Pus-mantia the mag-astro-mancer, or, The magicall-astrologicall-diviner posed, and puzzled by John Gaule ...

CHAP. IX.

9. From the strength of Reason.

1. ALthough some certain demonstrations, or demonstrative reasons (borrowed from Arithmetick, Geometry, and Opticks) may be conceded to Astronomie; because it is a Science that keeps it self to naturall motions, and measures, ends, and uses: yet whether all they ought to be usurped by, or allowed to Astrologie, in as much as it transgresses all these?

2. Whether (besides the exaction of a blind and implicite Faith) the rejection and derision of sound and explicite reason and demonstration (done by Magicians and Astrologers) be not a necessary demonstration of the vacuity or want of reason, to the Artists, or their Art?

3. Whether Reason be not superiour and predominant to the power of the Starres? For say (after their own order) the starres may have their influences upon tempers and humours; and so upon passions and affections; and so upon manners and actions; and so upon issues and events; yet Reason is not destitute of such means and succours, as may temper those humours, moderate those passi∣ons, prevent those actions; what then becomes of those events? Whom then will they make their Astrologicall Prognostications to be powerfull over, but sensuall men or knaves; or perswasive to, but unreasonable men or Fooles? For rationall men will still be argu∣ing, seeing the starres are not powerfull upon-reason, nor above it: how can their power stand against it?

4. If reason be predominant to Divination; nay, if it be made conducible to divining Predictions; why then have the most bruitish and barbarous people of all the world, been alwayes most addicted thereunto? Why durst it never peep forth among knowing Christi∣ans; save only in times of greatest ignorance and superstition; or else upon occasion of the discontinuance, or discountenance of good learning? And further, why are they reputed, and recorded to be most apt, as well as most frequent in Divinings and Prophesyings;

when Reason is most suspended, obscured, and debarred (as in sleeps, dreams, abalienations, distractions, phrenzies, furies.) Nay, why are they mostly observed, when breaking forth from the mouths of children, fools, mad-men, melancholy, fanatick, di∣straught, dying, &c?

5. Whether the New Astrologers are able to give better reasons for their divining or predicting art or faculty; than the old ones did? All which are either so false, as that they make nothing for them: or else so contrary, as that they make altogether against them. As consider them in those their arguments; If there be no presignification of things future, then there are no Gods. Were there many Gods indeed, they might be too many to keep counsell: but there is one God, who will admit no creature here to be his Counsellour. Again, then are they ignorant of future things. Per∣adventure such Gods may not know one anothers minds or intenti∣ons, or yet actions: but a God knows all things past, present, future, and is only known to himself; and it is sufficient for the being of any thing, that he himself alone knows it to be. Again, it is then because they are not able to declare them. In one God, his pleasure of revealing, is his power to reveal. Again, then they love not men. Gods love is to communicate himself to the creature accord∣ing to his will, and according to its kind. Again, else it is be∣cause they envy us this knowledge. Envy is at anothers good; and therefore not in him, that can see no good which is not his own. Again, or else it is because they think it pertains not to men to fore-know things to come: or that it befits not their divine Majesty to preacquaint humane creatures with then. These latter indeed are true assertions, of the true God; and irrefragable argumentations against any truth of a predicting or presaging art.

6. How will they answer an Heathen Philosopher thus questio∣ning them, or reasoning against them? shall we attend to the prae∣fation of irrationals, and inanimate; and not rest our selves satis∣fied with the confariation of reasonable men? what reason can more move to think all their divination to be nothing, than that they can give no reason for it? what reason can the Aruspex give▪ why the inspection of the liver or lights should design times and actions for lucky, or unlucky? What can the Augur, why a bird flying on the righthand, or on the left, should presage this or that for fortunate, or unfortunate? What can the Astrologer? why the starre of Jupiter, and Venus conjoyned with the Moon, should be

so benign to the birth of a child: and (on the contrary) that of Saturn and Mars, so malignant? Wherefore should they make God to be so busie, to instruct men sleeping: and so carelesly (as it were) to neglect men waking? And what reason is there▪for this? that Cassandra in a distracted fury, should foresee things future: which Priamus with all his collected prudence, and deliberate, cannot doe?

7. Whether this be a sufficient reason (to bear sway with rea∣sonable men,) That therefore so little reason is it to be rendred, for the Mysteries of Magick and Astrologie (as they call them) lest men might so slight them, as common things: and not value them as rarities, or unheard-of curiosities? Nay, because they want Reason, which is the main of every humane art; is it not therefore that they so universally and earnestly exact Faith: and such a faith as is proper only to a divine Faith?

8. Whether an Astrologers formall affirmation, be as good as an infallible demonstration? Else, why prove they it not by Reason, (divine, morall, naturall, yea, or artificiall) when they say, that such, or such a conjunction of the Planets, signifies innovation of Reli∣gion, removall of Churches, mutation of States, translation of Kingdomes, transmigration of Nations, deposition of Princes, al∣teration of Magistrates, persecution of Ministers, ruine of Fami∣lies, dissension of Lawyers, losse of Merchants, wrack of Mariners, breaking of Tradesmen, undoing of Farmers, desolation of Cities, depopulation of Countries, mortality of Men, murrain of Cattell, dearth of Corn, &c. And all these through heresies, sects, factions, blasphemies, profanations, impieties, hypocrisies, pride, ambition, covetousnesse, lusts, treacheries, conspiracies, seditions, tumults, con∣tentions, warres, battells, murders, thefts, robberies, oppression, fraud, dissimulation, hatred, envy, hunger, diseases, fires, waters, tempests, &c. And all these by Superiours, Inferiours, Neighbours, Servants, Children, Wives, Husbands, Kindred, Friends, Enemies, Strangers, &c. We know there may be innumerable such conse∣quences or casualties in the world, and that by such means or in∣struments: but how prove they that the Starres are either the Signs or Causes of them? If they put us off with this only, That the Disciples, and Auditors in Astrologie must be believers: Let them tell us from what necessity they impose this duty; otherwise they say nothing, or nothing but say, and so leave both our faith, reason, and senses unsatisfied.

9. Since (as they say themselves) the Influences of the Starres are ineffectuall; as neither apt, nor convenient to produce agreea∣ble effects, in the matter of Sublunary things; unless there be a proportionable, equall, or just measure and mixture in their irra∣diations; and that without either excesse, or defect: How then shall we believe them in their prognosticated effects; if such a proporti∣on (as they speak of) be not first demonstrated unto us?

10. Whether all such Astronomicall demonstrations, as are of pure Astronomicall effects from the staries (as of hot, cold, dry, and moyst) be any reall proofes (in Astrologie) of beneficall, and maleficall influences, of vertuous and vitious efficacies, of fortunate or unfortunate events? For as much as these differ, as naturall and preternaturall; as necessary and arbitrary, as consequentiall and casuall, &c.

11. Where are the influences of the starres received? and how? How can they by fair experience prove they are present in the ele∣ments? Must we trust the four corners of a Figure? is this all their evidence? thus we are taught to examine them by one of their own neighbours. And therefore they shall give me leave to question with them a little further. That Caelestiall vertue or efficacy, which either Causes or Signes such terrestriall effects as they pretend; whe∣ther is it created, or uncreated? If uncreated, how comes it in, or from the Stars? If created, where resides, or remains it all the while, untill it take effect? In the Conjunction of the Planets? Why that is not, because gone and past. In the party himself? Then hath every one the cause of his own fortune within himself; and so need thank no man (but himself) for his riches, peace, ho∣nour, preferment: nor yet blame any other, for his impoverishing, disgrace, wounds, and death.

12. Whether the influences of the Stars be a simple extract, or else a composirion; as it should seem by their conjunctions? And then, for as much as they impend, and operate at once, how can they tell to which of them they should particularly, and predomi∣nantly referre the effect?

13. If the influences of the Stars incline either to vertue or to vice; and their efficacies be propense either to recompense one, or other: why then are their constellations recorded to have been so malefick (for the most part) to the vertuous; and so benefick, to the vitious?

14. What power can the Stars have either in the determination,

or discrimination; of pure spirituall qualities (sc. affections honest, or dishonest; religious, or profane) in as much as they work but only from the matter, and but upon it only? And where they find the like matter, temper, constitution, complexion, &c. Why incline they not to the like qualities, and affections? And if they incline alike; why see we not (in common) the like actions, and effects?

15. If there be no Stars in the Heavens idle, or vacant; but that all of them have their influx, and operation upon these inferiors: and infinite of them (as Astronomers acknowledge) whose num∣ber; nature; and power, are altogether unknown (and the unknown aspects, positures, conjunctions, possibly thwarting, and impeding the known) And the known, not perfectly known; and if they were known never so exactly, yet not to be infallibly applyed to particulars; No nor yet with fair probability to be prenuntiated or pronounced upon: Can an effect be concluded for known, cer∣tain, probable, particular; from an unknown, uncertain, impro∣bable, generall cause, or means? Doe not they themselves say that the Stars operate by an occult quality (like to that of the load∣stane upon iron) by a secret sympathie or antipathie; by an insen∣sible influx, by a vertuall contract, and after an inexplicable man∣ner? Wherefore then are they so peremptory in pronouncing, or predicting: where they are so impotent and confused in apprehen∣ding; or expressing?

16. Either the Stars doe inflow, and imprest, yea portend, and signify perpetually; or not. If so; how then is it, that they are no more universally observed (as concerning all, or any) nay, why work, and sign they not at one time, as well as another; in one place, as well as another; to one person, as well as another; in one action, as well as another? If not; then how doe they it after natures or∣dinance and order; which is not only constant and continuall; but common, and generall?

17. If the Soul be not ex traduce, or drawn out of the matter (and consequently corruptible, and mortall) what power then can those materiall influences have over it; and over the powers of it?

18. Whether Magicall, and Astrologicall Figures be quantity; or quality? If quality (so much as logicall quality) thats not to be supposed but proved. And so proved, as that it arises not from a continuate quantity, or can be considered at all without it. Es∣pecially, when we speak of such a Figure, as is not an accident of a Body; but a meer lineary, and superficiall character. If it bee

quantity; then (as Logick concludes) it moves, or operates not: not of it self (because it only follows the sluggish▪ matter) save on∣ly as it is instrumentally acted.

19. How configurations, consisting only of intelligible angles, can be objects to any sensitive power? Or how the sensitive power, imagined in the elements, and all elementary things, can appre∣hend, without organicall instruments? It is their own question, let them answer one another.

20. If the naturall, and ordinary motions, and conjunctions of the Stars, be sufficient to prognosticate, and prenuntiate all manner of mutations, accidents, events: to what purpose then are all those prodigies, or apparitions, of Comets, blazing-Stars, doubled and tripled Suns, and Moons; apparitions in the ayr, of Angels, Devils, Men, Women, Letters, Cros••es, Crowns, Dragons, Dogs, Horses, Birds Fishes; Castles, Houses, Churches, Ships, Cities, Chariots, Armies, Swords, Spears, Bows, Arrows, Guns, Trumpets, voyces, monsters of sundry shapes, and hews: Besides showers of blood, inundations, earthquakes, ••ore breaking out of the earth; and monsters both of men, and beasts?

21. If Meteors, Comets, and apparitions in the clouds, and ayr may be, (as some of themselves have affirmed) but imaginary; or else but meerly naturall; and not only not portentous, but not significant; how much more then may it be so said, of their con∣junctions, constellations, configurations, &c.

22. Why are the new Stars (such as have neither cause, sub∣stance, quality, site, nor motion like unto the rest) sent (as they say) to portend great mutations, both in Church, and Common-wealth: if the common Stars, in their ordinary courses, be sufficient to such a purpose?

23. Whether the greatest mutations that have been in the world, have not happened, without the conjunction of the greater Pla∣nets? If it be so, (as some of themselves have not let to say) how are these then the proper causes of such effects; and signs for such predictions?

24 If there be a naturall, or an ordinary Art, teaching the pre∣saging or predicting of things future: why then did God super∣naturally, and extraordinarily inspire the gift of prophecy? give his prophets an extraordinary call, and office to that end? ordain cer∣tain speciall means and instruments to that purpose (the Ephod, the breastlate, the Urim, and I hummim) doe it by extraordinary

wayes of Angels, Revelations, Visions, Dreams, Extasies, Miracles, &c. And how chance the studying, or reading of the stars (if they be such a prophetick way, or means) are amongst none of these?

25. If a man may read the stars (as concerning all sublunary contingents) in letters, and legible characters (as some of them contend.) what then need there any going about the bush, or wan∣dring up and down in a star-gazing; by divine aspects, conjuncti∣ons, configurations, &c. But (in truth) can any of our magicall or astrologicall lecturers spell these things? Nay, doe they not ra∣ther both agree in this, to make a spell of them?

26. Whether (of fortuitous events) the stars be signes natu∣rall, or supernaturall? If naturall, why are they not causes, or effects? or connexed with causes, and effects? if supernaturall; where is the Revelation, whereby to fore-know? and the pro∣mise, whereby to believe? and why are they not more infallible in the designation? rather, why are they so fallible in the success?

27. Whether the prediction of a future contingent, be not an absolute contradiction? For how can it be properly called a con∣tingent, if it once be plainly foreseen, or certainly foretold? Be∣cause the nature and property of a meer contingent, is to be so, both in respect of the active, and of the passive power: viz. unknown, sudden, indeterminate, incogitate, rare, seldome alike, potentiall, not actuall, not necessary, from no naturall, or necessary cause. And all this yet more especially, when the externall contingent, or accident, depends upon the internall contingent, the arbitrariness, or liberty of the will, and actions.

28. How can a contingent be foreknown, or foreseen? that is, seen, before it be seen? In as much as the knowledge of such a thing is primarily, and directly to the senses: and but secondari∣ly, and accidentally to the understanding.

29. How the positions, and motions of the stars can either cause, or sign a future contingent? when as divine providence disposes of both these, after a quite contrary manner. For the positions and motions of the stars are disposed of according to a necessity; that they must needs so be; but future contingents are disposed of ac∣cording to a contingency; that they may be otherwise; or may not be at all. The Stars, as they are: so they work. Now what con∣gruity betwixt a necessary cause, and a contingent effect?

30. Are not Fate, and Fortune two contraries: and (respective∣ly) two inconsistencies? how then are the Stars the mistresses both

of Fate and Fortune, in one and the same effect? And how can there be one way of predicting a thing of absolute necessity: and of meer contingency?

31. For as much as the same Starres or Planets, have not the same aspects, or conjunctions, in all places; and some starres are to be discerned in one place, and not in another: Now then, must not the judiciall Astrologer make his judgement either from one place, and not from another? or else, must he not be in many places at once, to make his observation compleat? Or else, what judgement can he make?

32. Seeing the heavens, and starres are so distant; the eye-sight so infirm, and the senses so oft deceived in the proper object; and the Artists observation tyed up to one single and weak sense: Is it not now with starre-gazers peeping at the Planets; as with Saylors, to whom the Earth, Castles, Woods and Mountains doe seem to move? and as things single afarre off seem double; and black things white, or white things black; and as a straight oar part in the wa∣ter, and part out of it, appears crooked and broaken? what cer∣tain judgement then can here be to reason, from a solitary sense, so easily, and oft deceived?

33. Since things inanimate, or livelesse, are naturally sub∣ordinate, and subject to things of life; things lively, to things sensible; things sensible, to things reasonable; and things reasonable, to things spirituall: how comes it to passe, that men should be bound, and constrained by the starres; and Devills (through the starres) bound and compelled by Men? What reason can the Magician give for this binding of devills and Spirits? and the Astrologer, for this binding of men, and wills? For to me it seems unreasonable, rhat unreasonable creatures (such as the starres are) should have the Dominion, and power assigned over rea∣sonable Souls.

34. Whether both the swiftness, and the slowness of the starres motions, hinder not their influences, and impressions upon inferior and sublunary matters? at leastwise inhibit not the observation? above all, forbid not the prognostication thereupon? For if (as themselves have sayd) the heavenly bodyes move with such con∣citation and celerity, as to change their face ten thousand times a day: how is it possible there should either be any impression on the starres part, or observation on the Artists and art, in a transiency so imperceptible?

35. In as much as the starres move so rapidly, as in a poynt, or moment of time; and every point or moment of time makes an immense alteration in the heavens; and every point of alteration, is of moment to alter the Constellation; and the least altering of the Constellation occasions a vast aberration to the Calculator: Adde to all these how hard it is to observe, and compare the points and moments of the Childs birth: What point of discretion was it then, to make any matter of moment, of a Genethliacks calculation?

36. What naturall reason is to be rendred why the starres should be more notable for influentially operating, and efficaciously in∣clining at the point of the edition, parturition, or birth; and not ra∣ther in the generation, conception, formation, delineation, animati∣on, (besides the whole course of life and conservation) Since not in that, but in these is the great operation of the vitall spirits; the disposition, mixture, and temper of the Elements; the compositi∣on, constitution, union, and perfection of the whole? Will they have their Planets to respect more an extrinsecall act, than the in∣trinsecall; more an accidentall, and adventitiall, than the essentiall, and substantiall; more a lesse principall, than the more principall acts? Is not this somewhat semblable to that superstitious obser∣vation, for a man to measure his fortune or successe that day, by his first setting his foot over the threshold, or stepping forth of his own doors?

37. Whether doe those starres bear more sway, that rule at the beginning, or those that rule at the end of a business? would not one impute most to them, that are in force at the making up of the match? Wherefore then doe they teach men (not only so supersti∣tiously, but so preposterously) to look only to those starres that reign at the undertaking of an enterprize: and not to heed those rather that have the dominion at the dispatch?

38. Are the starres only signing things future, and not designing things present? And doe the ruling Planets enact decrees, and make lawes (contrary to all other Rulers) only to be in force, or take effect, after their own deposition, or decease? Else, how is it, that the conjunction, or constellation at the Birth, should be so power∣full at the death; it self being past, and as it were decreast long be∣fore? Suppose there be a malign and exitiall aspect at the Birth; and a benign and auspicious in the life, and so at the death: why may not the fortunateness of the latter, prevail so farre, as to pre∣vent the infortunity of the former? Unless it be so, that these Pla∣netary

dominations (I mean Aspects, Positions, Conjunctions, Con∣stellations) govern not by their present power, but by the lawes of their predecessors.

39. Whether the life and being of one mans nativity, be de∣pending, not upon his own, but upon the Constellation of another mans Nativity? For if it be not so, how then can the Caloulator or Birth-caster tell, that such a man shall have so many wives: or that such woman shall have so many husbands? but that the very lives of the one, must needs be subordinate, and subjected to the fortunes of the other?

40. Whether the Horoscope, or the Ascendant in the birth of one particular person, doth comprehend the judgement of the whole disposition of a Country, Kingdome▪ or World? Else, how can the fortunizing Genethliack foretell; that the child new born shall be a Traveller; shall live and dye in a Strange Country; shall have friends or enemies, abroad and at home; shall have losse or advan∣tage, by Sea or by Land? &c.

41. How can the starres be sayd so much as to dispose, or in∣cline unto common events; and such as depend upon, and follow multitudes? Have those multitudes (all of them) the same Con∣stellations: and they inclining to the same acts, and so ordinating to the same events?

42. Should not the same Aspects and influences be of the same vertues and operations? How comes it to passe then, that (during these) children are begotten and brought forth, not only of diffe∣rent complexions, proportions, feature, qualities: but (which is most different) sexes also? And how comes it to paste, that persons of d••••••••rent constitutions, complexions, tempers, humours, statures, features, qualities, dispositions, manners, religions, fortunes, fates; are born under the same Starrs, or starry conjunctions: and men of the same, or the like in all these; although born under divers and different Constellations? Because they say, that Whoremon∣gers are born under Venus, and Quarrellers under Mars, and Worldlings under Mercury, &c. will they say, that all are such, or so disposed, that are so born and that none are so, nor so disposed, that are born under other Planets?

43. How many hundreds and thousands have been slain at one battell, and dyed upon the place (although of severall Nations, constitutions, qualities, manners, religions.) Now had all those the same ascendant at their birth, that had the same fate at their death?

That so many have perished by water, so many by fire, so many by Pestilence, so many by Famine, so many by heat, so many by cold, so many by the Gallows, or other executions: will they now say, that all those had but one kind of Constellation?

44. What say they to those Twinns, born under the same Aspects and Constellations; and nevertheless of divers, nay of con∣trary tempers, manners, religions, conditions, ends? Such as were Jacob and Esau, in the Scriptures; The Twinns in Augustine, He∣ctor and Polydamus, in Homer; Proclus and Euristhenes, in Tul∣ly, &c. Let them not say, there may be difference in their conception: for Twinns are commonly of one conception, and superfetation (of all other) is most rare among mankind. Besides, whats that to the Constellation which they fix upon the birth?

45. What are they able to say to the unknown beginning of Cities, and Kingdomes; to the uncertain moments of conceptions, and parturitions; to adulterous mixtures in generation; to number∣less numbers born in the same moment, here and there; and yet of them some wise, some fools; some vertuous, some vicious; some beautifull, some hard-favoured; some high, some low; some rich, some poor; some healthfull, some sickly; some long-lived, some short-lived, &c.

46. Makes it not (in reason) most strongly against the credit of their Predictions, in that they themselves cannot but confess, that the decrees of the Stars are very often varied and changed by the circumstances of Regions, Religions, Lawes, Institutes, manners, commerces, Parents, educations, disciplines, times, places, &c.

47. If the Starres decree, dispose, guide, govern, impell, necessi∣tate mens actions (naturall, morall, civill, religious) what power of reason, and free-will? What necessity of Lawes and Magi∣strates? What justice of penalties? What merit of reward? Why then may we not (as some of the same Principles have done) ex∣cuse all other faults and offences (against either God, or men) from this their fatall necessitie?

48. Because some things may be certainly foreknown, and fore∣told▪ from the position, and motion of the starres; as Eclipses: some things also of probable consequence in part; as heat, cold, drought, rain, wind, &c. some accidents also to be conjectured in the generall; as Pestilence, diseases, barrenness, dearth, &c. Are there therefore the same grounds or reasons, to conclude peremptorily upon contingencies, arbitrary actions, casuall events, yea, and such

things as are reserved to Gods free pleasure and power?

49. VVhether it be not the Prognosticators failing of grounded reasons, rather than their failing in their feigned directions; that hath caused them to fail so often in their Prognostications or Pre∣dictions?

50. VVhether as the Magicians and Astrologers declaiming against Reason; argues the defect of reason: So, whether the defect of reason, argue not the defect of Art? For where Reason is not the ground or principle, it cannot be an Art, what ever be the experi∣ment or event?