To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
XI. From the pooreness of Suppositions.
1. IS not that a poor Art, whose very principles run a begging? being nothing else but bare Hypotheses, Suppositions, Po∣stulates, Petitions, craved Concessions, implored admissions, bargained beliefs, and (to use the Apostles phrase) weak, and beggarly elements, or rudiments. Yea, I may say further, not only in his phrase, but according to his scope, Philosophie, and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the Elements, or rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, Col. 2. 8.
2. Whether such Hypotheses, or suppositions, as may be con∣ceded to Astronomie; for necessary, and usefull intents: ought to be indulged, or licensed to Astrologie; for unnecessary, vain, and vile ends?
3. Why may we not say of the Astrologers, as they say of the Alchymists: That they take true or probable Hypotheses from o∣ther Arts; and make false and impossible inferences u••••n them, in their own?
4. Whether that saying may not more aptly be spoken of Ma∣gicall Astrologie, than of any other art besides? One absurdity be∣ing supposed, or granted, a thousand absurdieies will ••ollow upon it. And as every peradventure yea, may be answered with a per∣adventure nay: so why may not every suppose so (especially in this Astrologie) be answered with a suppose otherwise?
5. Whether (in any art or science whatsoever) a bare Hypothe∣sis, or sole suppositary argument, may not gratis, and with the same facility and authority, be denyed, as it is affirmed? Nay and eftsoons with more reason; namely, when it is meerly supposititi∣ous; and neither of a thing divine, rationall, naturall, necessary, possible, probable, known, received, undeniable, universally true, proving it self? but the contrary in most, or all: Not orthodoxall, but paradoxall, heterodoxall, adoxall; not determinate, but con∣fused; not to be understood or apprehended at first proposing; not proved, or approved; not having in it any thing like to demon∣stration; but corrogating gratis, fraudulently bargaining, infinite∣ly borrowing, impudently begging, &c.
6. Why an Hypothesis that should be of a thing possible, pro∣bable, demonstrative, convenient, facile, direct, evident, and ten∣ding only to explore, infer, and explain truth; should be absurd∣ly imagined, and arrogantly corrogated, for the planting, or pro∣moting of error, and falshood?
7. Besides that their principles are granted by themselves to be but meer suppositions, or imaginations; how many of them are erected by some, and rejected by others? Rejected (I mean) by themselves, for entia rationis, Egyptian stars, Ptolemeick hypo∣theses, fictitious Chymaera's, figments of mens brain, monsters of nature, devious extravagants, adventitious fancies, &c.
8. Whether the supposition or imagination not only of sphears,
orbes, circles, semicircles, poles, poynts, lines, arches, angles, ex∣centricks, epicicles, &c. in the Heavens; but of Buls, Bears, Goats, Rams, Dogs, Dragons, Fishes, Serpents, &c. nay and of heads, tayls, faces, backs, hearts, hands, eyes, armes, shoulders, &c. right, left, &c. be not much like to the boyish fancying of forms, and faces in the clouds?
9. Wherefore should the Artists feign to themselves, or suppose so many circles, lines, triangles, quadrates, &c. in the Starry Hea∣vens; ••••en as there are not to be observed (to any sensible view) three Stars or more in all the firmament, that stand in an equall proportion to any such like frames, or signs?
10. May not their twelve Houses of the Zodiack be (not amiss) called so many Castles in the ayr? what reedish nay strawy, suppositors doe they stand upon? Suppose a man will not admit of such imaginary supporters, or props of imagination (for what may compell him?) will not then their whole machination, or fabrick of judiciall Astrologie fall to the ground? Seeing the judge∣ment depends upon them, and they upon supposititious circles, and angles.
11. Whether their own feeble, and feeble hypothesis of the Stars magnitude (some so much bigger one than another, some so much bigger than the whole earth, some less by so many degrees;) As also of their motion (some of them not fulfilling their courses, or periods, but in so many years; yea scores, hundreds, and thousands of years) be not enough to overthrow and confound the conjun∣ctions they speak of, their judgement upon those conjunctions, and their experience upon that judgement?
12 Where there is but a supposition, upon a supposition; or a probability, but upon a probability: is not there the latter pro∣bability, or supposition, still more unprobable, and less to be sup∣posed? As first to suppose a child to be born under such a con∣stellation; then to suppose that constellation to beget such hu∣mours; then to suppose those humours to dispose to such man∣ners; and then to suppose such manners to be urging to such events. Are not all these hard to be supposed (either at once, or one after another:) seeing they may all of them be so easily impedited, from the first to the last? And are not all these sound rules, and strong proofs of judiciall Astrologie, that are not to be proved, unless they be supposed?
13. Whether of all the suppositions in Magick and Astrologie,
these be not most superstitious and ridiculous? First to suppose the Stars to be of such and such figures; then to suppose those figures to be so and so efficacious; then to suppose those very figures to have a similitude or resemblance to things of like figure here below; then to suppose that the similitude or resemblance makes the constellation effectuall between them; and lastly to suppose such a constellation to be effectuall to such and such purposes.
14. What a delusive art, or practice is that; which so many suppositions or concessions can bring to no reall effect? For suppose or grant there were some efficacies of the Stars in a mans nativity; yet how can they certainly collect it? Suppose a Mathematician already prepared, not only with his rules within him, his directions before him, but his tools about him; yet how many motions of his are but delays, letting slip the first and imperceptible motions of the Stars? Suppose him perpetually peering and gazing; yet how rapidly and concisely is all past, in less than the twinckling of his eye? Suppose his accurate division of so many sixties, into so many sixties; yet in which of the sixties will he have the mo∣ment of the nativity to consist?
15. Whether (seeing all the learning of Judiciary Astrologie consists so mainly, if not only in supposition) any such learning be to be supposed in it; as may make the Artists so arrogatingly sup∣pose themselves learned above all others? and arrogantly boasting their corrogating arts absoluteness and perfection; above all other arts, and sciences? when as all other well grounded sciences have their proper principles, axioms, maxims, theoremes, common rules, &c. and those universall, true, certain, irrefragable, undoubted, under∣stood at first utterance, prooving themselves, well known to all, denyed by none, &c. whereas this their art is glad to suffice it self with hollow hypotheses, precarious postulates, and simulated suppositions. No marvell! they should strut it so proudly, that know not how to appear, but in borrowed feathers. Or that they should (in a bravado) offer to challenge all men; that first are fain so poorly and sneakingly, to crave their weapon at every mans hands.