De Moor VIII:27: The Fourth Day, Part 2

The use of these Luminaries is, according to Genesis 1:14-18, α.  to divide the Day from the Night:  That the heavenly Luminaries were given and ordained unto this use, as an eminent demonstration of the divine Power, is also commemorated in Jeremiah 31:35.  β.  To signify the stated Times, both מוֹעֲדִים,[1] or the stated times of spring, summer, autumn, and winter, in nature; and also the feat times in the Church, after those things were instituted by God, and bound to some certain time.  Now, with those times of spring, summer, etc., were naturally conjoined times of heat, cold, etc.; and also times of plowing, sowing, sailing, etc.  They would indicate יָמִים/days, by distinguishing light from darkness; and ‎שָׁנִים/years, inasmuch as the course of the Moon would measure out lunar Years, and the course of the Sun the greater Solar years.  It is not necessary, that the term ‎אֹתֹת/signs, which precedes, ‎לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים, etc., be explained separately, as if Signs were understood of yet other things than of the stated times, of the days and the years just now mentioned:  Let them be for signs and stated times, etc., and indeed, it is able to signify, let them be for signs of the stated times, etc.; according to GLASSIUS,[2] Grammatica Sacra, book III, tractate I, canon XLII, who thus has it:  Between two substantives, connected by the Copulative And, the second is sometimes to be set forth by the genitive; to which is referred, for example, that in Genesis 3:16, ‎עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ, thy sorrow and thy conception, that is, the sorrow of thy conception.  That in Jeremiah 29:11, ‎אַחֲרִ֥ית וְתִקְוָֽה׃, an end and expectation, that is, an end of expectation or an expected end.  Which the Writers of the New Testament are observed to imitate, when they say, for example, in Acts 23:6, περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, of the hope and resurrection of the dead, that is, concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.  γ.  To give Light and Heat.  The operation of Light on the Earth is more than once ascribed to these celestial Luminaries in Genesis 1; see especially verses 15, 17, 18.  That the same by their abundant Influx furnish more to subterranean things, and have great influence over them, whence these Influxes of the celestial Luminaries some understand by τὰς δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν, the powers of the heavens, Matthew 24:29.  Well known is the Influx of the Moon, as it waxes and wanes, upon plants, upon human bodies, upon sea waters:  the examples of Lunatics, σεληνιαζομένων, those moon-struck, healed by the Lord, we also have in the Gospel.[3]  That the Sun, that fiery globe of stupendous magnitude, communicates heat, most useful and necessary, to the Earth, is evident by experience, Exodus 16:21; Matthew 13:6.  On the other hand, it is observed that the rays of Lunar Light supply not even the smallest amount of Heat to the Earth, namely, by the altogether wise arrangement of the Creator, lest the Moon, heating as well as illuminating, should deprive the many inhabitants of the Earth of the necessary nocturnal cooling, and should rob the Earth of the most delightfully refreshing Dew of the morning or evening:  compare BARTHOLOMEUS VAN VELSEN, Philosophicis Scripturis, chapter XI, § 16, tome 1, pages 172-176, chapter XVII, § 140, 150, 151, 154, 156, 157, 184, 185, tome 2, pages 910, 931-934, 938, 939, 941-944, 993-1000; the Most Distinguished NIEUWENTYT, Cosmotheoria, Contemplation XXV, § 57, 60.  With respect to the coming in and going out of the Sea, and whether that is to be attributed to the influx of the Moon, see, in addition to the authors commended, DANIEL VOET, Physiologia, book II, chapter V, § 30-35; JOHANNES REGIUS, Principiis Philosophiæ theoreticæ, chapter XXVI; WOLFERD SENGUERDIUS, Philosophia naturali, part III, chapter XI; and those that are cited by JOHANNES LULOFS in his notis on The Folly and Unreasonableness of Atheism, lesson 8, page 223, number 2.

But unseemly is Judicial, or κριτικὴ/critical, Astrology, whereby Future Free and Contingent Acts are predicted from the position of the Stars.  That is, this art, from the Position of the Stars, makes a judgment about a man, his inclinations, studies, actions, event, whole fortune, and so about his life and death:  and also about the overturnings of empires and republics, and similar things that happen in civil society, and which are thence indisputably predicted.  Those that are addicted to this art were of old called Astrologers (with this term taken in the following sense, while they are called Astronomers, whose science is occupied in a legitimate manner concerning the knowledge of the Stars):  they also claimed for themselves the innocuous name of Mathematicians; in addition, they were called Planetaries and Genethliacs;[4] since according to the time of the generation or nativity of men they search out the constellations with the astrolabe, that is, the positions, appearances, and influxes of the Stars, and from those they foretell the nature and fortune of those being born.  Some of the heretics in the ancient Church are mentioned as also being addicted to this art, and among others the Priscillianists,[5] concerning whom AUGUSTINE speaks, de Hæresibus, chapter LXX, They add that men are also bound to fatal stars, and that our very body is composed according to the twelve Signs of heaven, just as these, who are vulgarly called Mathematicians, arranging Aries in the head, Taurus in the neck, Gemini in the arms, Cancer in the chest, and hence running through the remaining signs one-by-one, arrive at the planets, which they attribute to Pisces, which is called the final sign by Astrologers.  This heresy wove together these and other things, fabulous, vain, and impious, the pursuit of which things is tedious.

That this Judicial Astrology is unseemly, we prove:

Gisbertus Voetius

α.  From this, that God gravely prohibited it, Leviticus 19:31; Jeremiah 10:2, concerning the sense of which passage VOETIUS discourses, Exercitatione de Prognosticis Cometarum, chapter IV, page 195-198, at the end of part V of Disputationum theologicarum.  Not only did God prohibit it, but He willed soothsayers of this sort to be punished with death, Leviticus 20:27:  elsewhere He threatens Astrologers of this sort with confusion, folly, and madness, Isaiah 44:25; and He also touches upon the vanity of these practitioners and their art, and the credulity of those that are deluded by them, Isaiah 47:12, 13.

β.  From this, that God claims for Himself the knowledge of Future things, as the κριτήριον/criterion whereby He is distinguished from idols, Isaiah 41:22, 23:  but it is not fitting to transfer that Glory of God to inanimate creatures or Astrological men.  In Daniel 2:27, Answering, Daniel said to the King, The Secret which the King demandeth cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the King:  But there is a God in heaven, revealing secrets, etc.:  but if from the Stars they were able to know and to predict the futures of men and kingdoms, why were not the Chaldean Astrologers able to comprehend that secret signified to the King, but Daniel attributed the revelation of secrets of this sort to God as proper to Him alone?

γ.  If the Stars might also serve a prophetic function of this sort, why did not Moses indicate this? from whom we have learned a threefold use of the same; but he makes absolutely no mention of such Judicial Astrology.

δ.  But, that this art is vain, is also proven by Reason:

              1.  From the nature of Liberty and Contingency, which, a.  if free and contingent event necessarily depend upon a natural cause of this sort, of which sort is a constellation, all freedom and contingency is taken away, and a fatal necessity of all things with respect to second causes is also introduced.  But, as this Astrology is thus overthrown à priori by the nature of Liberty and Contingency; so, b.  an argument sought from the same fountain argues its vanity à posteriori.  For, if character and events depend on the Stars, there will be similar characters and a similar fate for all those whose horoscope and time of birth are the same:  but the outcome intervenes and experience argues that this is false; do not twins, Jacob and Esau, for example, differ immensely from each other in every way?  Again, the characters and fates of those that were born under completely different Stars are often similar.

              2.  From the remote Position of the Stars; since it is evident, that a space of several thousand years is required, that a ball launched from a catapult might reach the fixed Stars, as we saw above, and that some of the Planets are also incredibly far removed from us in comparison with the Sun; thence it is able to be evident, that Jupiter, which contains in itself a magnitude of no less than eight thousand terrestrial globes, to us appears only to be after the likeness of a trifling little blob.

              3.  From the common Influx, which the heavenly bodies have through heat, the vicissitudes of Heaven changed, or other modes, upon our bodies, through which, we concede, by indirect motion the human soul is affected in diverse ways by the alteration of the humors:  but which by direct and necessary motion is not able to act upon the human will, which is an immaterial faculty; nor upon human actions, which depend upon the free determination of the will.

              4.  From the uncertainty of the moment of Birth, of which argument, among others, FAVORINUS, a Gentile Philosopher,[6] also makes use in GELLIUS,[7] Attic Nights, book XIV, chapter I, to explode this genethliac art.  Certainly the horoscope of a man depends upon the moment either of conception or of birth:  but both are uncertain.  The moment of conception often escapes the notice even of those begetting.  The moment of birth is sometimes drawn forward, is at other times prolonged through the infirmity of those bearing.  It is also easy to make a mistake in a few moments of the hour, wherein nevertheless a great inclination of the Sun and Stars is wont to be made; so that anyone with slight attention might perceive, that, for example, to the motion of Venus around the Sun is one hundred and forty-six times faster than the motion of a ball sent from a catapult; and also that the motion of Jupiter, a star of such stupendous magnitude, is fifty times faster than the motion of the same ball launched from a catapult.

              5.  From the longer Period of the Heavens, which prevents experience from being called in to help here.  For, whether you think of the Great Year, with which fulfilled, all the Planets will have been returned together to one and the same point, whence they had started their motion; the various opinions of the Ancients concerning this, but who all make this Year sufficiently long, are reviewed by CENSORINUS, de Die Natali, chapter XVIII, who this Year, which the orbs of the Sun, Moon, and five wandering Stars complete, when they are brought back together to the same sign in which they were at one and the same time; says that Aristarchus thought to be of two thousand, four hundred and eighty four years; Aretes of Dyrrachium,[8] of five thousand, five hundred and fifty-two; Heraclitus and Linus,[9] of ten thousand, eight hundred; Dion,[10] ten thousand, eight hundred and eighty-four; Orpheus, one hundred thousand and twenty; Cassandrus, three million, six hundred thousand; and others, infinite.  Or you think of the Period of the fixed Stars, Hipparchus[11] and Ptolemy maintain that this is summed up in the space of thirty-six thousand years; Alfonso, King of Aragon,[12] forty-nine thousand; Copernicus, twenty-six thousand; Senguerdius, twenty-five thousand more or less, Philosophia naturali, part II, chapter IV, § 23.  MACROBIUS, in his Commentariis in Somnium Scipionis, book II, chapter XI, says:  The Year, which is called universal, which verily is turning, which is accomplished by a revolution of the whole universe, is unfolded in superabounding ages….  Therefore, it is the end of an universal year, when all the stars and all the constellations that a planet has return from a certain position to the same position, in such a way that not even one star of heaven is in any other place than that in which it was when all the others were moved from that position, to which returned, they make an end to their year:  in such a way that the lights also with the five planets are in the same places and parts in which they were when the universal year began:  but this, as physicists maintain, happens after the completion of fifteen thousand years.

It is impossible, therefore, from this, that men under this or that constellation are wont to be of such a character and to endure such a fate, to conclude that anything is to be expected in the future concerning children born under the same constellation.

ε.  Finally, one may affirm that this art is very impious, since it teaches to hold the Stars, and so the Creator of the Stars, more than man himself, as the cause of sins and crimes:  it entices man more to the contemplation of the Stars than to the veneration and worship of the Creator of the Stars:  it either torments men with vain threats, or entices the minds of the credulous with vain hope, and loosens the bridle to security and daring:  whence this art is inimical to true piety, but also to public tranquility.  For which reason it has also been prohibited by the human Laws of Emperors more than once.  Astrologers were ejected from the city by Augustus, from Italy by Tiberius and Claudius, from the city and life by Vitellius:[13]  see TACITUS,[14] Annals, book II, chapter XXXII, book XII, chapter LII; and his Histories, book I, chapter XXII, with the notes of Savile[15] and Vertranius[16] on those places; SUETONIUS,[17] on Tiberius, chapter XXXVI, and on Vitellius, chapter XIV.  Thus in title XVIII, book IX, of the Codex, Mathematicians are conjoined with magicians and astrologers:  The Mathematical art is said to be altogether damnable and prohibited, law II; and under threat of death it is forbidden to consult a soothsayer, or a mathematician, or a diviner, law V.

Altogether worthy of a close reading are the arguments of which Favorinus, a philosopher at Rome, discoursing in Greek, makes use in order to explode this genethliac art, as AULUS GELLIUS relates, Attic Nights, book XIV, chapter I; immediately after the recitation of that saying of Accius,

I do not trust augurs at all, who enrich with words the ears of others,

so that they might load their own houses with gold…

this is his conclusion:  Favorinus also, wishing to deter and repel young men from those genethliac and certain others arts of that kind, who promise themselves that they are going to reveal all future things by means of marvelous arts, concluded with arguments of this sort, to show that they ought by no means to be undertaken and consulted.  They predict, said he, events, either adverse or prosperous:  if they foretell prosperity and deceive you, you will be made wretched by vain expectations; if they foretell adversity and lie, you will be made wretched by useless fears:  but if they predict truly and the events are unhappy, you will thereby be made wretched by anticipation, before you are fated to be so; if on the contrary they promise prosperity and it comes to pass, then there will clearly be two disadvantages: the anticipation of your hopes will wear you out with suspense, and hope will in advance have reaped the fruit of your approaching happiness:  therefore there is every reason why you should not resort to men of that kind, who profess knowledge of the future.  This Judicial Astrology is also exposed to scorn at some length by CICERO, book II, de Divinatione, chapters XLII-XLVII.

Objection 1:  Christ approved of this prediction in Luke 12:54, 55.  Response:  In that passage there is a treatment, α.  concerning the character of the Clouds, and so of the Lower Atmosphere and Heaven closest to us, not of the Stars far removed from us:  β.  concerning a Storm immediately threatening, and so of some natural thing, which depends upon natural causes, and of which one may learn by experience and observation; but not of the free motions of the human will and events in the most distant future.  Compare LILIENTHAL’S Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter X, § 219, part 5, pages 290, 291.

Objection 2:  The birth of Christ and the mystery of His advent was announced through a Star; therefore, Future things are able to be known and predicted from the Stars.  Response:  The consequence is denied, α.  Because it is a single example, from which a general rule is not able to be gathered:  for, if this happened to Christ on account of His singular excellence, it does not follow that it is equally able to be referred to others.  β.  That Star was not ordinary, but appears to have been an extraordinary phenomenon, not appearing in the Firmament, but in the Lower Atmosphere; since it can scarcely be conceived, that a normal Star would be capable of indicating the precise location of the Lord’s birth in the city of Beth-lehem, Matthew 2:9, 10.  γ.  These Magi appear to have been advised concerning the birth of Christ, not so much or uniquely by the Star seen, but more by divine Revelation being added:  certainly indeed no reason is given for denying to them divine Revelation, since it was also granted to them while abiding in Judea, Matthew 2:12.  δ.  Although by the Star the birth of Christ was indicated, yet not therefore was the point of His birth thus indicated, much less did the Magi learn from this Star Christ’s whole life, character, and death, as depending on the influx of that.  ε.  This Star, according to the observation of our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus Textualibus XXVI, Part V, § 18, page 37, and of SPANHEIM, Dubiis Euangelicis, whose words he cites in that place, was not so much a presage of the future, as an announcement of a present event:  and indeed, these Most Celebrated Men note, that the Magi make this celestial Star a Sign of the King, not about to be born, but already born; they had observed in the East the Star of this King already born, before they undertook their journey:  concerning this Star consult the more lengthy treatment of JOHANN JACOB SCHMIDT,[18] Bibelsche Mathematicus, part I, chapter V, in comparison with Boekzaal, January 1758, chapter II, pages 37-43; LILIENTHAL’S Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter X, § 206-215, part 5, pages 275-286, chapter XIX, § 23, part 10, pages 107-111.

Objection 3:  Many Examples are given, whereby this Astrology is confirmed.  Response:  α.  Many of the Examples are doubtful.  β.  Innumerable others, on the other hand, demonstrate the vanity of predictions of this sort.  γ.  Sometimes predictions of this sort are able to be true, from the careful observation of the character of that concerning which the prophecy is made; or from collusion with the Devil, who is sometimes found to have foretold true things, 1 Samuel 28:15-19, either by accident, or by the just judgment of God, so that men that have given themselves to vain arts of this sort might be all the more deceived, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 11.  δ.   Neither from this is a divining art of this sort, which God has prohibited, proven to be lawful, Deuteronomy 13:1-3.

Concerning Judicial Astrology, compare SPANHEIM, discoursing without disguise in his Dubiis Euangelicis, part II, doubt XXXIII, pages 331-366; HENRY MORE,[19] An Explanation of the Grand Mystery of Godliness, book VII, chapters XVIII-XX, and BUDDEUS, de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter IX, § 4, pages 514-524, where the Annotationes of the most illustrious LULOFS are able to be inspected, following Calvin, Tractatibus theologicis, second part, class IV, opera, tome 7, pages 580-591.

Concerning Comets, whether they are to be considered as prognosticatory Signs of Evil, our AUTHOR at this end of this section declares his opinion briefly, but with vigor:  for the greater illustration of this matter, compare on the one side GISBERTUS VOETIUS’ Exercitationem de Prognosticis Cometarum, after the fifth part of his Disputationum theologicarum, pages 137-243, in which treatise, presenting wide and diverse reading, that Most Illustrious Man undertakes to prove and vindicate this twofold assertion:  I.  that Comets, without vanity, foolishness, or superstition, are able to be considered by pious minds as certain unusual works of God and sights in nature, foretelling or threatening men with certain grievous calamities.  II.  That from their appearance and sight, we are able and ought piously to be excited to the fear of God and His judgments:  in behalf of which assertions he adduces a cloud of witnesses of the highest worth ὁμοψήφων/siding with himself.  To Voetius add SPANHEIM the Younger in his Oratione de Cometarum Admirandis, found in book X of his Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquitatum, Oration XI, opera, tome 2, columns 1433 and following, where he specifically discourses concerning Comets, columns 1436-1438, and, with all superstition and particular predictions from Comets downplayed, he nevertheless believes Comets do not appear without the special direction of Deity, to presage Evils threatening the earth.  Read at the same time on the other side JOANNES GEORGIUS GRÆVIUS’[20] Orationem delivered at Utrecht on January 17, 1665, de Cometis; against the opinion of the commons, that Comets are heralds of Evil; which is found in the Orationibus Grævii, number IV, pages 103-142:  and BALTHASAR BEKKER’S Onderzoek van de Betekeninge der Cometen, in which treatise Bekker at length, and not altogether improbably, disputes against the predictive signification of Comets, being particularly unwilling that they be called heralds of Evil; with arguments taken from the nature of Comets, experience, and Sacred Scripture; seeing that Scripture makes no mention of Comets, and expressly prohibits the making of predictions from natural things beyond the revelation of God, especially from the inspection of the Stars, whence he thinks that those thinking the contrary sin.  That to these Scriptural reasons many things are still able to be set in contradiction, will be evident especially from a comparison with Luke 21, and from an inspection of the treatise of Voetius just now mentioned.  Concerning this matter MARESIUS briefly states his opinion, Systemate Theologico, the final locus, § 11, note a.  VRIESIUS in his notis on the Physiologia of Daniel Voet, book III, chapter III, § 25, has this:  To this pertains the inquiry concerning the prognosis, or signification, of Comets:  That is, whether they are heralds of evil, or not?  There do not appear to be reasons for affirming, on account of the arguments previously produced against Judicial Astrology.  Nevertheless, if we consult experience, even the most recent in our our country, we judge that it is by no means to be denied, that they are Signs of evils:  to which opinion is agreeable the continual and universal observation of the consent of all nations and writers.  But they act imprudently, who from Comets presume to determine, 1.  what sort of evil threatens; 2.  upon what cities or persons; 3.  within what definite period of time.  But JOHANNES REGIUS in turn is of a far different opinion, Principiis Philosophiæ theoreticæ, chapter XVIII, § 7, writing:  Comets, when they arise from natural causes, by no means portend an imminent calamity; and in vain, seeing that they are seen at the same time by the inhabitants of many regions, and that almost always this or that region is pressed by some evil, is an appeal made to experience, namely, that the evil came after the sight of the Comet:  for, it is not strange, that in this or that part of the world, filled with afflictions, some slaughter or calamity happens.  That Comets are not to be considered heralds of Evils also contends JOHANN JACOB SCHMIDT, in his German treatise called Bibelsche Mathematicus, part I, chapter VI; compare Boekzaal, January 1758, chapter II, pages 43-54.

[1] Genesis 1:14:  “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons (‎לְאֹתֹת֙ וּלְמ֣וֹעֲדִ֔ים), and for days, and years (‎וּלְיָמִ֖ים וְשָׁנִֽים׃)…”

[2] Solomon Glassius (1593-1656) was a German Lutheran divine and critic.  He was Professor of Divinity at the University of Jena.  His Philologia Sacra was a groundbreaking work in Biblical Hebrew.

[3] See Matthew 4:24; 17:15.

[4] Γενέθλιος signifies of one’s birthday.

[5] Priscillianism was a form of dualistic Gnosticism, rising in Hispania in the fourth century under the leadership of one Priscillian.

[6] Favorinus (c. 80-c. 160 AD) was a Roman sophist and skeptical philosopher.

[7] Aulus Gellius (c. 125-c. 180), a Latin grammarian, finds his principal value in the preservation of the quotations of earlier writers, which quotations would be otherwise lost.  He wrote Attic Nights, a collection of diverse notes on grammar, philosophy, history, etc., in twenty books.

[8] Aretes of Dyrrachius (circa third century AD) was a natural philosopher and chronographer.

[9] Linus was an ancient Greek poet.  It is said that he was the son of Amphimarus, son of Poseidon, and Ourania, the Muse

[10] This appears to be Dion of Naples, an ancient astronomer and mathematician, cited by Augustine, City of God, book XXI, chapter 8.

[11] Hipparchus (c. 190-c. 120 BC) was a Greek mathematician, astronomer, and geographer.  He is considered by some as the founder of trigonometry.

[12] King Alfonso X (1221-1284) cultivated the studies of history and science in his kingdom, himself being quite active in astronomy.

[13] Augustus reigned from 27 BC to 14 AD; Tiberius, from 14 to 37; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Vitellius, in 69.

[14] Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56-c. 117) was a Roman historian.  The information that he preserves about his era and its emperors is invaluable.

[15] Henry Savile (1549-1622) was an English mathematician and scholar.  He was part of the team that translated the Greek New Testament into English (Authorized Version).  Savile also translated and annotated Tacitus’ Histories.

[16] Marcus Vertranius Maurus (flourished late sixteenth century) was a jurist.  He composed annotations on Tacitus and Varro.

[17] Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 75- c. 130) was a Roman historian.  He wrote De Vita Cæsarum.

[18] Johann Jacob Schmidt (1710-c. 1769) was a Pomeranian Pastor, mathematician, and scientist.

[19] Henry More (1614-1687) was a Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge.  He was a learned divine and a Platonic philosopher.

[20] Joannes Georgius Grævius (1632-1703) was a German classical scholar.  He left the Lutheran for the Reformed Church, and served as Professor of Rhetoric at Duisburg (1656-1658) and then at Utrecht, later adding the disciplines of History and Politics (1661-1703).