The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 9
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 paſſions, 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 arguing, 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 Chriſtians; 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, diſtraught, 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. Peradventure ſuch Gods may not know one anothers minds or intentions, 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 according to his will, and according to its kind. Again, elſe it is becauſe 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 queſtioning them, or reaſoning againſt them? ſhall we attend to the praefation of irrationals, and inanimate; and not reſt our ſelves ſatiſfied 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 reaſonable 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 Religion, removall of Churches, mutation of States, tranſlation of Kingdomes, tranſmigration of Nations, depoſition of Princes, alteration of Magiſtrates, perſecution of Miniſters, ruine of Families, 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, contentions, 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 conſequences or caſualties in the world, and that by ſuch means or inſtruments: 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 agreeable effects, in the matter of Sublunary things; unleſs there be a proportionable, equall, or juſt meaſure and mixture in their irradiations; and that without either exceſſe, or defect: How then ſhall we believe them in their prognoſticated effects; if ſuch a proportion (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 elements? 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; whether 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, honour, 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 predominantly 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 number; 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, certain, probable, particular; from an unknown, uncertain, improbable, generall cauſe, or means? Doe not they themſelves ſay that the Stars operate by an occult quality (like to that of the loadſtane upon iron) by a ſecret ſympathie or antipathie; by an inſenſible influx, by a vertuall contract, and after an inexplicable manner? Wherefore then are they ſo peremptory in pronouncing, or predicting: where they are ſo impotent and confuſed in apprehending; 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 ordinance 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. Eſpecially, 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 only 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 apprehend, 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 conjunctions, conſtellations, configurations, &c.
22. Why are the new Stars (ſuch as have neither cauſe, ſubſtance, 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 Planets? 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 preſaging or predicting of things future: why then did God ſupernaturally, and extraordinarily inſpire the gift of prophecy? give his prophets an extraordinary call, and office to that end? ordain certain 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 wandring up and down in a ſtar-gazing; by divine aſpects, conjunctions, configurations, &c. But (in truth) can any of our magicall or aſtrologicall lecturers ſpell theſe things? Nay, doe they not rather both agree in this, to make a ſpell of them?
26. Whether (of fortuitous events) the ſtars be ſignes naturall, 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 promiſe, 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 contingent, if it once be plainly foreſeen, or certainly foretold? Becauſe 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 ſecondarily, 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 according to a contingency; that they may be otherwiſe; or may not be at all. The Stars, as they are: ſo they work. Now what congruity betwixt a neceſſary cauſe, and a contingent effect?
30. Are not Fate, and Fortune two contraries: and (reſpectively) 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 water, and part out of it, appears crooked and broaken? what certain judgement then can here be to reaſon, from a ſolitary ſenſe, ſo eaſily, and oft deceived?
33. Since things inanimate, or liveleſſe, are naturally ſubordinate, 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 reaſonable 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 concitation 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 inclining at the point of the edition, parturition, or birth; and not rather in the generation, conception, formation, delineation, animation, (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 compoſition, conſtitution, union, and perfection of the whole? Will they have their Planets to reſpect more an extrinſecall act, than the intrinſecall; 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 obſervation, 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 ſuperſtitiouſly, 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 powerfull at the death; it ſelf being paſt, and as it were decreaſt long before? 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 prevent the infortunity of the former? Unleſs it be ſo, that theſe Planetary dominations (I mean Aſpects, Poſitions, Conjunctions, Conſtellations) govern not by their preſent power, but by the lawes of their predeceſſors.
39. Whether the life and being of one mans nativity, be depending, 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 advantage, by Sea or by Land? &c.
41. How can the ſtarres be ſayd ſo much as to diſpoſe, or incline unto common events; and ſuch as depend upon, and follow multitudes? Have thoſe multitudes (all of them) the ſame Conſtellations: 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 different 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 Whoremongers 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 contrary tempers, manners, religions, conditions, ends? Such as were Jacob and Eſau, in the Scriptures; The Twinns in Auguſtine, Hector and Polydamus, in Homer; Proclus and Euriſthenes, in Tully, &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 numberleſs 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, neceſſitate mens actions (naturall, morall, civill, religious) what power of reaſon, and free-will? What neceſſity of Lawes and Magiſtrates? What juſtice of penalties? What merit of reward? Why then may we not (as ſome of the ſame Principles have done) excuſe all other faults and offences (againſt either God, or men) from this their fatall neceſſitie?
48. Becauſe ſome things may be certainly foreknown, and foretold▪ 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 Predictions?
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 experiment or event?