Disputations Against Divinatory Astrology

...of the flame." And a few verses before this, having interjected thoughts about this celestial observation, he had thus censured them: "This wisdom and thy knowledge will deceive thee; and thou shalt know not the rising of it, and calamity shall fall upon thee which thou shalt not be able to expiate." In these words, the divine prophet accuses the twofold rashness of the astrologers: the one is their belief that they can foresee future things from the heavens; the other is their belief that, once those things have been foreseen, they can either drive away evils or confirm good things. Therefore, he says, "evil will come of which thou shalt not know the rising," that is, which neither Mars nor the cold star of Saturn will have pre-signified to you. Then you will not be able to expiate the calamity that falls upon you—that is, to drive it away by yourself through the election of hours, astrological images, or other superstitious machinations. It is worthy of note that through these responses, the claims of those who wish to be both Chaldeans and Christians are refuted. For they are accustomed to say that astronomy is not simply condemned by the sacred prophets, but only insofar as they refer either vices or virtues to the heavens, or bind the outcomes of human affairs to fatal necessity. Wherefore, since even good astrologers refute these errors, they say that they do not abhor the science of astrology, but the errors of certain astrologers. Therefore, let Petrus Alliacensis and whoever defends themselves with this defense tell me: did it pertain to morals that a king of the Persians should wage war against the Assyrians? And if it does not pertain to morals, why did the prophet judge that this could not be foreseen by the highest astrologers? And if they had been in that error as well, that they thought that those things which were to be would necessarily come to pass, the prophet would not object to them a future calamity that they could not expiate—which they themselves would not even expect to be able to expiate, because they would judge that it was to happen necessarily, as with all things. But neither are good arts condemned by any right judgment because some wicked men abuse them. Otherwise, the reading of the Holy Scriptures would have had to be condemned first, from which so many heresies and so many of their own insanities certain unlearned and proud men have confirmed. Philosophy also would have to be condemned, since one philosopher calls the soul mortal, another says it is one in all, some deny that God provides for men, and others that there is any religion at all. But by this reasoning, all good things would be overturned, since there is nothing so good that the nature of men cannot abuse it. Wherefore, those who defend themselves in this way—the judgment of the Church, which they are ashamed to hold in contempt—they meanwhile gravely slander. But they can be compelled in every way either to repudiate this vanity or to be unable to deviate to the left from their ancestors—that is, the leaders of the Church. For by whatever reason they condemn astrology, let them say, I beg you, whether they condemn it justly or unjustly; they do not wish to say. If justly, why do you not also condemn it together with them? But they say, "We, too, condemn those errors by which astrology was displeasing to them." But I ask this: why does that which displeased them not displease you? For it is clear that they forbid not astrology in some degree, but pursue and abhor it entirely, and we shall soon show this. You contend that it is done on account of certain errors; be it so, but answer this: whether by right judgment the whole is to be cast away on account of those errors? If by right, why do you not do the same? On the contrary, you approve what they condemned; you defend what they inveighed against; you disseminate what they forbade...