2 STATE AND PROSPECTS OF ASTROLOGY. reason from them; or "the doctrines of astrology" may be defined as all that which the stars shew or import, Karà λóyov, agreeably to reason. Now reason itself must be, and is, founded on observed facts; for if we have no known facts, we cannot reason on any subject whatever: and certain facts being observed, touching the motions and situations of the stars, to be invariably accompanied or followed by certain events on earth, mankind, by the purest exercise of reason, came speedily to conclude that, of the two things, one was the cause and the other the effect the stars the former, the events the latter. True, the two things might not be related as cause and effect, but then their invariable concurrence compelled the conclusion that they were both the effect of a common cause. And this conclusion embraced the idea that the stars were merely the type, sign, or signal of the concurring event; and that led to the farther conclusion, that the common cause of both, the stars of heaven and the events on earth that accompanied their motions, &c., was no other than the great First Cause of all things. So that the first astrologers, the first men who reasoned of the stars, were the first divines; the first, in fact, who taught by irresistible logic, founded on the combined observations of celestial and terrestrial facts, the all-important doctrine, that there was ONE GOD, "above all, and before all things." Such has ever been the case in all nations who have emerged from barbarism in the slightest degree: the divines, or priests, have ever been Astrologers. The fact of the priests of oriental nations having been Astrologers (as they still are among the Buddhists, whose numbers are equal to the whole population of Europe), among the Indians, Phoenicians, Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians, &c., is so patent, so undeniable, that we shall not stop to quote the evidence. But we will shew how they came to be called WISE MEN; a term not yet entirely out of use. It was the custom of the ancient priests or astrologers to hie themselves to a hill or "high place," that they might conveniently observe the stars, watch their motions, and contemplate their positions, thereby to judge of their effects. In plain countries, where no natural elevations offered, towers were erected for this purpose. And although the word to watch or contemplate, to survey carefully by the eye, came to be applied figuratively to a tower, among the Hebrews and subsequently among the Greeks, as it is at this day with us, who call some kinds of towers "look-outs," or "watch-towers," the Hebrew term UN, ASH-PHE, an astrologer, came to be corrupted to, or to be equivalent to D, or ETZ-PHE*, a watch* From this is derived the English word espy. STATE AND PROSPECTS OF ASTROLOGY. 3 man. In numerous words of that language the initial letter was dropped, as in this case, and hence the word was sounded zephe, or zo-PHE, or in the plural, ZOPHIM (see Numb. xxiii, 14), the watchmen; signifying the astrologers, or WISE MEN, originally; as is clearly shewn by the Greek corruption of the term into ropol, SOPHOI, the WISE MEN (being the same word with a Greek ending), who "were wont, on such high hills (as Numb, xxiii, 14), to observe the course and motions of the heavens*" In course of time the pure practice of astrology, observing the heavens and judging their effects, was corrupted into the worship of the heavens, or ZABAISM; and eventually into idolatry, or the worship of images, which were made to resemble some of the qualities of the particular planets, &c., in honour of which they were set up. At first, men began to attribute the effects they saw the stars produce to their, the stars' powers, as gods or demons of an inferior rank to the great Creator himself, whose majesty was soon lost sight of; and thence arose, eventually, a multitude of idols and unspeakable absurdities. One of the strangest of these seems to have been the worship of a large black stone, which prevailed in many parts of the eastern world, and still does prevail. We conceive that this was connected with the worship of HERMES (Mercury, who derived his Greek name from the Hebrew EREM, to cheat), to whom we find a temple erected, named BITH EREM (Josh. xiii, 27), i. e., to the god of fraud and cheatery; such being the character of persons born under his influence: whence the Greeks afterwards called him the god of thieves. The same word signified to cast or throw stones, &c.; and it was reckoned a piece of honour done him to cast or throw a stone at the foot of his statue. Now, as Mercury rules over and influences all the mental operations, and as arithmetic was carried on by the aid of small stones, whence the Latin word for a pebble stone, calculus, gave a name to calculator, a caster-up of accounts, we may easily perceive how the worship of the stone had originally reference to the planet Mercury†. When religion, or the first acknowledgment of a God, had been corrupted into idolatry, the idea that the planets and stars were themselves a species of demons, or inferior gods, still prevailed very extensively. And we learn from the learned rabbi, Maimonides, that the general faith among the Hebrews was, that they were mediators between the Deity and his creatures ⚫ Gale in the Court of the Gentiles, part ii, 2. Vicentius Belovacensis tells of Indian nations who go round their idols and cast stones on a heap, at the vernal and autumnal equinox. From them the Arabs seem to have derived the custom; for it is still observed, in some form, by the Hadgees, or pilgrims returning from Mecca. 4 STATE AND PROSPECTS OF ASTROLOGY. on earth. This learned Jew, Maimonides, declares that "the error of the first idolators consisted in maintaining that, as the stars and planets (CHOCHABIM and UGELAGELIM) were created by God to govern the world, so it was his pleasure that they should be honoured and worshipped as his ministers; and that, accordingly, men proceeded to adore them, in order to procure the good will of Him who created them; thus making them mediators between man and God;" and "this," says he, 66 was the foundation of idolatry*." This doctrine of the ancient Hebrew learned men was that of all the principal philosophers of Greece also. Plato says, "every demon is a middle being between God and man." And "God is not approached immediately by man, but all the commerce and intercourse between gods and men is performed by the mediation of demons." Again; "demons are reporters and carriers from men to the gods, and again from the gods to men; of the supplications and prayers of the one, and of the injunctions and rewards of devotion from the other." Plutarch and Apuleius teach the same doctrine, which was the philosophy of the Apostles' times; and to it St. Paul alludes (1 Cor. x, 20) when he says that "the Gentiles sacrifice dapovios, that is to demons; by which he certainly did not mean "to devils," as the words are translated, but to certain powers of the heavens, for such was the real meaning of Saipovia, demons; as is plain from numerous passages in scripture, where the SEPTUAGINT writers have used the word to signify not devils but powers or intelligences of material nature. Thus, Ps. xci, 6, they say the "mid-day demon;" Ps. xcvi, 5, “all the gods of the Gentiles are demons:" given in our version as "idols." And so we find Moses forbidding the Hebrews to continue to sacrifice to demons, Lev. xvii, v. 7. And again; Jeroboam ordained priests for the demons, 2 Chron. xi, v. 15. In our version the word is devils; but the original word is SHOIRIM, which the Septuagint generally render by Sapovia, i. e. demons, as they do in Isaiah xiii, v. 22, and xxxiv, v. 14, which our translators call "dragons" and "satyrs." This word is thus called "idols," "devils," "dragons," "satyrs," and "gods;" though the Septuagint translators adhere mostly to one term, demons, as they *This idea of their being ministers is beautifully expressed Ps. ciii, v. 21, whence David evidently entertained it. "Bless Jehovah all ZABAIU, his hosts [of stars], his SERVANTS, who do his pleasure." And that "hosts" did not signify "angels," as some may say, is evident by David having in the previous verse said, "Bless Jehovah, ye, his "mighty angels," where the word used is MELAKIU, who are said to "hearken unto the voice of Jehovah," indicating a superior office. We believe that MELAKIU, which signifies kings or leaders, applied to the "mighty ones," viz. the sun, moon, and planets, and that ZABAIU meant the numerous hosts of fixed stars, who are treated as inferiors or servants, yet who do his WILL or PLEASure. STATE AND PROSPECTS OF ASTROLOGY. 5 knew what it signified, which our translators evidently did not. In Lev. xvii, v. 7, and 2 Chron. xi, v. 15, the LXX render the word DY, SHOIRIM, by mataiois and mataion, signifying vanities. But there is no doubt that they used the word demons to signify the powers of the heavens, for they so render the word SHEDIM (Psalm cvi, v. 37), "the pourers forth," or genial powers of Nature; to which David says the Israelites sacrificed their sons, &c.; and also the same word occurs in Deut. xxxii, 17, the passage being literally, "they sacrificed OT, LESHEDIM, "to the pourers forth" by whom, says Mr. Parkhurst, "the idolators meant the great agents of Nature, or THE HEAVENS*." It was, says the learned Mede, "the very tenet of the Gentiles, that the sovereign and celestial gods were to be worshipped only pura mente, with the pure mind, and with hymns and praises; and that sacrifices were only for demons." Such was the theology of Thales and Pythagoras, the academics and stoics, and only the epicures or ATHEISTS taught otherwise; they referring all things to chance and the fortuitous concurrence of atoms! When the Athenians, Acts xvii, 18, opposed St. Paul, they said "he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange demons," not "gods," as our translators have it; for in 1 Cor. x, 20, they render the same word devils." It surely could not signify both. This idea of the character of the heavenly bodies, viz. as mediators, because ministers of the Deity, was the foundation of Zabaism, or the worship of the stars; and, as already set forth, it laid the way for the introduction of idolatry. It is clearly still in existence, though modified, among the Catholics, who worship the ministers of God, or, in reality, demons, whom they call saints, and of whom Hesiod, one of the most ancient pagan writers, speaks, and with whom Plato agrees, and says, "when good men die they attain great honour and dignity, and become demons; and "we ought for ever after to serve and adore their sepulchres as the sepulchres of demons." Only substitute for "demons" the word "saints," and we have the true and veritable catholic doctrine. Alas! there is nothing new under the sun in PRIESTCRAFT. "CHANCE" has got a new name now; for as our modern philosophers will not acknowledge that every thing arises from the action of "that chain of natural causes of which the heavens were the chief," and which upholds the necessity of an over-ruling Providence-the very essence of christianity-which teaches us that "not a sparrow falleth to the ground" without it-and as they dare not acknowledge CHANCE-the very essence of atheism—why, they cleverly avoid the difficulty by adopting the term "coincidence." "Things do not happen by chance;" oh, no! * Heb. Lexicon, p. 721. 6 STATE AND PROSPECTS OF ASTROLOGY. say they, "but they merely happen as coincidences." Thus they get away from the philosophy of cause and effect, at the same time that they evade christianity, or the doctrine of Providence, and bow down the gift of human reason before this bastard atheism, less noble than even the fortuitous concurrence of atoms. If we may be thought severe in these strictures, we would beg the reader to turn to page 958 of the Athenæum, published 23d Sept. last, for an illustration of the reality of what we say. The men who deny Providence by incidental argument, who uphold the doctrine of "coincidence," and that "accidental," are not far from palpable denial of that christian principle. Speaking of the cholera, the writer declares that "it has been the habit of pious ignorance to attribute such visitations to an over-ruling Providence, whose fiat we could not control, and to whose power we must submit with humility." Why, yes; we have been accustomed to attribute all such and all other "visitations" to Providence; aye, to an "over-ruling Providence ;" and our "pious ignorance" has led us to consider that the denial of the obligation of His creatures "to submit with humility" to His "power" is near akin to "flat blasphemy." What avail confessions of His existence, if we, like the Epicurean atheists, deny, in this way, His "over-ruling Providence?" We never doubted that the Providence we worship brings about the ends He purposes by means; that is, the regular course of nature. Yet that course He may, and does, probably, interfere with occasionally; for, to compare great things with small, Nature may be likened to a watch, which the maker, having regulated, leaves to pursue its course; yet may he occasionally see fit to accelerate or retard its move ments. But this daring writer goes on to say, 66 we now know, not only what are the conditions under which epidemic cholera is developed, but that those conditions are avoidable by art." Yet he, with most imbecile and ludicrous inconsistency, is compelled to admit, a few lines farther on, that "the best observers are yet uncertain whether cholera depends [depend] on a contagion generated in the body or not." How, then, in the face of such an admission, in the very teeth of the fact that this "visitation" has swept away its tens of thousands, in spite of all the efforts of all the men of science in Paris, Petersburgh, and a hundred other cities, can this same scribe assert that, "destructive as is this terrible disease, it is entirely under the control of human agency?" Our readers will remember that it is in a critical journal we find this jumble of folly and blasphemy; and they will not be |