rising of the Sun naturally, that is, necessarily not contingently, the ebbing and flowing following the Positions of the Moon, necessarily not contingently, the Eclipse following the interposition necessarily, not contingently. You must needs grant that these natural and necessary Consequents, have no affinity with Predictions, which are not natural and necessary Consequences, but contingent, as yourself do acknowledge. And yet you ask, with what face can M. Chambers say this? With an honest face, and a learned head. We will not urge with what face you may look upon your oversights. Learn what it is we grant, and what we deny. We grant that the operations of the Sun and Moon are evident, that their Effects are natural, and therefore bound to natural necessity, no way subject to Contingence.  
We deny, that the particular Events foretold by Astrologers, are natural Effects or necessary, but only contingent. You confess thus much. How then can you refute these things? If I grant the operations of the Sun and Moon, in things necessary by the ordinary Course of Nature; must I needs grant the power of Stars in things contingent? Yet this you thought to be such a Syllogism, which all the Adversaries of Astrology should never be able to answer. You deceive yourself, and would deceive others. But who is not able to distinguish between natural Effects, and contingent Events, which poor distinction cutteth off all your hopes of this invincible Syllogism; and showeth the Cause to be weak, that cannot be better supported. And whereas you take pleasure to compare the influence of Stars towards a contingent Event, to the operation of Simples, it is not worth the refuting, yourself granting the one contingent and the other natural. Now call you this a begging of the question; the question being of Predictions in particular Events? What do we beg in distinguishing between natural Effects and contingent Events? Doth not he, think you, famously beg the question, who answereth in every passage of his Book, that the ginger containeth him within the bounds of natural Philosophy, that the Stars are natural Causes of particular contingent Effects: which neither you prove, nor yourself or any man living is able to prove. Where you tell us, that M. Chambers is convinced by the testimony of Moses, who expressly witnesseth, that the Stars be created for Signs, which words are often repeated in your Book, whereby you infer, that Moses doth warrant your Predictions: We answer, that you must not give interpretations of Scripture to the Church; but take them from the Church. The Church hath interpreted these Signs, to be such as pertain to natural and political Orders and Seasons. You draw the words to hidden secrets beyond the Course of Nature, without warrant. Further, we distinguish between general Effects in nature, and particular contingent Events. Now if M. Chambers admit with Clem: Alexandrinus and others, that by the rising and setting of certain Stars, men may foretell the change of the Air, plenty, dearth, plagues, drought, and that in this respect, Mariners, and Husbandmen have use of that knowledge: Must he that granteth this, needs yield to your Predictions of particular contingent Events? No Sir; we admit the one, and deny the other, without any repugnance. But whereas we urge your particular Events, you would gladly shift off the matter with a distinction of particulars. The conceit, good Reader, if it be worth the hearing, is this.  
Particulars, saith the Knight, are of two sorts; either individual particulars, or specifical: For species specialissima, and species subalterna are particulars saith he.  
First, it is news (if we speak properly) that species and genera should be particularia; particular, in the proper acception thereof, being always opposed to universale.  
Secondly, if a man should admit this goodly distinction; yet will it do the Knight no service: For if any were so absurd to say, that Astrological Predictions are in particulars, that is in generals: yet this speech differing altogether from the sense of the Learned, cannot help them, who set their Predictions in such particulars; as that Henry 2. should be wounded in his head, in such a year of his age; that such a man should be Pope; that Don Frederick should be King of Naples, and such like; which are all of those, which he calleth individual particulars. And thus you see, to what fair end you have brought your Syllogism, which you told us none could avoid.   

CHAP. VI  
The Examination of the Knight's Definition of Astrology: whereby, as by a Rule, he would rule the question.  
THe Knight fearing, belike, something, before he came to the Answers of the Scriptures alleged by M. Chambers; setteth down, as he calleth it, a Rule, whereby the Reader may level and direct his judgement, as he saith. This Rule is to compare all authorities that are brought against him, with the definition of Astrology by himself set down. This proceeding seemeth to us strange. First, he will make a Definition as it pleaseth him best. Then, he will have not only Philosophical truths, (which were absurd enough) to be leveled according to his Definition, and not his Definition to those truths: but he would also persuade us, to level and direct the authorities of holy Scripture to this Definition, and to understand the Scriptures by this Definition, and not his Definition by them. For these are his words, Pag. 23. I have thought good to forewarn the Reader, not to be discouraged with the show of testimonies, which he (M. Chambers) mustered out of the Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, but still to compare his authorities and Arguments with the Definition, by me at first set down, to the end it may serve as a Rule, whereby the Reader may direct his judgement. Indeed Sir, if you could find such Readers as you wish, that would take such Rules without examining; then might you think your Cause were in good case. But what if the Readers will not take your Rules? What if they will not be persuaded to levelly the Scriptures by your rules, but examine your rules? Would any speak thus to his Reader, but an ginger? What Readers do you hope for that will examine scripture and all authorities by your rule? But what is this rule? This is your definition of Astrology, Pag. 2. Astrology is that Art, which teacheth by the motions, configurations, and influence of the signs, stars and celestial Planets, to prognosticate the natural Effects and Mutations to come, in the Elements and these inferior Elementary bodies. When you have set down this your definition or rule: then orderly you divide it into two parts: the first speculative, in the heavenly motions and appearances: the second, practical, which they call the judiciary part of Astrology.  
What learned man will ever yield this definition and division? It were an easy matter to prove any thing, if this might serve the turn, to set down a definition, and therein to beg the question. If this definition must be a Rule to rule all disputations against you, you need not dispute or make proof of any thing, it is all done in your definition. But this manner of writing, is both idle and presumptuous, ruling the disputation by your fancy without proof, without reason. Consider the absurdities of your definition. First, whereas you lay it to Master Chambers his charge, that he did not define Astrology; you have small reason for that, if you consider all. For this device of entering into a controversy with a defition, is unwarranted. Where did any of the Ancients so? Now to examine the writings of learned men by new devices, were not reason. The most learned and judicious Writers come not rashly to a definition. Observe Aristotle, as you shall find that he setteth not down a definition, before he hath fully proved every part thereof: Then cometh the definition as in a place of a conclusion. The judgement of this man, and others, may warrant men to write after this sort. Neither is it reason, that late devices should prescribe against the ancient manner of the best Writers. Neither do you understand your Master Ramus herein; for it is not his meaning, that all disputations should begin with a definition. But as it is the fittest and most orderly course in teaching children the rudiments of Arts (and so far we allow it) so in handling of Controversies what learned man did ever use that course? There is a place, and time for all things: but in the beginning of a Controversy no place for a definition. The reason is, the parts should first be proved. Yet this man (without any proofs) is presently at a definition. And having proved nothing, he will have his definition to be a Rule, thereby to examine all things that are against him.  
Now let us consider the manifold perfections of this definitie. First, he saith, Astrology is an Art: We have learned out of Aristotle, what an Art is: It handleth things variable, quae aliter fieri possunt: And so is distinguished from science; which handleth true things not variable. Aristotle speaketh so generally, that he would be understood of all Arts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Lib. Ethic. 6. Cap. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now this Knight will have arse to be genus to Astrology and Astronomy: And Astronomy which is scientia not arse to be a species thereof. Was it ever heard before, since learning first began to be known amongst men, that any thing which is truly called Scientia, could have his genus to be arse? Then he saith, that this Art teacheth by the motions, confifigurations, and influence of Signs, Stars and Celestial Planets. Astrology meddleth not with motions, that is the work of Astronomy: with configurations it dealeth; but where he addeth influence; it had been good: first to have declared what influence he meaneth. For as we deny not natural influences, so Astrological influence we reject, as having no place in Nature, but only in the brains of Astrologers. And whereas a definition should be short, no superfluous words admitted in it: to what end doth he say Celestial Planets, as if there were some other Planets? And where he saith it is to prognosticate natural effects, and mutations to come: we admire his wisdom, that to save disputation and proofs, hath put the question in a definition. And therefore his definition is a very idle conceit, unless he, or any, for him can first prove, that the subject of Astrology, is the consideration natural of Causes, with their effects. Now whosoever will prove an Art or Science, or any habit of the mind, whatsoever, must first be sure of the subject thereof. For it is most true, which Aristotle both sharply saw, and sound delivered. Ethic. 6. That all Arts, Sciences, and habits of the mind, are distinguished one from another, by their several subjects. But this man having made no proof of the subject of Astrology, thinketh that is enough for him to define, and not prove, but only put the subject in his definition, and then to give warning to all men, to take this his definition for a Rule, to rule all things brought against him. And therefore we utterly reject your definition as unlearned, because you have not proved the subject. You say, the subject is the consideration of natural Causes, and their natural Effects. This we utterly deny, for the reasons which we have delivered. Other escapes we let pass, for shortness. Upon this we stand, not only because the genus is mistaken, but especially because the Subject is mistaken. You should by proof and disputation declare and manifest the true subject of Astrology. But you may see what cometh of it, when a man will run so hastily to a definition.   

CHAP. VII.  
An Historical relation of the principal Authors, that have written of Astrology.  
THe Knight hath added to this book a Chronological Index of Astronomers (meaning thereby Astrologers) from Adam to his time. In this order he setteth all the patriarchs, till Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, them, and all before them, he reckoneth Astrologers. And in the midst of these godly patriarchs between Henoch and Methusalah, (whereby we must understand, that either Zoroaster must be taken for an Holy Patriach, or that the patriarchs must be accounted for men of the same profession with him.) And thus along he joineth clean and unclean together, but without proof, without reference. In this Index, he hath set joseph, Homerus, Hesiodorus, and many other to fill the number, which would be a hard task for the Knight to make proof that they were Astrologers. And therefore I have thought it needful for the use of the unwary Reader, to mark the judgements of the best writers that have spoken hereof, that a plain distinction may appear between good learning, and Astrological Sorcerics.  
The first invention of Astrology, is by many learned men attributed to the devils. This is the judgement of Tertullian, lib. de habitu muliebri. And again, Lib. de Idolatria. And of Clemens Alexandrinus in Eclog. And of Origen. Hom. 13. in Num. Coelius (thodig. Lib. 2. cap. 12. hath observed, that Lactantius writeth: Astrologia, Auspicia, Auguria et oracula esse Daemoniorum inventum. And that Apuleius (a man of that profession) confirmeth the same. The Knight to remove this odiousness of their original telleth us, that Plato in Phaedro, attributeth the Original of Arithmetic & Geometry to a devil that was called, Theuth. And others say, that Philosophy and other Arts were so invented. The Knight by this answer would deceive himself and others. It is true, that the Grecians did attribute the invention of Arts, and of other things that serve for the benefit of man, to such as they held Gods; as the invention of Wine and Corn & other things: though we know by the truth of God's word, that these things were invented before those Gods of theirs were borne. It is also true, that those Gods of theirs were men which had lived here before. It is also true, that the worship which they offered to such Gods, was Idolatry; and by exhibiting divine worship to such, they made them devils. Hereupon the Knight inferreth; therefore they did attribute the invention of good Arts to devils: This we deny. For they did not hold their gods to be devils, or unclean spirits: as the knowledge of the truth teacheth us to hold. And the Heathen did account them Gods, which once were men, as the Knight himself confesseth of this Theuth, which diverse think to have been Mercurius Trismegist. Now when the learned Fathers of the Church speak of Devils, they have an other sense, than the Heathen speaking of those which they c●…ld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words of Heathen, are taken in good part, but not of Christians. And therefore his answer is nothing to the purpose; unless he could show, that the Heathen did attribute such inventions, to such as themselves accounted evil and unclean spirits: For from these evil spirits came Astrology, and from these came no part of good learning. And therefore, Origen careful long before to answer to this particular, disputing of that which is called the wisdom of the Princes of this world, saith: Sapientiam principum huius mundi intelligimus, ut est, Aegyptiorum secreta, quam dicunt et occulta Philosophia, et Chaldaeorum Astrologia, et judaeorum de scientia excelsi pollicentium, sed et Graecorum multiplex variaque de divinitate sententia. Where he doth distinguish Astrology from Philosophy, and the acts which he nameth presently before, thus: Poetica, Grammatica, Rhetorica, Geometria, Musica, Medicina. All which, he maketh an other part of wisdom or learning much differing from Astrology. For these Arts he calleth the wisdom of the world, and of men. But Astrology, saith he, is not a part of the wisdom of the World, but of the Princes of the World, for so he calleth Devils. And to this purpose do many learned, both Philosophers and Divines, distinguish between Astrology, and good learning, accounting the one to be profitable for man's use, the other to have no use in nature, no place in good learning. The first spreder of this Art, as most men agree, was Z●…roastes, who being a man given to the familiarity of wicked spirits, did first open to the world in writing, the secrets of these illusions, which curious men in a desire to know things to come, being also enticed and drawn thereto by wicked spirits, gathered into a kind of Art and Profession. The learning whereby these men sought to know particular actions to come, was in one word called Magic; whereunto Astrology did serve as an instrument or pretence. And therefore Zoroaster is famous or infamous for teaching of Magic. This man was a Persian, and not (as many think) a Bactrian, and from him the Persians had this learning. Yea their King's Sons were brought up therein. Plato termeth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Alcibid. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Magic of Zoroaster, the Son of Oromasius: this is the worship of the Gods. True it is, that Plato speaketh honourably of it: but no otherwise then of the worship of their gods. Pliny witnesseth that Plato traveled to learn it, 
Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1.  & before him Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus; but they traveled to learn all Magic, not only Astrology, as the Knight seemeth to say, commending Astrology by their travel. For they were either Magicians, or sought the knowledge thereof, in some measure. And therefore by their travel he may as well commend Magic, as Astrology. As also where he saith, that Kings and great Personages have studied this Art; where he pleaseth himself with a pleasant conceit of this study, which reacheth to the highest heavens; and therefore should (as it were) through their secret influence above all other, be embraced and advanced by the Highest on earth. But if you strip his speech out of his Rhetoric into plain Logic, than it will appear, that these Kings, of whom he glorieth so much, were Students in Magic, as Pliny witnesseth, speaking of Magic. In tantum fastigij adolevit, ut 
Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1.  hodieque etiam in magna parte gentium praevaleat, & in orient regum regibus imperet. The Knight must either take all the commendation of this Art, or leave it. Learned men have traveled for it, it hath been the study of Kings. This he taketh as in the commendations of Astrology: By which he yieldeth, that Astrology is a part of Magic. For certain it is, that the study for which these men are reported to have traveled, and which those Kings have studied, was Magic. And if under this name of Magic, he commend Astrology, than indeed we grant, that he may to this purpose find somewhat amongst the Ancients: but otherwise, he will find nothing for Astrology. And he will never find, that the Ancients referred it to any other part of learning then to Magic. The Knight seemeth to help it well, by taking that to Astrology, which the Ancients spoke of Magic.  
Aristotle seemeth to scorn this learning, as not admitting it into any place of natural knowledge. For he going through all the parts of good learning, meddleth not with Astrology, showing thereby, that he took it for no part of good learning. After these, Eudoxus, a Scholar of Plato, was much renowned for his learning, who being a man of great skill in Astronomy, utterly rejected all this learning that standeth in Predictions. Cicero saith of ●…im thus. Ad Chaldaeorum 
Lib. de Diuin. 1.  monstra veniamus: de quibus Eudoxus Platonis auditor, in Astrologia, iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile Princeps, sic opinatur, id quod scriptum reliquit Chaldae is in praedictione, & in notatione cuiusque vitae ex natali die minime esse credendum. Eudoxus in the knowledge of the Mathematics, went beyond all the Chaldaeans, and all other in the judgement of the best learned, as Cicero saith. Pliny and others that speak of him, give him the commendation of a man of greatest Learning in the Mathematics.  
If then a man of such knowledge rejected these Predictions; was it not because he accounted these no part of Ma●…hematickes or Philosophy? Now because the Knight hath said somewhat of this, and thinketh he hath well answered all; this must be considered before we proceed.  
To that which Tully saith of Eudoxus, the Knight's answer is, that he can convince him by as Authentic witness, as his own. For Laertius (saith he) was the Son of an ginger, and wrote of Astrology. Sextus saith, that he and Hiparchus practised Predictions of weather. And Pliny, showing that Magic doth consist of Physic and Astrology, affirmeth, that Eudoxus reputed it as the most excellent & profitable study, of all other Disciplines that pertain to wisdom. And therefore, saith the Knight, considering that Tully is so taken tripping in one, what credit are we to give to him in the rest? Whether Cicero or S. Christopher be taken tripping, let it be examined. The Knight would prove by other testimonies that Eudoxus was an ginger: And if he might once prove this, than he thinketh Cicero is taken tripping. Alas poor trip: what needeth he seek any proof for this? For Cicero hath said more for this, than all his proofs. Hath not Cicero said, that Eudoxus was, in Astrologia iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile Princeps? All the testimonies which the Knight bringeth, come short of this: to what end, are testimonies brought to prove a thing granted? What then followeth? The Knight saith, therefore we must not give any credit to Cicero in the rest. Let the Reader judge; whether this be plain dealing. Cicero dealeth plainly, and therefore deserveth credit: He saith Eudoxus was a most learned man in Astrology, and yet he did utterly reject the Chaldaean Predictions. Against this, there is nothing brought; for, that he was an ginger, is confessed on all sides: the tru●…h is, this word Astrology was otherwise used, and in another meaning amongst the Ancients, then now it is amongst us: and from the ambiguous use of this word, the Knight seeketh in diverse places, to deceive the unwary Reader. The word was by ancient Writers, taken for Astronomy: And when they commend Astrology, they mean Astronomy; and reprove Astrological Predictions, although they speak well of Astrology. Cicero saith, that Eudoxus rejecteth Predictions, & yet was the greatest ginger that lived then. This showeth, that Astrology, as then this word was understood, might be studied & known without Predictions. That which the Knight bringeth out of Pliny, is worse: For Pliny, speaking of Magic, saith 
Plin. Lib. 30. Cap. 1.  (as the Knight citeth him.) Eudoxus, qui inter sapientiae sectus, clarissimam, utilissimamque eam intelligi voluit, Zorastem tunc sex millibus annorum ante Platonis mortem fuisse prodidit. If he will make any thing of this testimony, he speaketh for Magic: so that he must prove Astrology, a part of Magic, b●…fore that this can serve his turn. M. Chambers denyeth, that Eudoxus was an ginger, as the Knight understandeth Astrology, the Knight out of Pliny proveth that he was an ginger, because Pliny saith he was a Magician.  
Panaetius, whom Cicero accounteth the most judicious of the Stoics, did not only himself reject these Predictions, but witnesseth, that Archelaus and Cassander, being as Cicero saith, men of greatest sight in Astrology, did refuse this part, which standeth in Predictions. He witnesseth the like of Scylax of Halicarnassus. The Knight, being upon the excepting humour, would also take exception against Panaetius: and why? because Tully saith, that Panaetius wrote more exquisitely of moral Philosophy then any other. Doth not this exception show the Knight's humour? For this is no exception, unless he will say, that he who hath skill in Astrology, cannot be learned in other kinds of Learning: and he would also except against him, because Tully saith of him, Non est ausus negare divinandi artem, sed dubitare se dixit. This which is called Ars divinandi, the Knight taketh for Astrology: but so Cicero calleth that which stood in Augurijs, Auspicijs, Extispicijs: and in general, all Magic.  
Let us consider what Cicero himself thought of this Profession: He taketh Auruspices, fulguratores, interprete ostentorum, Augurs, Astrologi, Sortilegi, for Professors of certain vain and foolish Arts, whereof no reason can be given: and putteth them together usually in his Book, de Divinatione, as Professors of the like vanities: though one differing from another in the manner, yet all agreeing in the end; which is by foolish and unnatural means to know before hand the actions of men, in things to come. Wherefore, in his judgement there can no reason be brought for Astrology, which may not likewise be brought for Augury, Auruspicine, and all these damned Arts. Cicero proveth, that this divination hath no part in good Learning. Nec eorum quae in Geometria describuntur (can any Prediction tell) quae vera quae falsa sint, sunt enim Mathematicorum non hariolorum: De illis vero rebus quae in Philosophia versantur, numquid est quod quisquam divinorum aut responderi soleat aut consuli? Where we note, that Divinus or Hariolus as it comprehendeth the ginger, is clean thrust out from the Mathematics and Philosophy: And therefore the Astrologers profession, is no part of Mathematics or Philosophy. Cicero doth likewise oppose, naturam & sensum, against fortunam & casum, and showeth that these Predictions come not from nature and sense, but from chance, and fortune. For 
Lib. 1. de Di●…n.  who is able to give a natural reason, Cur a dextra Coruus, a sinistra Cornix ratum faciat? Cur stella jovis aut Veneris coniuncta cum Luna, adortus puerorum salutaris sit: Saturni Martisne contraria. And again, it is confessed that these things are such: quorum rerum 
Ibid.  eventa, non causa quaerenda. And therefore in another place, speaking of these future Events, he saith: Id futurum est in nulla rerum natura. And because in nature he findeth no reason for such Predictions, therefore he calleth them Chaldaeorum Monstra. And again. O delirationem incredibilem, non enim omnis error stulcitia est dicenda▪ And all this Art he calleth superstitionem Sagarum. Vtrum Philosophia Dignius Sagarum superstitione ita interpretari, an explicatione naturae.  
M. Varro living in that age with Cicero, and accounted 
Coel. Rhod. Li. 10. Cap. 20.  the most learned of that age, saith likewise. Ex Astrologiae sinu pro fluxisse superstitionum omnium vanitates. Pliny putteth these Predictions not in any part of the Mathematics, or natural Philosophy; but amongst unnatural curiosities and Sorceries. And reckoneth that Divination which is ex Stellis, amongst the parts of Magic; and reasoning of the ignorance of men, by bringing in of many Gods: that Fortune is made a God, addeth thus, Pars alia & hanc (Fortunam) 
Lib. 2. Cap. 7.  pellit, Astroque suo eventus assignat, & nascendi legibus, semel in omnes futuros unquam Deo decretum, in reliquum vero alium datum. And again. Ecce fulgurum monitus, oraculorum praescita, Auruspicum Praedicta, etc. Sometimes, as his manner is, in the searching of Antiquities; he noteth the Professions with the Authors. Auguria ex avibus, Car monstravit, a quo Caria 
Lib. 7. Cap. 56.  appellata. Adiecit ex caeteris Animalibus Orphaeus Aruspicium Delphus, ignispicia Amphiaraus: Auspicia avium Tiresias Thebanus: interpretationem ostentorum & somniorum Amphiction: Astrologiam Atlas Lybiae filius, ut alij Aegiptij, utalij Assirij. And thus joining Astrological Predictions with Predictions of Augury Auruspicine, as Birds of a feather, at last he setteth down all these, as kinds of Magic or Sorcery. Vt narruit Osthanes species eius sunt (speaking 
Lib. ●…0: c. 2.  of Magic) name & ex aqua, & e Sphaeris, & ex Acre & Stellis, & Lucernis, ac peluibus, securibus & multis aliis modis divina promittit: praeterea umbrarum inferorumque colloquia. I omit the Censures of the Roman State against Astrologers, as is observed by Tacitus, and others.  
Thus we find, that by the learned and judicious amongst the Heathen, these things were held as impious vanities. So that the holy Scriptures and Fathers need not be urged against this impiety. We have the voice of Nature in the Consciences of the best affected natural men, thrusting these Predictions out of all the bounds of natural Philosophy, and good learning. Let the Knight never plead that himself, or any ginger, hath proceeded farther in natural knowledge, and good Arts, than these men have done, that thus have overthrown their Predictions: for herein who will believe him?  
Touching the Fathers of the Church, we need not trouble the Reader with long citations: for they are all ours sure: And all sound Writers in the latter time; until that Antichristian corruption came in, which with many other doctrines of Devils, brought this also into the Church (practised amongst some Church men) in the smoke of the bottomless pit. Before we proceed, we must meet with the Knight in some passages, touching the matter spoken of. M. Chambers saith, that Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato having traveled to confer with the Magicians of Persia, and Priests of Egypt, either never learned of them this kind of Art (meaning judic iary Astrology or if they did, they seemed utterly to have contemned it, as never vouchsafing to mention it in any writing: Thus far M. Chambers. The Knight answereth, this is ab authoritate negative. But I tell you Sir, if he disprove it Negative, from these authorities, he speake●● home to you: for these are the Philosophers, that you must make much of; for you are like to have none other to help you. If we prove, that these have not maintained Astrology, nor written for it; then sure all Philosophers are clean gone from you: All the hope of your Cause, is in these or in none. And therefore, as loath to lose these, he telleth us out of Lacrtius, that Pythagoras honoured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and out of Tully, that he did yield magnam authoritàtem divinaioni: You may add also out of the same, I mean Cicero, if you please, that he was Augur: For so Cicero calleth him, Lib. 1. de divinat. the like you say you could confirm of the others; and after many words, you conclude thus. Because M. Chambers hath thought this an Argument to favour his purpose, I will add the testimony of Pliny, who expressly witnesseth against M. Chambers, Lib. 30. Cap. 1. that as they all took upon them an exiled and banished life, rather than a travel to learn it, and all secret Arts: so after they had attained it, and were returned, they did no less extol it; but esteemed the same as a secret, not to be revealed. This valiant Knight dare venture upon any thing: for the truth is, these words of Pliny, which he citeth, are directly and expressly spoken of Magic M. Chambers saith, That these Philosophers are 〈◊〉 in Astrology: the Knight reprooving this as an untruth, proveth out of Pliny, that these Philosophers traveled for the study of Magic: Which thing M. Chambers witnessed. The truth is, and we confess it, that these Philosophers were studious of Magic, and therefore so farforth, their Philosophy hath not been accounted pure. Then are these the only men, of whom the Knight had some hope. Yet it cannot be proved, that these men favoured Astrology: but the Knight rather (than he will lose them) will confess that Astrology is Magic; for otherwise he can have no help of these: If not of these, then of no Philosophers. Where then are the learned men that have maintained this Art, whom the Knight mustereth in Arms? When all search is made of Antiquity, there willbe found only Zoroaster, Mercurius Tresmegistus, whom though we could be content to give him, yet a doubt may be made of this man, because in his Books extant under his name, though there be manifest profess of Magic, wherein he excelled; yet there is little or nothing to be found of Astrology. Apollonius Thyanous, Porphyrius, julianus, Apuleius, and such: Add to these; whom the Knight himself challengeth, Spurain, Theagenes, Thrasyllus, Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Ascletarion: These we yield you. If you can prove that these or any of them (for example take Apollonius, because he is more famous than the rest; the other being obscure or less remembered) If you can prove that this man (whom you reckon amongst your Astrologers) or any other did perform these predictions by Philosophy, or natural knowledge; then will we confess that you speak to good purpose: till than you have said nothing. If any man will undertake this cause, he must be called within the bounds of certain limitations: For otherwise, if he shall write as much as would load a horse, either in commendation of Astrology, or in evil speech against such as stand against his opinion: I have nothing to say but that— 
jubeo miserum esse libenter; gratenus id facit.   
Then he that will deal herein, may do well to speak to these points. 1. We say, that it hath not hitherto been proved by any ginger, that the Art that is pretended to be in Astrological predictions, is any part of natural Philosophy.  
2. We say, that it hath not been proved, that it hath been a part of Mathematics.  
3. We say that as it standeth against the judgement of the most learned; so neither can it be proved by any good reason, that it is, or ever amongst the ancient learned Philosophers, was accounted a part of either.  
4. We say, that all professors of Astrology of Ancient times, were also professors of Magic.  
5. That it was accounted more honourable to profess the skill in Augury, Auspicia, and Extispicia; then to profess Astrological predictions, and men (of more honourable place and greater account for their wisdom) have professed the former, than this latter sorcery of Astrology.  
If they will speak to these points and acquit Astrology, than they say somewhat. But must warn the Knight, or any other, that he will be pleased not to take for granted the contradictory of these positions, and so run along in a flourishing discourse, but these be the things that you must prove. Now Sir to prove these things, will much trouble you. First you will rake up the Arabian dunghill; but that will not serve your turn: For I grant the Arabians did honour this profession; but we speak here of the ancient times, wherein good learning stood amongst the Heathen. Neither will it serve you to reckon up Adam, Seth, Mahaleel, Iared, Henoch, Zoroaster, Methusaleth, Lamech, Noah, Sem, Arphaxad, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, Albion, joseph, Homer, Hesiod, etc. And to tell us, that these were Astrologers; Take Zoroaster from that company, and then we yield him to you, he is the Father of your Art. You challenge him, you shall have him. But then let the world know, what a goodly Father this profession hath.   

CHAP. VIII.  
That the operations of the Celestial bodies do not help the Astrologers in their predictions.  
COncerning the operation of the Celestial bodies upon these inferior, by influence; there is an influence granted; but not this which the Astrologers have by their imagination (without proof) devised. First this position is taken amongst the learned for certain, that the celestial bodies do signify nothing which they do not also effect: that which they effect is produced by them as by natural causes: And therefore the things which God doth by himself, cannot be foreseen in the Stars, but such things proceed from supernatural causes: And things supernatural cannot be demonstrated by a natural agent. Neither can those things be foretold by the Stars, which are of fortuitall events, for such things have no natural cause: such are all things which are directed by man's will; that is in a word, all men's actions, to foretell these things as from natural causes, is vain to seek, and impossible to find: For of things that rest in man's will; a natural cause is not to be sought, the things being voluntary; which things cannot be foretold but by revelation. It remains then, that predictions natural, are of such things as have natural causes. The things therefore that may be certainly foretold by the Stars, as having their natural causes; are all such things as belong to the Theory of Astronomy; as that the Sun moveth swifter than Saturn, or when is an opposition or conjunction, when an Eclipse will be. These things may be certainly foretold, forasmuch as they depend upon natural principles▪ there be other things of that kind which are usually (though erroneously) foretold by Astrologers, having indeed natural causes, but not so evidently known to Astrologers: the cause is, for albeit these things belong to nature; yet they have not determinate causes, and so regulated to one Event, as those that are in the Theory: And therefore their error is in these things usually seen: such things are the predictions of rain, of fair weather, of wet times & dry: For that there are times of wet and siccitic, it is true; & true also, that these things depend upon the ordinary course of nature; and of such things as are under the government of the superior bodies; yet are they not so determinate, nor so inevitable, nor so evident to the ginger, as are those of the Theory: For in the one the ginger erreth not, in the other he erreth commonly. Of this kind are all Meteors, which proceed of natural causes, but not determinate and inevitable: so that the ginger cannot judge of these by such certitude, as of the things belonging to the Theory. After this manner, the corruption of the Air is also of natural superior causes commonly; whence come sickness, dearth and such like: as also the contrary followeth plenty, and healthfulness. These are of certain causes, but not so certainly known, that they may always certainly be foretold. True it is, that these things sometimes come not by natural causes, and in a natural course altogether, but God doth send them at his pleasure; either for the punishment of some people, or for their deliverance, as it seemeth best to him. When God doth so send them, then are they further out of the knowledge of the ginger: so that in these things the knowledge of the ginger, is partly nothing at all, partly little worth being taken at the best. For in matters of this kind that Astrologers have either small or no knowledge, may be collected from their common errors in this kind; as also from some places of the holy Scripture, where Astrologers are found ignorant in these things.  
A question may be moved, whether those seven years of plenty, and seven years of scarcity, foretold by joseph in the interpretation of Pharaoh his dream, were of natural causes, or sent by God without respect of natural causes. This is certain that the foretelling of them, was not by natural knowledge, but by revelation: for all the Astrologers of Egypt could not foretell them, but joseph did by revelation from God. And yet the Astrologers were acquainted with the increasing of Nilus, whose measurable rising was the ordinary cause of plenty and fertility in that country: the inordinate rising thereof, either in too great abundance, or in too great defect, was both a sign & also a cause of scarcity. The measures of the rising of Nilus was precisely kept by the Priests of Egypt; and upon the sight of the rising of the River, they could know the fertility or sterility of the year following. But this was no part of Astrology, it belonged rather to Geometry: and some report, that the use of Geometry was first found out by that means. Then upon the measure of the rising of that river, they that observed it, could foretell the plenty or dearth which should be in that country: but I never read that any ginger did foretell the just measure of the rising of that river before hand. The Knight that is better read in them, may help us in this. For that the rising of Nilus did some way depend upon the heavens it will not (I suppose) be denied: because whatsoever was the immediate cause of the rising thereof, that did depend upon the superior bodies, if any thing depend upon them. So then, the Astrologers knowledge cometh very short, when as he knoweth not, nor is able to fore tell the event of those things, that are confessed to depend upon the superior heavenly bodies. Now if this knowledge be so short and uncertain, in things which depend upon the superior bodies; it must needs be far shorter or nothing at all, in such things that depend not of them.  
Another kind of things foretold by Astrologers, is of such things as have partly a cause of nature, partly of man's will and operation. To undertake to foretell in such things, cannot be without superstition: For albeit they challenge a cunning, to foretell in things which hold a natural course, and subject to the powers of the Heavens: yet in things that are free, as mansactions are, nature hath no casualty but man's will.  
They can challenge no skill in such things; because these things are not governed by a natural dependence from the Heavens, but from other Causes of another nature. As if an ginger should foretell, that such a man shall be sick at such a time; this judgement is vain and superstitious. It is true, that a Physician may judge of a man's health or sickness, but not by Astrology, but by the disposition of his body.  
This thing depends upon some natural Cause, whereof notwithstanding the ginger can have no knowledge by the Stars. For in the order of actions, if diverse Causes be ordered to one Effect, the Effect followeth the Cause deficient; as may appear in the actions of reason: For if a dialectical Syllogism be made of one true Proposition, and another false, the Conclusion is false, unless by accident: And if it be of one Proposition necessary and another contingent, the Conclusion is contingent. So is it in natural operations, if one 'Cause be natural, and another free, the Effect is rather to be said free, then natural; And if one 'Cause be contingent, the other necessary, the Effect is contingent. Of such things there can be no judgement, but as of things free and contingent.  
An other kind of things inquired by Astrologers, is in those things which depend merely of contingence; in which things the connexion of the Cause, and the Event, is a thing not known; in which respect these things are said not to have a natural Cause, because the connexion of such a Cause to such an Event, is not known in nature. In such things to make Predictions, is utterly vain, and superstitious: For as things have their being, so have they their signification; if then there be contingence in their being, it must needs be in their signification. So, that it is impossible to find certain signs or significations of things, which are themselves contingent. And yet in such things the Knight doth make especial choice to place Astrology. So it is in things that are merely free: For over a man's freedom, the Positions of heaven have no power. And it is a most foolish thing, for a man to seek that without him, whose cause is altogether within himself.  
The Astrologers from such uncertain grounds, have devised four ways to seek the Events of things. 1. By Revolutions. 2. By Nativities. 3. By Questions. 4. By Elections. In these things, they are so uncertain; that some professing Astrology, are notwithstanding weary of the absurdities which they see in some of these, and therefore disclaim them, as the Knight doth some of these. Yet such is the folly of others, that they have added a fifth way to these former, which they say is by Intentions. If a man once give way to unnatural grounds, his mind can never be free from superstitious and absurd conceits, which are impediments to faith and good manners, and in the end make shipwreck thereof.   

CHAP. IX.  
That Astrology is an Instrument to Magic.  
FOr the better satisfaction of the Reader, and clearing the truth: Let us here examine, whether Astrology hath any other use, then to be an Instrument to Magic. We say, there is no other use thereof; because we find, that such Philosophers as did rest only upon natural Reason, could find no reason in Astrology▪ And further; because if any have maintained Astrology, they have been such as were Magicians. This question I rather move, because I am not ignorant, how some learned men have stumbled at this stone. For, albeit we find none that have proved Astrology to be a part of Philosophy; yet some have thought, that Magic is a part of Philosophy: And though that can help them little; yet we would not leave the Astrologers that hole to hide themselves in. johannes Baptista Porta, hath written a Book entitled, Magia naturalis, implying in the Title, that some Magic may be a part of natural Philosophy. But in delivering natural Magic, as he calleth it, he delivereth diverse things, which Philosophy reacheth not to, but are done by the ministry of unclean Spirits. As of Elections to be written in certain stones, whereby those stones are supposed to be animated, and to receive an especial grace from Heaven. Et hoc (saith he) fundamentum & radicem statuunt omnium. Lib. 4. Cap. 25. Coelius Rhodig: a man of better name for Learning, divideth Magiam, in infamem & naturalem, Lib. 3. Cap. 42. From him, we add another testimony for the honour of Astrology: jam & Magiae clavis commemoratur Astrologia. Unto this opinion of Coelius, jansenius seemeth to yield, Com. in Concord. Cap. 9 Perhaps not marking that Coelius hath that commendation of Magic, and even those very words out of Cornelius Agrippa. To fortify their opinions, because they are ashamed of Agrippa, whose words they bring; they send us to Plato 1. Alcibiad. who there saith, That the King's Sons of Persia were instructed therein. If these things were true, they make nothing for Astrology. But we take it (by their favour) that these men, though otherwise learned and judicious; yet herein were overseen. For, whereas they bring nothing for the confirmation of their opinion, but the authority of Plato; if any such thing be found in Plato, than we yield, that they might have some reason for their opinion. But in Plato we find the contrary; for he, speaking of the Institution of the King's Sons of Persia in Magic, describeth that Magic which they learned thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In which words Plato telleth us, that the Magic which the Sons of the Persian Kings learned, was that which Zoroaster the Son of Horomasus taught, and it is (saith Plato) the worship of the Gods. Now, if there be no other natural Magic, but that which can be proved out of this place of Plato; then assuredly, natural Magic will never be proved. For this Magic, Plato will not have to consist in natural knowledge, but in the worship of their Gods; which worship, because it was Idolatry, therefore from hence may be proved, that Idolatry is a part of Magic, but nothing else from hence. Then by this it appeareth, it is not Natural, but Diabolical. Now these men, resting upon Plato his testimony, can in this point stand up no longer, that staff failing them whereon they leaned. And howsoever it may be suffered in an Heathen, to give an honourable testimony to Magic, as being a service that pleased their Gods; yet is it not likewise tolerable in Christians, to approve Magic from the same reasons.  
This hath deceived diverse, who looking more unto a show of Learning, then into the study of the truth, have been too easily carried away, and deceived by them that told them of a natural Magic. These be but the opinions of men of latter times, who were herein deceived by Agrippa. And Agrippa for a Cozener dealeth somewhat plainly: For he saith in his Epistle to Tritemius: Tres libros de Magia composui, & de occulta Philosophia minus infesto titulo inscripsi. Then they who will call Magic Philosophy, because a Magician (to colour his wickedness) so calleth it, may understand how weak their ground is, and see themselves directly deceived, by him that professeth to deceive. The Ancients do exactly distinguish Magicians from Philosophers, as may be seen aswell from the testimony of Plato last cited, which witnesseth, that the Magic whereof he speaketh, standeth only in the worship of the Gods, therefore in no natural knowledge, & by consequence no part of Philosophy. As also by a testimony to the same purpose out of Herodotus; for Herodotus, speaking of the manner of sacrificing used amongst the Persians, declareth; that their Magis were their Priests, Magus astans theogoniam accipit, si 
Herod. Clei●….  quidem hanc illi dicunt esse incantationem efficacissimam; citraque Magum nullum illis fit legitimum sacrificium. And afterward declareth, how the Magis differ from the Egyptian Priests: that is, how the Persian Priests differ from the Egyptian Priests. By which it appeareth that Magis were Priests, not Philosophers. jamblicus distinguishing these, I mean Priests and Philosophers, saith thus. Non enim intelligentia coniungit 
Lib. de Mist rus Egyp.  sacrificatores Deo, alioqui philosophi unionem Deificam reportarent. He calleth that, unionem Deificam, whereby the Priests of Egypt and Magi of the Persians, were so linked to their familiar Devil, that thereby they had means to foretell and work certain great works, that is illusions. These things be of Magic craft, but not of Philosophy: and they who do such things, are called Magis, Chaldaei, or sometimes Priests, but never Philosophi, of the Ancients. To the same purpose, Diodorus Siculus witnesseth, that the Chaldeans were not as the Philosophers of Greece, studying natural knowledge; but as the Priests of Egypt, foretelling particular Events. Chaldaei Babiloniorum antiquissimi eum locum in sua repub. quem in Egypto Sacerdotes obtinuere; ad cultum enim Deorum deputati— Divinatione quadâ futura praedicunt. This is their Philosophy, not to seek the natural Causes of things, but by their manner of worshipping their Gods, that is Devils, to learn the knowledge of Predictions of particular Events, which cannot be known in nature, but are known by the help of such Devils as the Chaldeans worshipped. Herein Diodorus consenteth with Plato, and others, and teacheth us to know these Chaldeans. True it is, that Strabo calleth them Philosophers, but not simply, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Philosophers of that Country. Whereby he distinguisheth them from such as otherwhere are known by the name of Philosophers, and doth more exactly distinguish them by their Profession. For speaking of Wizards by occasion of Moses: such saith he, was Amphiaraus, Trophonius, Orpheus, Musaeus, and amongst the Getae, Zamolxis; amongst the Indians, Gimnosophistae; amongst the Persians, Magi, who were called saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, amongst the Assyrians Chaldei amongst the Romans, Hetrusci, Aruspices. Thus far Strabo, who speaketh of these things with understanding, comparing the Chaldeans, Magi, and Aruspices together.  
And this may show how far they are mistaken, that without warrant, without testimony of the Ancients, call either the Chaldei or the Magis Philosophers: they may as well call the Aruspices by that name. Now these called by diverse names in diverse Countries, Magis, Gymnosophists, Brachmanae, Chaldaeans, Astrologers, Aruspices, Druids, all were Magicians of several Nations. Whereas all the rest are, I cannot say utterly abolished; but if they be practised, it is in secret; only the Chaldean Superstition resumeth life and courage in many places, by an abusive pretence of heavenly influences: Whereas in truth this Superstition hath no more reason than the rest, that are not now so boldly maintained.  
These men would hide all their sleights under the heavenly influences: we grant, that the Heavens have their force in these inferiors, so far as the natural Philosopher can understand. If it be demanded, whether they have not greater force, than the natural man can understand: to that, who can answer precisely? For who knoweth all secrets of God, but God? But we know, that if there be any, no man is able to express it. Now the ginger may learn natural influences from Philosophy: but if there be above that which Philosophers know, the ginger must give a reason how he cometh to the knowledge of such things, which the natural man knoweth not.  
Give me leave (good Reader) for the manifestation of the truth, which only God knoweth, I seek: to disclose those secrets, which Astrologers labour to hide, holding us with fair tales of natural influences. It grieveth me, that any should be (how much more a man of such place and parts) so bewitched, as once to open his mouth in defence of these works of darkness, in this great light of knowledge, and of the truth. If it were not against a cause that so much overthroweth Godliness, I should never trouble him: but who can hold in this case, wherein God's glory and the truth is touched; which we doubt not, will once hold his own place, like the Sun in his strength, dispelling these mists not only of Errors but of great impieties, which now overcast the light thereof.  
That we may know what these men mean by their Influences, who can better teach us then Corn. Agrippa, that hath disclosed the secrets of this Art; whose testimony is without exception, because he was better seen in Astrology then the Knight, or any that taketh part with him. Agrippa speaking of these Astrological influences, first telleth us a tale of the Platonics: Omnia inferiora esse idiata a superioribus 
Lib. 1. de occul. Philos.  idaeis; et totidem sunt in anima mundi rationes, rerum seminales, quot idaeae sunt in ment devina, quibus ipsa rationibus aedificavit sibi in coelis ultra stellas, etiam figuras, impressitque his omnibus proprietates: Ab hisce ergo stellis figuris, ac proprietatibus, omnes specierum inferiorum virtutes ac proprietates dependent. Then the Astrological influence dependeth upon that doctrine which Plato learned of Mercury Tresmegist, concerning Anima mundi. This influence say they, may, be hindered by the inability of the matter, and is infused according to the merits of the matter. As they would draw out of Virgil, who herein expresseth the Platonical conceit. 
Igneus est ollis, vigour, & Coelestis origo  
Seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant.  Further, he explicateth this matter thus. Provenit virtus primo ab Idaeis, deinde ab intelligentijs regentibus, postea a coelorum aspectibus, disponentibus, porro ab elementorum dispositis complexionibus correspondentibus coelorum influxibus. This is the doctrine of his Influences. I will only bring it to the light. One thing I note throughout all his discourse of influences, he never citeth a Philosopher, but always Trismegist, jarchas, Brachmanus, & Hebraeorum mecubules. He proveth also out of Trismegist, that by the right marking of Influence; if an Image be made of such things as properly agree to each Daemon: that the image shall presently be animated by a Daemon: all this must we take as from Astrological Influences.  
Let us proceed in these hid mysteries of Influences: He saith further. Nihil materiales numeri & figures 
Lib. 2. Cap. 22.  possunt in mysterijs rerum abditarum nisi representatiue per numeros & figuras formales, quatenus reguntur & informantur ab intelligentijs, quae nectunt extrema materiae atque spiritus at voluntatem animae elevatae per magnum affectum operantis, coelesti virtute potestatem accipiens a Deo, per animam universi & coelestium constellationum obseruationes. Thou must not require of me (good Reader) the understanding of these things. For we are now about the hidden secrets and mysteries of Influences, which neither the Knight, nor I understand; but their great Master of the Art Agrippa, calleth them hidden mysteries: And hidden let them be ever from me. And he telleth concerning these Astrological Influences, that which I would have the Astrologers to mark; but they know it better than I can tell them. And therefore I wish the Reader to mark these Deceivers, who in defence of Astrology, discreetly seek to maintain all the mysteries of Magic. For Agrippa, one of the greatest Masters in both the Professions, or in one, which includeth both, further teacheth; that no Divination can be perfited without Astrology, and therefore he calleth Astrogie, Clavem ad omnium arcanorum noticiam pernecessariam. 
Lib. 2. Cap. 53.  Where he saith further. Omnia divinationum genera sic in ipsa Astrologia suas radices & fundamenta habent, ut absque hanc parum aut nihil videantur adferre. And again, Astrologica divinatio quatenus coelestia sunt causae & signa omnium eorum quae fiunt in inferioribus, ex solo situ & motu corporum coelestium, quaecunque occulta aut futura sunt, illorum certissimas largitur demonstrationes. Here we see, from whence the Knight hath that learning, which he so often repeateth, but never proveth: that the Stars are Causes and Signs of those Events which are seen in the actions of men. For, in such standeth Astrological Predictions.  
Thou seest much (good Reader) but yet thou seest not all. There is yet another secret, that belongeth to these Astrological Predictions: For, it is not enough to believe without reason, that the Stars are Causes of such Events, which the ginger would foretell, whatsoever they be: but he must believe with a strong credulity, and earnest affection, nay, with the excess of a desire, otherwise they cannot come to their purpose. So that, it is not in the nature of the thing, but in the vehement desire of him that seeketh to know these things. This is plain witchcraft and Idolatry, in abusing men to place their highest desires, their faith, and aff●…ctions upon these things. And therefore he teacheth farther thus. Omnes res habent naturalem obedientiam ad animam humanam, & de necessitate habent motum et efficaciam ad id quod defiderat anima forti desiderio. And again, Quando fertur in excessum desiderij. And speaking of the same thing, he saith: Et hac eadem ratio, est etiam radix omnium Astrologicarum 
Lib. 2. Cap. 54.  quaestionum, quoniam anima elevata in al●…cuius desiderij excessum arrepit ex se horam & opportunitatem magis convenientem & efficacem, super qua fabricata coeli figura, potest tunc Astrologico in ea iudicare & plane cognoscere de eo quod quaerens ipse scire cupit, atque desiderat. All this goeth currant amongst Astrologers, for good natural Philosophy. But let us turn a little to the Knight, to whom from the heart; we with sound heartpray, that God will deliver him out of these snares: hehath given us cause to hope, that he may be drawn to see all these vanities; forasmuch as himself doth ingeniously confess; that, that part of Astrology which is about questions & Elections, hath in it apparent sortilegy. p. 3. He giveth there some reasons of that opinion: but I am persuaded, that the greatest reason that moved him, was, because he saw it so impiously taught in Agrippa, that without apparent sortilegy, it could not be admitted. He that doth confess that which is true, that as it is taught by these Masters, there is apparent sortilegy in this part; may be drawn to see and confess, that in the whole, there is the like to be found. For this Astrological Influence (without the which ground the ginger can do nothing) is founded upon the Platonical conceit of anima mundi: And this cometh not by a natural Course of the light & motions of the Stars; but from the conceived Idea to the intelligence; from the intelligence to the Sphere it cometh so to the Aspects of Heaven, and to the Elementary Complexions, reducing the Heathenish superstitions. And yet all this will not serve, unless the ginger come to desire this secret knowledge of things to come, with strong credulity, and excess of desire, placing his faith and affections upon those inventions of Satan, which we owe only to God, his holy Scriptures & truth. This is that which being against all natural reason, hath driven away the most honest among natural Philosophers, from this profession; And hath driven away all the holy Fathers of the Church, and is able to drive all true Christians from it. For, when we find by their own confession, that that these Predictions are not founded in the nature of things sought; nor in the nature of the Stars, but in an excess of desire & credulity in him that seeketh, who will not be terrified from this search? And where he saith, all things have a natural obedience to the soul of man; his meaning is not, that all things which they thus seek have a desire to be known, which is Witchcraft: but that all unclean Spirits are desirous to illude the soul of man, and make show of obedience, to catch the soul of man in these snares; requiring a strong Credulity, and excessive desire of the Soul: and so drawing the service of the Soul to themselves, from God and from godliness. These be the traps and snares that unclean Spirits have spread for Astrologers: Our desire is to give them warning hereof, that they may avoid them. Let us return to Agrippa, and mark his proceedings. Non ab alia causa quam a Coelestiterenni orbis virtutes proveniunt. 
Lib. 2. Cap. 60.  Hinc Magus per illas operaturus utitur incantatione astuta superiorum, verbis Mysteriosis in locutione quadam ingeniosa trahens unum ad aliud, vitamen naturals, per quandam convenientiam inter illas mutuam. Sir, do you hear him? When he hath laid down a great secret of the Devil's craft, yet he saith, all is done Vi Naturali. These be the things that we have renounced in our Baptism; we renounce not Nature, but the works of the Devil. And farther, he saith: Sicuti in corpore humano membrum unum movetur percipiendo motum alterius, et in cythera mota una chorda movetur et altera: sic quando aliquis movet aliquam partem mundi moventur et aliae, percipiendo motum illarum. And to teach us the cause of the malignity of the Influences, he saith: Quicquid in istis inferioribus 
Lib. 3.  discors dissonumque reperitur, non ex influentiae malitia, sed ex mala dispositione percipientis provenit. And therefore he discourseth how the Superior Influences are first received in the Moon, and by the Moon reflected upon the earth. Now in the Moon they receive some infection; then the indisposition of these Inferior Bodies receiving this Influence, maketh that which is good in itself, to be evil. Thus saith he, Saturnus influit anxietatem, deliramentum, tristitiam, blasphemiam, desperatione, mendacium, etc. jupiter avaritiam, tyrannidem. Mars arrogantiam, temeritatem. Venus' lascivos amores. Mercurius, frauds. Luna instabilem progressum. If this Doctrine be true, there is no evil from the Influences, but from the Inferiors indisposition. The truth is, the Astrologers know not themselves, what to make of their Influence, and therefore we must be content not to know it. Yet one thing I must observe. When they teach, that the Superiors by Influence govern the Inferiors; and teach also, that the Influence of the Stars are not evil, but as they are received into indisposed Inferiors. For my part, I understand not how these things agree. For, it should rather seem by this, that the Inferior Elementary Bodies, do overrule the Influence of the Superiors. One thing I must remember more, that Agrippa retracting in some show, these devilish superstitions, doth not retract that which he wrote of Astrology of the mutual use, conjunction and affinity between Astrologic and Magic. But that we may understand that this knot between them is indissoluble, he saith in that retractation thus. Magiacum Astrologia sic coniuncta atque cognata est, ut qui Magiam sine Astrologia profitetur is nihil agit, sed tota aberret via. Then he leaveth us this unretractable Position, that Magic and Astrology cannot be separated. Add unto this, that which before we have rehearsed, out of the Book entitled the Centiloquie: That no ginger is able by mere Art, without the help of a familiar Spirit, to foretell any particular Event. And which we observed out of Ficinus, That those Predictions stand not by Learning, but by some instinct. And then it is apparent to all such as will not blindfold themselves, that all Astrological Predictions of particular Events, concerning the actions of men, are not natural, but mere illusions of unclean Spirits: and that Astrology, so far as concerneth these Predictions, hath no other end or use, but only to serve as an instrument to Magic. This is the Doctrine of these men, who have most of all excelled in Astrology, whom in this case we are bound to believe, before others. Now, what will the Knight say to these things? or, which way will he turn himself? He will perhaps, device a distinction between Astrologers in old time, and in these times: but that will not help him. For Agrippa hath opened plainly, that old and new Astrology is the same, and proceed from he same Principles by the same means, to the same end, and all is to serve Magic. He will perhaps say, as often in his Book he doth, that Astrology is condemned only as it is joined with Magic, but neither will this help him. For Agrippa telleth us, that there is such affinity and cognation beteene them; that as Magic cannot be performed without Astrology; so Astrology cannot have a his and perfection without Magic. So the difference is not much, whether we call these Predictions Magical or Astrological Predictions. Nay, will the Knight say, the Magician though using Astrology, yet may proceed so far as to the conference with an unclean spirit: but the ginger may stay himself in his figure, and proceed no further. I answer, that difference is not great, in what degree he proceedeth, so he proceed at all with the Devil in his illusions. But if he come to the knowledge of a particular Event, whether that be by conference, or by some other means; we are herein certified, that this thing cannot be done by Art and learning, but by the help of a Spirit; take that help which way you will, it is Diabolical. For that judiciary Astrology, either hath been, or may be altogether separated from Magic; this the Knight can never prove: Neither can he bring the testimony of one learned man of ancient times, to testify for him: but we have enough against him. For, besides these which we have cited, jamblicus is so round herein, that his testimony admitteth no answer, thus he saith: Et impossibile iudicare certos eventus, cum omnium causarum concursum comprehendere 
Lib. de Mist.  nequeamus, nisi per inspirationem divinam id assequamur. To the same purpose saith Psellus a Platonic. Instructa est Magia multum Astronomica facultate, 
Lib. de Daemonibus.  plurimaque per ipsum peragit. And Philo stratus writing the Life of Apolonius (the most famous both Magician and ginger in his time) saith, that Apolonius conversing with jarchas, the chiefest of the Indian Wizards, called Brachmanae, did seek to find out the end of judiciary Astrology, that is, to be able to foretell things to come, by certain secret sacrifices. His words are these. Verum arcanas libationes per quas 
Philostr. Lib. 3. Cap. 13.  Astrologicam facultatem, & divinandi peritiam inquirebant, sacrorum praeterea rationem & incantationem, quas dijs gratissimas esse noverant, jarcham cum solo Apolonio communicasse refert Damis. It will much trouble the Knight, to answer these testimonies, and especially this last: For Apolonius was as well seen in the Mathematics, as any other. If the mere knowledge of Mathematics could help a man to the knowledge of Astrological Predictions, than might Apolonius have been able to know such Predictions by his skill in Mathematics: but his skill was not able to help him; and therefore he sought Astrological Divination by certain secret Sacrifices. And, bring all the skill in natural knowledge that ye will; yet your great Masters have told you, that a Prediction of certain events, cannot be made without inspiration. These be the secrets of Astrology, which the Knight cunningly hideth from us, but others plainly reveal them: secrets they are, & must be done in great secrecy. & that Agrippa witnesseth, Experimentum omne magicum 
Lib. 3. C. ●….  fugit publicum, quarit occultari, silentio roboratur, propalatione destruitur. Opportet ergo Magicum operatorem secretum esse, nullis aut opus suum, aut locum, aut tempus, aut desiderium propalari, nisi preceptori aut coadiutori. Ipsa socij loquacitas, incredulitasque in omni operatione effectum impedit. These things agree together: For Agrippa speaketh of the secrets in Magic, as Philostratus doth of the like secrecies in Astrological Divination. This knowledge that thus flieth the light, showeth evidently whence it cometh. jamblicus disputing against Porphyry, telleth us, that Porphyry following Astrological divination, went not fondly to the way of foretelling, but the Egyptian way was as he thought the surer. Both did seek to know the Lord of the Figure, which in truth was a Devil: but they were not well agreed to what Devil to give the place: but the Egyptians (saith he) went more directly to it. Quidnam prohibet figurae dominum, atque 
Lib. de Myst. Egypt.  daemonem per Astrologiam quidem difficile inveniri; facillime vero per divinum vaticinium atque sacrificia. Where he plainly confesseth, that Dominus figurae, whom the Astrologers seek so much, is in truth Daemon, a Devil. Sir, you understand by this, how your Astrology is censured. There is no certainty in it till you come to Magic, that is the sure way: so that jamblicus telleth you, that Astrologers do but spend the time in vain, till they come to the Egyptian sacrificing, that is, to plain Magic. Plotinus qui inscribitur; si faciant astra: saith (as Macrobius citeth 
Insom. Scrip. Lib. c. 9  him) Pronunciat Plotinus nihil vi vel potestate corum hominibus evenire: sed ea quae decreti necessitas in singulis sanxit, ita per horum septem transitum station, recessive monstrari: ut aves seu praeter volando, seu stando futura pnnis vel voce significant nescientes. Whereby it appeareth, that in his judgement, there is no more natural cause of a particular Event in the Stars, then in the flying of Birds. And therefore these things being shut out from natural Causes, are found only amongst diabolical Superstitions.  
My purpose is herein to refute Astrological Predictions, as standing against nature; by the voice of the natural man: by Philosophers, and the confessions of them that have been reputed most learned in that fession: And I have dealt little with Divines: I will add a few. Origen upon the Book of Numbers, expounding 
〈◊〉 Mum. 23.  those words: There is no Sorcery in jacob, nor Divination in Israel, in due time it shall be revealed to jacob and Israel, what the Lord will do: speaketh of the curiosity, which men by unlawful means use in seeking the knowledge of things to come. He showeth that there are but two ways to know those things; either from God, as the Prophets spoke, or from the Devil, as all other do that seek the knowledge of particular Events. Est talis quaedam (saith he) in Ministerio 
Hom. 16 in Num.  praescientiae operatio Daemonum, qua artibus quibusdam ab iis qui se Daemonibus maciparint, colligitur. And expounding the latter part of that Verse: In tempore dicitur? jacobo & Israeli quid perficiet Deus. Quid est (saith he) in tempore dicetur? cum oportet & expedit, hoc est in tempore. Si ergo expedit pranoscere nos futura, diceture Deo per Prophetam Dei, per spiritum sanctum. Si vero non dicuntur neque denuntiantur, scito quia nobis non expedit futura pranoscere Quod si idcirco non dicuntur nobis, quia nobis ea scire non expedit, qui diversis artibus, & daemonum invocationibus gestiunt futura praenoscere, quid aliud faciunt, nisi ea cupiunt discere, qua sibi scire non expedit. And a little after after, A solo Deo debemus de futuris discere, & neque divinum neque augurem, neque aliud quodcunque horum recipere. The Knight would make Origen to stand for Astrology, and produceth a testimony of Origen (as he dreameth) out of the narration of joseph, in which jacob is said to tell his Sons, that Heaven was a Book, wherein they might read whatsoever should befall them. This, howsoever the Knight thought worthy his Relation; yet I do not account it worthy my Refutation. It is gross ignorance, or wilful collusion, to think that Origen gave credit to any such Book, or wrote any such thing: it is true, that many such tricks are put upon Origen, by deceivers, and thrust in amongst his works; of which Origen complained in his life time, confessing that his works were interpolated by couseners: but for this particular. 1. It is against the usual Doctrine of Origen, in other places. 2. It is rejected by the Church as fabulous. 3. It is refuted by S. Augustine, and others. Augustine teacheth no otherwise, speaking of Astrology, and of Divination in general: He saith; Omnes Artes huiusmodi vel nugatoria, velnoxiae superstitionis ex quadam pestifera societate hominum & Daemonum. He calleth it pestifera curiositas, crucians sollicitudo, mortifera seruitus. And reckoning all the kinds of Magic, haruspicum, & Augurum libros, ligaturas, remedia in praecationibus & Characteribus, and other things of that sort, at last he saith. Nec ab hoc genere pernitiosae superstitionis segregandi sunt, qui genethliaci propter natalium dierum considerationes, nunc autem vulgo Mathematici vocantur. For anciently these were not called Mathematici, and therefore he seemeth loath to give them that name; as a name undue to their occupation. For himself observeth so much, Non eos appellarunt 
Lib. 83. quaest qu. 45.  Mathematicos veteres, qui nunc appellantur, sed illos qui temporum numeros, motu coeli ac Syderum pervestigarunt. This amongst the Ancients was the known Subject of the Mathematics, the supputation of times by the motion of the Stars: And anciently, Predictions were never accounted any part of the Mathematics. The Knight utterly scorneth this ancient use, as idle and vain without Predictions. For an answer to S. Augustine, the Knight telleth us, that S. Augustine reproveth only such, as either follow the Idolatry of the Heathen, or suppose a fatal necessity in those things that depend upon our will; in all things else confessing the government of the Heavenly Bodies, and both the Stars to have their properties, and the ginger to know the same. This was soon said and boldly; but when will it be proved? The truth is, that S. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, reprove Astrology, for the vain curiosity of foretelling things to come; which cannot be foretold but by God and his Prophets, or to the Devil and his Prophets. This is that which moved the Fathers against Prediction, because a Prediction cannot be foretold, but by the Spirit of God. This saith Origen, this saith S. Augustine. That the Predictions of those that are called genethliaci, is nothing but pernitiosa superstitio. Cyrill, writing against julian the Apostate, answereth an Objection that julian hath made, that Abraham was an ginger, that he did use Divination or Prediction by the Stars. Cyrill answereth, that there is no such Divination or Prediction; the Stars have no such use, they were not made for any such thing: but as he saith; Factum ab ipso (Deo) dicimus Astrorum chorum, non quod sanctorum Prophetarum dignitatem habeat, vel aliud quicquam preter quam ut luceant hominibus, & sint in signa temporum. When the Fathers reprove Astrology, this is their purpose, to reject it for Predictions of future things. This Prediction cannot be done without the Spirit of God. The holy Prophets did make Predictions by that spirit: If any shall attempt such things by the Stars; then they answer, the Stars were not made to have the honour of the holy Prophets, which they should have, if by them we should come to the knowledge of things to come. The Fathers say, the Stars have no other use or end but to give light, and by their motion to measure the times. The Knight saith, they should have an idle and vain creation, if this were all their use: so he saith, Pag. 2. Behold how far these men proceed, to censure not only all learned men, that stand against their fancy, but the very Creation of God must be censured, if it stand against their madness. God give them a meek spirit. To satisfy the Knight in this, that the Fathers in reproving or rejecting Astrology, do it in respect of the Predictions, that their Divination and Predictions are unlawful: That this was the thing, which so troubled the Fathers, he may understand by that which we have said, and if that will not satisfy, we could bring enough. S. Augustine saith; Planetarios quos 
Lib. Confiss. 4. C. 3.  Mathematicos vocant, plane consulere non desistebam quod quasi nullum eis esset sacrificium, & nulla preces ad aliquem spiritum ob Divinationem dirigentur. Quod tamen Christiana & vera pietas consequenter repellit & damnat. And again, jam & Mathematicorum fallaces 
Lib. Confess. 7. Cap. 6.  divinationes, & impia deliramenta reicceram. And again, Ind certissime collegi, ea quae vera consideratis 
Lib. Confess. 7. Cap. 6.  constellationibus dicerentur, non Arte dici sed sort: quae autem falsa, non artis imperitia, sed sortis mendatio. And again. His omnibus consideratis, non immerito creditur, 
Lib. de Civit. Dci. 5. Cap. 7.  cum Astrologi mirabiliter multa vera respondent, occulto instinctu fieri spirituum non bonorum, quorum cura est has falsas & noxias opiniones deastratibus fatis humanis mentibus inserere, atque firmare: non horoscopi notati & inspecti aliqua arte, quae nulla est. And to this purpose Theodoret saith, Vniversum Diaboli genus in 
Theod. in Zac.  medio proposuit, divinatores ex syderibus prognostica profitentes, somniorum interpres, corum mendacia reprehendit, & poenas constituit. It would be a work to fill a Book, if I should write all which the Fathers have observed to this purpose: Let the Knight satisfy himself in this, that the especial cause why the Fathers reprove Astrology, is, for that they take upon them to foretell particular Events fortuitall. Which thing cannot be done but by a Spirit, though many times that Spirit may lie: But without a Spirit this cannot be performed, by the common consent and torrent of the Fathers.   

CHAP. X.  
The Censure of the Knight's Divinity.  
THe boldness of many men is much to be marvelled at in these evil & licentious times, who in colouring of corrupt Causes, dare presume to use the pretence of holy Scriptures, turning and forcing God's truth sometimes to justify the forgeries of Satan: which impiety, as it proceeded from the Devil, the first corrupter of the truth; so, wheresoever it appeareth in other, it doth bewray itself, and showeth evidently, whom they imitate that use it. For God's holy truth cannot be so spoken of, as a matter of common Learning may be: For smooth terms, and a trim●…ed speech, without a religious heart, opening the truths of God's word, will presently be descried. Whether this religious heart be in the Knight, or that he hath presumed with unclean hands to handle holy things; let the Children of the Church judge. I will not charge him with profane words; as where he, speaking of the immortality of the Soul, of the divine Providence, of the Miracles and Mysteries of Religion; calleth these things merely Theological, or Metaphysical, Pag. 94. & 95. Religion is Metaphysical, as it dependeth upon the immediate will of God, and not upon the order of nature: This we pass over, and come to try his spirit, and sound his judgement in Divinity.  
Whereas M. Chambers citeth the Prophet Esay 47. 12. 13. where the Prophet foreshowing the destruction of Babylon, derideth the Astrologers (so much used and honoured there) who took upon them to foretell calamities, because their Predictions herein could not help Babylon. After a fruitless Discourse, wherein he telleth us that those Astrologers were Magicians, at last he affirmeth, That the ruin of this Monarchy (meaning Babylon) was extraordinary, beyond the compass of natural things, and did no less transcend humane knowledge by natural means (to speak his own words) than the standing of the Sun in the Heavens, in the days of joshua, or the going back thereof in the time of Hezekiah. Which things, being miraculous and not natural, the ginger cannot foretell. And such he affirmeth the destruction of Babylon to be. Because God in his secret purpose, had decreed to stir up the Medes against that people: this determination depending (as he saith) upon the immediate will of God: because Cyrus is named two hundred year before the accomplishment of that Prophecy: because the Medes were subject to the Babylonians, and of small power: because the surprise of Babylon was so sudden, as Herodotus reporteth, that the enemies found them eating & drinking, and dancing.  
And thus he runneth on, and telleth the Reader, that these are reasons to prove, that the destruction of Babylon was not natural, but miraculous, depending upon the immediate will of God: what he meaneth by the immediate will of God, I know not: But this we know, that the Miracles that are wrought only by the Word, or immediate will of God, are such, as being done without means, causeth the natural man to wonder, whose knowledge can reach no higher, then as it is led by means. Therefore the standing of the Sun in the time of joshua, and the going back thereof in Hezekiah his sight, & such like works, were Miracles, because they were done without natural means, and against the ordinary Course of Nature, and beyond the knowledge of the natural man. But what Divines hold the destruction of Babylon to be a Miracle? Here were all the means used, that are usual in other destructions: the means are well understood by the Heathen Historiographers, that never found any Miracle herein. The force of Men, great Armies, a valiant and politic King Cyrus, against a feeble and dissolute King Belshazzer, a man without virtue and foresight. What Miracle do you see here? Herodotus recordeth, as the Knight also noteth, Pag. 36. when the Medes on a Festival day had entered on the one side of the City, the other part was ignorant thereof, being wholly given over to dancing and merriment. This the Knight noteth, to prove, that this destruction was miraculous, not by natural means. Did ever man reason thus before? Is it a Miracle, that a vigilant, wise, valiant Army, should overthrow a careless and drunken People? And must this be brought as a reason to make it a Miracle? Your Cause wanted reason to maintain it; for shame give over such a Cause, as must be maintained by such reasons; or else set better heads to it. But he thinketh that he hath said much to it for proof, because the Prophet Esay nameth Cyrus' 200. years before the accomplishment of the Prophecy. If this be enough to prove a Miracle, because God foresaw the thing long before, and revealed it to his Prophet; then, what thing in the world can the Knight name, which by this worthy reason will not prove a Miracle? Doth not God foresee every thing as he did that? If there were such Prophets amongst us, as had such revelations of things to come, as Esay had; then should other Events be likewise foretold. But seeing we have not such revelations, God hath given to the Children of the Church, that precious gift of Faith; by which we believe and know assuredly, that all things in the world are ruled by God's Providence; and we are taught to know, that the knowledge of things to come, not revealed to us, is not needful for us: When it it is needful, we shall have it, but from God and his Prophets, not from Astrologers. Thus we rest in God's Providence, and we exhort the Knight to rest there.  
But the Knight like a grave moral Divine, to win some honour both of Cicero, and of M. Chambers, braveth it out thus, Pag. 95. Tully profanely in his 2. de Divinat. and in his Book de Fato, denyeth and derideth the providence of God; and yet (saith he) may M. Chambers go to School with him, and learn manners. But before we have done Sir, it will appear, who they are that have need to go learn manners, and the Doctrine of God's providence; which they may learn even of Cicero. For, good Reader, consider whether his wits be not enchanted, that writeth thus. Cicero through all the 2. de Divinat. denyeth & derideth nothing else but Predictions, which are made by Auruspicine, Augury, Astrology, Sortiledge, and such like. This the Knight's Book calleth God's providence: Is not this good Divinity? Cicero in his Book de Fato, disputeth so, as to take away fatum Astrologicum, and leave fatum Physicum; that is, a dependence between natural Causes and their effects: and this is all which is called fatum. Chrysippus, saith he, necessitatem effugere voluit, & retinere fatum. This conceit pleased Cicero, and therefore he saith. Quid afferripoterit, cur non omnia fato fieri fatendum sit? modo intelligatur, quae sit causarum distinctio, ac dissimilitudo. Tully then taketh away fatum Stoicum and granteth fatum Physicum. And herein he goeth as far as the natural man could go, holding natural Principles, which he is ever careful to hold. But whether the Knight goeth so far as a Christian should, inspeaking of God's providence, or as one professing moral virtues, fathering that upon Cicero which he overthroweth; let others judge.  
He proceedeth still the same man, handling the undefiled word of God without reverence, without fear of check. M. Chambers acknowledging the power of the Stars, in things subject to their power, but denying it to touch particular Events, or men's actions, wherein the Astrologers wholly set it, saith, that the Stars have no force at all in this sense: the Knight speaking hereof, saith, that place of job, 38. 33. unanswerably refelleth that barbarous opinion which M. Chambers holdeth, that the Stars have no force at all (understand over men's actions) for if they had no force, God would not vainly tell us of their Dominion over the Earth. Pag. 48. Then blessed is M. Chambers, and the Cause which he handleth, that cannot be charged of Barbarism; but with him the living God must also be charged of vanity. It grease ●…eth me to write these and such like blasphemies. Shall a wretched man, corrupt dust & ashes lay vanity to the living God, if the Dominion of the Stars reach not so far, as he in his foolish heart imagineth? These things need no resolution, but a sharp reproof. Repent and weep for this blasphemy, and pray to God, that these thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven. This also is your pride and presumption, that you think that you can see farther into a Text of job, than all Divines can. In that place of job, there is mention of the sweetness or amenity of the Pleyades, the bands of Orion, and the Dominion of the Heavens; which the best Interpreters expound thus. The sweetness or pleasures of the Pleyades; Delitiae; doth express the sweetness and amenity of the Spring, which those Stars bring in. The bands of Orion, the constriction of all things procured by Winter, which that Star bringeth in. The Dominions of the Heavens on the Earth, is apparent in all things vegetable upon the Earth: And is not this a great Dominion which the Heavens have over the Earth, when all things spring and flourish at certain positions of the Heavens. And again, all things are bound up and frozen, and as it were deadened at some other Positions of the Heavens: What worldly power is like this power? Moreover, we yield the influence of the Heavens over things vegetable: And when we yield this dominion of Heaven, we yield nothing but that which is seen in Nature. If you will have more, you must prove it. The actions of men we deny to be ruled by this power. And you, if you cannot get the act●…on●… of Men, and particular Events to be under this power; you open your mouth against the Creator, and charge him with vanity.  
But how doth the Knight prove his imagined dominion of the Heavens? Forsooth he maketh some show, to prove that the Stars have some force, which thing is not denied. But the question between us and him is not, whether the Stars have some force or no; but wherein their force standeth. After some wand'ring discourse, at last he will prove forsooth, that the influence of the Stars reach to the success of men's actions. Now Sir, you are welcome home, prove this, and there shall be an end. But how prove you this? thus forsooth, Pag. 49. The influence of the Stars extendeth to the success of men, which is yet more fully confirmed, (as if before he had proved it) whereas he hath said nothing to this point. But how is this more fully confirmed? judic. 4. 20. Where it is expressly testified, that the Stars fought from Heaven in their Courses and order, against Sisera.  
By all which, saith the Knight's Book, it appeareth what Dominion they have over all men, as over all other creatures, either vegetable, or sensible. But if M. Chambers object, that this power is not understood by men, why doth Moses testify, that they were created to be signs? whose significations if they be notunderstood, I affirm to be Barbarous, or no signs to us at all. M. Chambers must be content to be charged with barbarous opinions; Moses and God himself, and whosoever stand in his way, are thus charged. Sir, be contented and quiet yourself, and you shall sooner see the truth. The Conclusion which you would prove, is, as you tell us, a thing natural: we looked for a natural reason of a natural Conclusion. You go to prove it by Scriptures, confessing thereby, that you find no reason in nature for it: We need no Scriptures to prove things natural; they are for higher matters than nature can reach. But you say, the Stars have Dominion over the success of men's actions, because it is said, that the Stars fought from Heaven in their order against Sisera. Did ever any Divine expound this as you do? And, what warrant have you to make the word of God serve your fancy? First, you charge not only the words, but the sense of the place: which thing either, you should not have done; ot else, not so rashly and without considering of your own words, charge M. Chambers of false suggestion, or false translating, as you do, Pag. 47. For whereas M. Chambers citeth the words of job thus: Dost thou know the order of Heaven, and wilt thou reduce the course of it to the Earth? You say he doth falsely translate the words; because the Original hath, Knowest thou the Laws or Ordinances of Heaven; and canst thou dispose the Dominion thereof upon the Earth? Let a man, not transported with affection, tell me the difference between your words and his, and give a sensible distinction between. Dost thou know, and knowest thou: between the order of Heaven, and the Ordinances of Heaven: between reducing the Course of Heaven to the Earth, and disposing the Dominion thereof upon the Earth? Is not one sense kept in both? But now, how the sense and words of the other place, is chopped & changed by you, let us consider. The place which you cite, in the original, and in all Translations, certainly in all that I have seen. The Hebrew Text hath it, the old Latin Translation, the Septuagint, Tremelius, Leo, juda, the English: all, I say, without exception read the place thus. They fought from heaven; even the Stars in their Courses fought against Sisera. The Interpreters of this place, old and new, understand it so, that this fight from Heaven, was by Hail, Raine and tempest. And true it is, that the Stars by their Cosmical rising or setting, are observed to further rain and tempest. And thus we have the words of the Scripture, faithfully translated in all Translations, expounded by ancient and later Expositors, showing how the heavens fought against Sisera. This is confirmed by the circumstances in the Text. For in the next words, it followeth. The River Kison swept them away. The inundation of the River is declared, caused by the Hail and Raine, which fell from Heaven, whereby the Canaanites were overthrown by the tempest from Heaven, and drowned in the River. Thus much is evident by the Text, and confirmed by the testimonies of all that have touched this place. Against this the Knight's Book (for Alas, the Knight himself may be guiltless of many things contained in the Book) against this, I say, this writer taketh upon him to translate it anew, and to expound it as him listeth. That the Stars fought from Heaven in their Courses against Sisera: and expoundeth it, that the Stars by their Influences gave success to the Action; against all Expositors. But if the Influence of the Stars gave success in this Action; we would know, whether the ginger could have given Prediction hereof, by looking upon the Stars. In the destruction of Babylon, you say, he could not; and why could he more in this? For in this a Miracle was showed evidently. Again, if the Stars did signify success; whether was it good success or evil? For, we know the ancient cozenage of Astrologers and Oracles. If the ginger should have told the King of Canaan, that the Stars signified good success, he should have but deceived him, as many do. Further, if this be a good reason, because the Stars did fight against Sisera, therefore the Influence of Stars reacheth to success in men's actions: Why should not this be as good? The River Kison helped the people of God against Sisera; therefore the Influence of the Rivers do the like: For there is no more given to the Stars then to the River. It is true, that all the Creatures of God, are at his command, and are used as Instruments to do his will in the protection of his Church, and against his enemies. What is this to Astrology?  
But you say, why did Moses testify, that they were created to be signs; whose signification you affirm to be barbarous, or no signs at all to us, if they be not understood Your meaning is, that Moses witnessing Gen. 1. 14. That whereas God in creating the Lights of Heaven, said, Let them be for signs & for seasons, and for days, and years. These words must be so understood, let the Stars be created to signify particular Events of wars, of troubles of the Estate of Cities, and commonwealth, of the death of Kings, of particular Events of men's actions: that the Astrologers by looking upon them may foretell those things. For if they be made for signs, they must signify these things: And if they do not signify these things, then are they vainly created. And is not this a great marvel, that the Devil did not set some Astrologers a work to interpret Scriptures? For if you had the testimony but of some one Expositor of Scriptures, you might have some pretence to excuse the impiety; but having none, what Astrological Sorcery hath bewitched you, to dare (without reverence) offer force & compulsion to God's holy word, to make it serve your turn? All Expositors that ever I could see, with one consent expound this place so, that your Astrological significations, are quite shut out. August. Lib. Imperf. in Gen. ad literam. Chrysost. in Cap. 1. Gen. Homil. 6. Beda in Cap. 1. Gen. Origen in Gen. 1. Theodoret in Gen. 1. Abeuleus in Gen. 1. Lyra in Gen. 1. Glossa ordinaria. Calvin in Gen. 1. Franciscus Vatabalus, not a Translator of the Bible, as you call him, but a diligent Expounder. All do agree in this, that this signification is of things in the known Course of Nature, for times, years and seasons: And some do expressly reject Astrological supposed significations. The Knight will have it only for Astrological significations. Sir, do you think in your inward judgement, that God hath written a Book in the Heavens, only for the understanding of Astrologers? If this signification be such as you would have it, it is only for Astrologers; for none other can open the significations that you mean, and yet you know many Doctor's doubt, whether the Astrologers can open them: This is your Divinity. But we think that it may much better become a Christian Knight, to take Divinity as the Church receiveth it, then to make it new. Some expound these signs of the moments of times, some of seasons & weather: of which signs all Husbandmen take use: none as you do. junius translateth the place thus: Vt sint in signa cum tempestatibus, tum diebus & annis. Which translation if you receive, so agreeing to the use of words in the Original, then are your significations gone. Be contented farther to consider the manner of your Argument; for thus you reason. If the Stars be not created for vain and barbarous signs; then they signify the success of men's actions; but they are not created for vain and barbarous signs; Remember yourself, where you had this Argument; for by the like kind of reasoning, Q. Cicero. Lib. 1. de divinat. would maintain the Prediction that you maintain. Si sint dij, neque ante declarant hominibus quae futura sunt, aut non diligunt homines, aut quod eventurum sit ignorant, etc. And a little after, Sunt autem dij, significant ergo. Et si significant, nullas vias dant nobis ad significationis scientiam, frustra significarent, etc. By which manner of reasoning he would conclude, that future Events of men's actions, may be foretold by Augury, & Astrology: He would charge the Gods of vanity, unless these Predictions be admitted. You are not afraid to apply the same manner of reasoning to the living God. But what reason have you to leave out the whole Argument, and conclude but for one part? For the Conclusion followeth as well for Predictions by Augury, as for these by Astrology.  
It were too long to trouble the Reader, with all the Knights errors: yet I must touch a few. M. Chambers referreth to a place of Chrisostome in Math. 2. The Knight saith, this maketh more for Astrology then against it. For this is all that chrysostom saith; Si Christus secundum legem sit not us Astrorum quomodo Astrologiam dissoluit, fatumque destruxit? If Christ were under the law of the stars, how then (as the Knight translateth it) did his coming dissolve Astrology, and destroy destiny? To which I answer, saith the Knight's book (mark now his deep Divinity) That he hath so dissolved destiny and Astrology, meaning the power of the Stars over us, as he hath dissolved death by his passion and resurrection; not that we are in this world freed from natural death by the death of Christ, but from the eternal damnation of death: thus far the Knight. He saith that Christ hath dissolved the Dominion of the Stars, as he dissolved the Dominion of death. But how did Christ dissolve the Dominion of death? Verily that his Church might be freed from it, only true Believers, the members of his body, all other lie still under the dominion of death; for none are freed, but those whom he soon maketh free. Then, where the Knight saith, Christ hath dissolved Astrology, as the power of death over us; whom doth he mean by us? If you mean us, that is, all men, than it is false: For Christ hath not dissolved the dominion of death for all men, but only for his Elect. If you mean by us, us that believe; then how can you make your Similitude good, making sense, and keeping Divinity? As Christ hath dissolved the dominion of death to us Believers only, but not to all: what will you make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? will you infer, so hath he dissolved Astrology to believers, and all other are under the Dominion of the Stars, as they are under the dominion of death. If this be a true inference, it proveth plainly, that Astrology is a part of the power of darkness, evil and wicked: for true Believers are delivered from all such things; and the things from which Christ hath delivered them are such. But than you say, that except they which produce this place, and otherwise interpret it, can prove, that Christ by his coming hath taken away the natural virtue and efficacy of the Stars, there is nothing said by chrysostom. It were good for him that wrote this, to peruse that testimony which in the next Page he citeth out of Solomon. The fool multiplieth words. No man saith that Christ hath taken away the virtue of the Stars? but that men's actions depend upon the natural virtue of the Stars: But the question between you and us, is, what is that natural virtue of the Stars. You say again if Christ came to dissolve it, he could not dissolve that which was not: Ergo, of consequence it was, and till it be dissolved, is effectual. And after this manner, for want of better stuff, you trouble yourself and your Reader, with such as cometh in your head. We answer, Christ dissolved Astrology, as he dissolved Idolatry; yet S. Paul saith an Idol is nothing. Now will you Sir, chop Logic with S. Paul, and say, if Christ came to dissolve Idols, he came not to destroy that which was not; Ergo, by consequence it was. But the Apostle will tell you that Christ came to dissolve those things that are not in truth, but only imagined by the superstitious conceits of men, illuded by Satan: For Christ doth not destroy the nature of the Stars, but superstition, which fancieth another power in the Stars than God hath given them: whichsuperstition is the work of the Devil, and therefore Christ dissolveth it, as Saint john saith. For this purpose appeared the Son of God, that he might dissolve the works of the Devil.  
If the Stars have such power over the actions of men, than was your book written under an unfortunate Star: For as it is commonly said, he casteth evil, that casting all day, casteth not one good chance; So may it well be said, he writeth badly, that writing so long a Book, writeth not one sound sentence: Such is your Book, always like itself. And I suppose it were hard to cull out one sentence through the whole Book, that a man can justify, who is resolved to maintain nothing but truth.  
After your manner you preach thus: Pag. 393. I would know of him where he learned this Divinity, that God having expressly forbidden any thing, as is were against his revealed will (as he affirmeth Astrology) nevertheless concurres to the effecting of that, which shall advance the credit of an unlawful practices, to the derogating of his own glory: this is flat repugnant to all Divinity. And a little after, That God doth not work by such means as himself prohibiteth: If need were, I could amplify by sundry reasons and authorities.  
Because I am loath to enter into such a large Theological Discourse, as this question which here you move requireth: I will briefly answer. Sir, did you ever care to understand what were those famous Controversies, which that blessed Father S. Augustine held against the Pelagians? It seemeth not. And what do the knowledge of these things belong to a Knight? No more doth it belong to a Knight to move such deep questions, and peremptorily toconclude in Divinity; these waters be too deep for him to wade in. Briefly know thus much: That God doth work in many things against his revealed will. His revealed will was to Abraham, that Isaac should be offered in a Sacrifice; yet God wrought against it. Nay the case may be so, that the will of God and the will of man may be contrary one to the other; and yet both good. The Father lieth upon his deathbed; the Sons will and desire is that the Father should live, and this desire of the Son is agreeable to Gods revealed will; for that revealed will containeth what we ought to do: But God's secret will is contrary to this desire of the Son, and the Father dyeth, will this Gentleman accuse God, because he concurreth to some effects against his revealed will? When Adultery is committed and Bastards begotten, it is against the revealed will of God: But he that shall affirm that God hath no will, nor power, nor part in genegation, shall take away part of his power, and give it to some other thing, and so make more Gods. The people and principal of Israel conspired to put Christ to death; this was an unlawful action: Now he that shall say, that the hand and Counsel of God did not concur in this action, shall deny the plain Scripture. Act. 4. 27. Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel gathered themselves together to do whatsoever thy hand and counsel had determined before to be done. Neither doth it follow hereby, that God doth advance the credit of an unlawful practice, to the derogation of his glory: for God ordereth all things in nature, himself being pure from sin; and punisheth all sinners, punishing both Adulterers and Astrologers: But when (I say) that God ordereth all things in nature, this doth not teach Astrological Predictions, which are out of the compass of nature.  
No better is that Theology which he uttereth Pag. 480. There is no place in Scripture in which blasphemy is named, but doth describe it to be a verbal injury uttered in detestation of God. Whence he seeketh to prove, that except it be evil speaking of God himself, it is no blasphemy. His knowledge and sense in these things, whereof he is bold to speak, is rather to be pitied, then refuted. I tell you Sir, that you do nothing throughout your Book but blaspheme, when you speak evil of M. Chambers; though then your intent is not to offer a verbal injury to God. Yet when you speak evil of such, as for conscience, maintain God's truth, and therefore speak evil of them, because they maintain the truth, than you blaspheme. This is true; and if you repent not of this sin, you will find it to be true another day: But therefore we labour to do this service, both to the Truth and you; that when the knowledge of your sin is brought to your sight, you may the sooner find the way to repentance. Now, that blasphemy is not as you say, only a verbal injury uttered in detestation of God, and so taken in every Scripture where it is named; but that it is also against the truth of God, and against the Saints that maintain the truth; may appear out of these places and many more. Act. 14. 45. When the jews saw the people, they were full of envy, and spoke against those things that were spoken of Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, contradicting and blaspheming. Act. 18. 6. When they resisted & blasphemed, he shook his raiment. S. Paul speaking of himself, and other his fellow Apostles, saith, Rom. 3. 8. We are blasphemed, And 1. Cor. 4. 13. Being blasphemed, we pray. And 1. Cor. 10. 30. For if I through God's benefit be partaker, why am I blasphemed for that, wherefore I give thanks. To omit many places: they are also said to blaspheme, who dissemble in hypocrisy, making show of an holy Profession, themselves being unholy. Apoc. 2●…9. I know the blasphemy of them, which say they are jews & are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan. Which place●… I note the rather, because the Knight out of his wor●…ed confidence, doth boldly give it out, that there is not one place of Scripture, where blasphemy is named; but it doth describe it to be a verbal injury uttered in detestation of God. If the places of Scripture were numbered, there will be more found against this, then for it. But his advantage is, he is no professed Divine, & therefore may err in these points, and we must pardon the imperfections of a Knight in Divinity. Which kind of pleading, as I would never deny to a man that did descry a sound mind, or were compelled to write; so if our Knight look for the same favour; we may justly answer him, as Cato answered A. Posthumius Albinus, who being Cos. wrote some Roman Stories in Greek, desiring all men to bear with his imperfections: Because, quoth he, I am a Roman, and therefore of me the exact knowledge of the Greek tongue is not to be required. But Cato told him that this was but trifling, to entreat pardon, when he might have been without fault. For who compelled him to do that for which he thought fit to crave pardon; so may we say to the Knight, by silence he might have been blameless: By writing so unskilfully of unknown tihngs, upon hope of pardon; because his place requireth not such exact skill in Divinity, and of by upholding a corrupt cause, he hath shut himself from the benefit of that favour, which otherwise he might look for. And if ignorance be to be excused in a Christian Knight, I should rather excuse ignorance in Astrology, then in Divinity.  
But must we pardon this also which followeth? Where M. Chambers had found fault with one, for ascribing so much to numbers t●…t thereby he thought to attain●… 〈◊〉 mystery of hi●…●…tion, and to have his name registered in the 〈…〉 God. The Knight defending that irreligious speech, writeth thus; Pag. ●…19. It 〈…〉 to him that is not blind by malice, ●…at he intendeth nothing in that Hyperbolical and excessive speech; but such a sequestration of our thoughts from all material things, as thereby we may the more freely contemplate the mystery of the Trinity in Unity; until through our whole conversion to the same, we come to be registered in the number of those that are sealed to salvation. Thus far the Knight. If any man contradict this Gentleman, he is presently charged to be blinded with malice: And yet, M. Chambers did not intend to contradict him, but opened an irreligious speech of another. But the Knight will take the defence of all upon him. It were to be wished, that he would deal more advisedly, and not take upon him the defence of every foolish ginger. We hope upon better advice, he will think least malice in such as deal most plainly with him. And truly, if we should suffer such profane speeches to pass without reprehension, it were enough to spill him. We reprove that profane speech: your Defence makes the speech no better, but yourself worse, than we took you. For you tell us, that by that Hyperbolical and excessive speech, he intendeth nothing, but such a sequestration of our thoughts from all material things, as thereby we may more freely contemplate the mystery of the Trinity in Unity; until through our whole conversion to the same, we come to be registered and sealed to salvation. Some of your Astrologers have told us, of great power of some names of God abused, and of some words spoken without understanding. They tell us also, of the Language that the Angels use among themselves; these be things which we understand no●… therein they may go further than we poor souls can reach them. But when they tell us, how by numbers we may be sealed to salvation; this thing is such, wherein we may judge of their understanding. For in these things we have the rule of the Scripture: And if an ginger from the Stars, or an Angel from Heaven, preach unto us any other thing concerning our sealing to salvation, then that is delivered in the Gospel, we are warned to hold him Anathema. You say, we may know our names registered in Heaven, and sealed to salvation by numbers, or by sequestration of our thoughts from all materials. Consider the evil savour of this extravagant speech. 1. This which you say, is no Doctrine of faith; not contained in the Scriptures, and therefore it containeth not our sealing to Salvation; because all things necessary to our Salvation, are, as S. Augustine truly saith: Aperte in Scriptures posita. 2. We say this sequestration of our thoughts from Materials, is neither Divinity, nor true Philosophy; for what do you mean by it? If you mean Mathematical abstractions which consider magnitude and number, without matter; then is it impious in Divinity, to say, that such a sequestration can bring to us any Mystery of Salvation: And absurd amongst Philosophers, who put not man's felicity in that. If you mean any other thing, than you depart from your friend's purpose, who speaketh of Mathematical numbers. 3. Where you say, we may thereby contemplate the Mystery, etc. You err in setting the knowledge of a believer in Contemplation; For our knowledge is in the heart, working in love, and not in the brain an idle contemplation. 4. Where you say, by this we may contemplate the Trinity in Unity: this is blasphemy to say or to think, that the knowledge of this holy Mystery, can be apprehended by numbers, or by such means as you describe. 5. It is against Divinity, admitting it were spoken in good words; for a man is not taught to know his salvation by looking upon the Mystery of the Trinity; but by looking into the Mystery of Christ his Incarnation, and Passion, wherein he findeth redemption; for herein he may find himself; in the Mystery of the Trinity no man can see or find himself. 6. Where you by our conversion to the Mystery, etc. these be idle words, not understood by him that uttered them. For, true it is, by our Conversion to God, we come to know ourselves to be God's children; but this conversion to the Mystery is unknown in Divinity. 7. Our conversion to God, is not either by contemplation of numbers, or by abstraction of our thoughts from Materials, but by saith and repentance. 8. Where you say, by our conversion to the same, we come to be registered in the Book of Life; understanding it the best way, it containeth false Doctrine: For our conversion is not a cause of registering our names in God's Book; but the contrary is true: We are not registered by our Conversion; but we are converted because we were registered. It dependeth not upon our Conversion; but our Conversion dependeth upon it. 9 Where you say, we come to be registered; as if something that we do may cause or procure this registering, it is false Divinity; for that dependeth not upon any thing which we do. 10. Where you say, registered in the number of those that are sealed: this is a confounding of registering and sealing, which are things distinct. For, we are registered or Predestinated not by faith, but unto faith; we are sealed by faith after our effectual calling: as the Apostle teacheth, Ephes. 1. 13. In whom after that you believed you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. 11. The manner of your speech doth breath out Pelagianisme: For you say, we may by sequestration of our thoughts come to be registered, etc. Do you not attribute this power to Man, that by the use of his natural faculties, he may purchase this registering as you call it? For by natural means, we may contemplate numbers, by natural means, we may sequester our thoughts from all things material. If by this means we may come to be registered, as you say, in the number of those that are sealed to Salvation: may we not then by natural means obtain that grace? And do you know Sir, how to distinguish this Doctrine from the Doctrine of Pelagius? 12. Last of all, you ruune into that damned error, which Pigghius with some other few of late, raked up out of Hell: That men may predestinate themselves when they please. For when you say, Men may by sequestration of their thoughts from materials come to be Registered in God's Book: If you mean that which the Scripture calleth the Book of Life, that is nothing else but God's eternal purpose of Predestination, than you tell us, That men may by your device Predestinate themselves.  
Howsoever it is, you have played the part of a bad Interpreter, whilst you desirous to expound another man's words, fall into so many Errors, Ignorances', Absurdities, Impieties, Blasphemies, in the compass of so few Words.  
This may teach you (if you be Wise) not to play the wanton with holy Scriptures: not to speak of God, and his holy Mysteries with a profane heart: For I must be plain with you; if your heart were Sanctified, you would not speak in this sort. Give your heart to God, and all this will be mended. Before that time, meddle with these Mysteries. For our God is a consuming Fire, and will be Sanctified in them that come near him.  
I will cease to trouble the Knight any further, exhorting him to abandon that blind Study, which hath no place in Nature, but only in the superstitious conceits of men; and so judged as well by Heathen Philosophers, as by the learned of the Church. Before we part, I commend unto him the reading of Cicero, that if he hear not us, he may be reproved out of the mouth of an Heathen man. Nam ut vere loquamur, superstitio fusa per gentes, oppressit omnium fere animos, atque hominum imbecillitatem occupavit: 
Lib. 2. de diuin  Quod et iis libris dictum est, qui sunt de Natura Deorum, & hac disputatione id maxime egimus. Multum enim & nobis ipsis & nostris profuturi videbamur, fi eam funditus sustulissemus. Nec vero (id enim diligenter intelligi volo) superstitione tollenda Religio tollitur. Name & maiorum instituta tueri sacris ceremonijs retinendis, sapientis est: et esse praestantem aliquam aeternamque Naturam, & eam suscipiendam admirandamque hominum generi, pulchritudo mundi, ordoque rerum coelestium cogit confiteri. Quamobrem ut Religio propaganda etiam est, quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae: sic superstitionis stirpes omnes eijciendaesunt: Instat enim & urget, & quocunque te verteris persequitur. Sive tu vatem, sive tu omen au●…ris, sive immolaris, sive avem aspexeris, si Chaldaeum, si Aruspicem videris, si fulserit, si tonitruit, si factum aliquid erit de Coelo, si ostenti simile natum, factumue quippiam: quorum necesse est plerumque aliquid eveniat: ut nunquam liceat quieta ment consistere. Out of which Testimony, from the mouth of a Natural man, it may please the Christian Knight to consider, that the Natural man espied thus much in Predictions, that they who yielded to them, were in their weakness oppressed with this strong superstition, as they were also with other of the like sort. All which have no place in Nature, nor in Religion, that as a pernicious conceit, it is with diligence to be rooted out of men's hearts; that wheresoever this superstition is once recoyved, men are driven, and as it were, haunted with Furies, that they can have no quiet rest. This man shall rise a Witness against all such Astrologers, as now in the light of the Word, follow that Study, so famously convinced by the Light of Nature.  
To conclude therefore, we have heard the Principles of Astrologers examined: We have found, that they abhor from the knowledge of the Natural man, and from all good Learning. This hath been confirmed by the testimonies of Philosophers, of Divines, and by the confession of Astrologers themselves. What then remaineth, but the sentence of some Noble judge, that may give judgement, the cause being opened. But as here we seek not an ordinary judge, so we have found one, a most Noble, Learned, and judicious Prince, our gracious Sovereign, his most excellent Majesty: with whose just judgement, let this plea be shut up without Appellation, or any further contradiction. His judgement is this. As there are two sorts of Folks that may be enticed to this Art, to wit, Learned or un-learned: so 
Damonologie, L. 1. cap. 3.  is there two means, which are the first stirrers up, and Feeders of their Curiosity, thereby to make them to give themselves over to the same. Which two means I call the Devil's School, and his Rudiments. The Learned have their Curiosity wakened up, and fed by that which I call his School. This is the Astrology judiciary: For diverse men having attained to a great perfection in Learning, and yet remain over-bare (alas) of the spirit of Regeneration, and the fruits thereof: finding all natural things common, as well to the stupid Pedants as unto them, they assay to vindicate unto them a greater name, by not only knowing the course of things Heavenly, but likewise to climb to the knowledge of things to come thereby: which at the first face appearing lawful unto them, in respect the ground thereof seemeth to proceed of Natural causes only: they are so alured thereby, that finding their practice to prove true in sundry things, they study to know the cause thereof. And so mounting from degree to degree, upon the slippery and uncertain scale of Curiosity, they are at last enticed, that where lawful Arts or Sciences fails, to satisfy their restless minds, even to seek to that black and unlawful Science of Magic. Where finding at the first, that such diverse forms of Circles, and Conjurations, rightly joined thereunto, will raise such diverse forms of spirits, to resolve them their Doubts: and attributing the doing, to the power inseparably tied, or inherent in the Circles, and many words of GOD, confusedly wrapped, they blindly glory in themselves, as if they had by their quickness of ingeny, made a conquest of Pluto's Dominion, and were become Emperors in the Stygian Habitacles. Where, in the mean time (miserable Wretches) they are become in very deed, Bondslaves to their Mortal Enemy: And their knowledge, for all that they presume thereof, is nothing increased, except in knowing evil, and the horrors of Hell for the punishment thereof, as Adam was, for eating of the forbidden Tree. This judgement is according to right, and we rest in it.  
SANCTUS EST DOMINUS IN OPERIBUS SVIS.  
FINIS.