The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
7. From the Law of Nature.
1. WHether there be (by nature) impreſt in the Soul of man, a faculty proper for the preſaging of things future; or a naturall inclination tending to Divination? Is not the preſcience or praeviſion of future things convertible to the nature and eſſence of God: and therefore incompatible to the nature of any creature, in heaven or earth▪ Can there be the ſpecies of things future comprehended in, or by a mind, that is not divine, and infinite? Since therefore the Soul is not of ſuch infinite vertue; but that nature hath limited her to her own Law, of apprehending things, either by ſpeciall revelation, common illumination of reaſon, or ſenſible collection: how then hath the Ideaes, ſpecies, or Images, of all things (eſpecially things future) lodg'd in her? Thoſe imperfect Ideaes, ſpecies, or images that are in the mind; are they there properly? and not rather accidentally; ſc. from the apprehenſion either of ſome things preſent, or elſe paſt? we know there are in men ſenſes, to obſerve things preſent; and memory, to recollect many things paſt; and underſtanding, to preconceive ſome things that may come of certain cauſes, or may peradventure fall out according to probable conjectures: yea and Faith likewiſe, to believe what ſhall be by divine revelation and promiſe. But what naturall abſtract faculty call they that, that can foreſee, and foretell things future, from impreſt Ideaes, ſpecies, images, &c. What though there be in the Soul a naturall faculty (called memory) to record, or recall things paſt, is there therefore an oppoſite faculty (called who can tell what?) whereby to divine of things to come? If there were ſuch a faculty or power, oppoſite to memory; why ſhould it preſage or predict one future thing, and not another: ſince the memory is able to recollect one paſt thing, as well as another? What tell they us of the naturall pretenſions of Beaſts; and frequent predictions of Fools, mad men, Infants, of men ſleeping, dreaming, diſtracted, dying? will they make ordinaries, of extraordinaries; and univerſals, of ſingulars; and common motions, of heroicall: or elſe, ſubtilties, of phrenzies; ſagacities, of imbecillities; and direct preſages, of occult and confuſed inſtincts? What if brutes have a naturall inſtinct, or pretenſion of ſome future effects, whoſe cauſes notwithſtanding they underſtand not: muſt a reaſonable Soul therefore naturally divine of thoſe things, whoſe naturall cauſes it knows not? But admit there were ſuch a naturall impreſt faculty of the Soul or mind, as ſpecies abſtracted, or collected within it ſelf, to divine, predict, or prognoſticate by: we then urge their own argument againſt themſelves; what need it to look out to the Stars, or to any other creature (in heaven or earth) to that end and purpoſe? One thing indeed both we, and they are convinced of; that there is in all our Souls a naturall faculty (called Conſcience) greatly addicted to preſaging: which (if it be juſtly judging, and not erroneouſly opining) will preſage more directly, and certainly of effects, and conſequents (temporall, ſpirituall, eternall, good, bad, happy, unhappy, of hopes, and fears) than can all the Planets, although they conſpired to prognoſticate in one conjunction. Let our Planetarians therefore (both actors, and conſulters) ſee to it, that they ſuppreſs not within themſelves, nor ſlight that true preſaging power.
2. Whether that humane Art can be lawfull and laudable (as having the leaſt part of Gods gift in it) whoſe principles, practices, and profitable uſes are not according to the Law, and orders of nature? For all things in nature, as they are from a certain beginning ſo are they deſtinated by proper means, to a profitable end. Now though ſome ſuch things may be yeelded to ſimple Aſtronomie: yet who can make any of all theſe plainly appear in ſophiſticated Aſtrologie? As nature in it ſelf intends the conſervation of every creature: ſo all that it can intend in any Art, is the uſefulneſs and benefit to humane Society. (For it askes more than natures aym, to make it advantagious to Chriſtian comm… nion.) But let them prove the firſt; otherwiſe, why may we not conclude the Art, to be as well unnaturall, as irreligious?
3. If (from natures firſt beginning) they of the leaſt life (among the lower creatures) had their perfect being, and flouriſhing, without any influence of the Stars: why then are they of the nobler life, made ſo mightily (both for their ſubſtance, and quality) to depend upon them? Now, who (that is Chriſtian, or but read in Gods book of nature) dares deny, but that all the vegetables (Graſſe, Herbs, Plants, Gen. 1.) were, and flouriſhed in their naturall vigor, and vicacity, ere that the Sun, Moon, or Stars, was created? Now muſt the moſt excellent creature upon earth be made to conſiſt by the Stars; and his body to thrive, or dwindle away, according to the benefice, or malefice of their influences? Nay, muſt his very will and affections thence take their inclination?
4. Whether it be not according to natures law and order, that the inanimate, and irrationall creatures be ſubject, and ſubſervient to the animate, and rationall? and whether the contrary be not contrary thereunto? Now if they had not been put to this plunge of natures irregularity; peradventure we had never heard of thoſe erronious, nay and hereticall devices, of the Stars being animate, rationall, divine. But if they think to elude us, with urging the naturall ſubjection or ſubordination of the Inferior creatures, to the Superior; we doe them to wit, that the ſuperiority and inferiority of the creature (as pertaining to this point) is to be reckoned not from the externall place, or poſiture, but from the internall gift or endowment. The creature of Gods Image, although walking here below, upon the foot-ſtool, is ſuperiour to all thoſe works of his ſingers, although fixt in the firmament, or wandring above. Neither doth nature prefer any creature for its adventitials, or accidentals; but for its ſubſtantials or eſſentials. By the Law of nature, the leſſe noble creatures are intended for ſubordinate to the more noble. How came the Stars then to uſurpe a juriſdiction over Man; over the Soul of that Man; nay over the arbitrary, yea and religious actions of that Soul? Who but a blind man would make the Maſter of the family to be ſubſervient to the lights of his houſe? Seeing the Law of nature is the dictate of reaſon; how came the Stars (that have no reaſon) to give magiſteriall, and fatall dictates, even to reaſon it ſelf?
5. Whether Nature be not as much abuſed, in her occult mirables, by men diabolicall: as ſhe is in her obvious ſenſibles, by men beſtiall? Nay is ſhe not doubly profaned by ſuch, who are themſelves, as over-curious in the firſt: ſo over-groſſe in the laſt?
6. Whether the naturall efficacies of the Stars can extend beyond their naturall properties? which are to make hot, or cold; dry, or moyſt; more, or leſſe: and ſo to make ſecond qualities, conſequent only to theſe firſt.
7. If this be not all the influentiall motion of the Stars (at leaſt the main thereof) not ſo much to infer or adde any quality of ſympathy, or antipathy (which doe follow naturally the ſpecifick, or differentiall forms) but rather to agitate them only as it finds them, in the matter it works upon?
8. Whether there be any thing in Nature, whereby to determine of things by accident? Since the operation of nature, as it proceeds from one principle (the form of the thing naturall) ſo it alſo terminates upon ſome one thing. Now things by accident, are not ſimply one, but many: and therefore cannot be preciſely of natures intent, or deſign.
9. Whether it be not quite contradictory to the nature of future contingents, to be fore-comprehended by any created intellect (without a ſpeciall divine revelation, o… permitted diabolicall ſuggeſtion) either in their univerſall cauſes, or particular effects?
10. Whether Aſtrologicall divinations be not only againſt the courſe and order of nature in the inferior world: but againſt the order of nature among the Stars themſelves? For God hath not (in the order of nature) inſtituted them to be ſigns, where they are not naturall cauſes; nor yet conjunct ſigns, where they are not conjunct cauſes. And who can poſſibly proove them to be ſuch, as concerning arbitrary actions, and fortuitous events?
11. Whether prognoſticating Aſtrologers have not made to themſelves more effects, than ever were Signs; more Signs, than ever were Stars; more Stars than ever were in heaven; and more heavens, than ever were in nature?
12. Whether all the naturall motions of the Stars are prognoſticall, yea, or no? If ſo; then doe they one contradict another. If no, them let them them ſhew us the reaſon, why one, and not another?
13. Whether not only the benignity of the Planets, but alſo the malignity be naturall to them? If ſo; how can that be, without ſome reflexion of prejudice, upon their nature, nay upon their Author? If not▪ then work they not ſo and ſo of themſelves; but as they find the matter it ſelf ſo and ſo diſpoſed. Are we then to reſpect (either in congratulating or deploring) the Planets efficacies, or our own diſpoſitions? But are the Stars now of another nature, than they were from the firſt creation? For then they were wholy benign, and naturally intended for the beauty, and felicity of the univerſe. And doe they now naturally promiſe good? (and good morall, as well as naturall?) and naturally threaten evill? (and e…ill of infection, as well as infliction?) How can this chuſe but diminiſh the due reſpect, both to Gods free grace; and ſins juſt deſert?
14. Whether the prodigious aſpects in the heavens (Planetary, as well as Cometary) be not beſides the courſe and order of nature: as well as the monſtrous are upon the earth? And whether, a… theſe be ſeldome ſignificative of things to come, but for the moſt part of things paſt: they be not ſo too?
15. If the efficacies of the Stars be from nature, and naturall cauſes; why then have they not the like effects, upon Godly, and upon wicked men? For natures law, order, operation, is common to both alike. If they have ſo; wherefore is this old, and late aſſertion of theirs? That the Stars have not the dominion over thoſe that be godly. And if this holds, wherefore are their Aſtrologicall predictions, and genethliacall calculations, more malignant, and unfortunate (as is frequent to be obſerved) to good men, than to bad?
16. Whether the influences of the Stars be powerfull over the lives and deaths of all other living creatures (Beaſts, Birds, Fiſhes, Worms, Flys, Herbs, Trees) as well as of men? If on men only; why ſhould men be made more ſubject to the Stars, than all other living creatures? If otherwiſe; why have ſome of them ſaid the contrary? Nay, why goe they not about to calculate all other creatures nativities? Think they it an abaſement of their art, to calculate the Nativity of a Frog, or a Flye? nay, would it not much amplify the perfection of it. But ſay, both are ſubject; men, and Beaſts; Why then ſhould not men (as the reſt of the creatures) reſt ſatisfied with a ſenſible prognoſtication within themſelves: and never trouble themſelves to ſeek after a ſenſeleſs Prognoſtication from any other?
17. Whether the Stars have their influences, as upon all naturall things: ſo likewiſe upon all artificiall? If not upon all artificiall things (beſides their own gain-ſaying) then man hath many of his ordinary actions, without any influence of the Stars. If upon all artificiall things; (as Cities, Houſes, Garments, Inſtruments, Utenſils, &c.) then, muſt not their influences depend upon mens arbitrary actions; as all theſe doe? nay muſt they not have new influences daily, according to the new inventions of art, or devices of artifice?
18. Whether the formative power of nature concurs moſt, with the influences of the Stars: or with the …eed of generation? And whether the firſt and greateſt cauſe of tempers, ſhould not be obſerved firſt and moſt; as the firſt and greateſt cauſe of manners?
19. Whether the influences of the Planets be more powerfull over mens nature, before the Birth, or after it, or juſt upon it? If juſt upon it; how can thoſe ſwift ſyderiall motions make ſo intimate, and totall impreſſion an once? How can ſuch an efficacy either be done, or ſuffered, in ſo ſhort, externall, and accidentall an art? If not juſt upon it; why then is all the obſervation upon thoſe points, minutes, or moments only? If before it, why goe they not about to calculate the conception, as well as the Nativity? If not before it, why ſhould the Planets have ſuch influences upon externalls, and accidentalls; that had none upon the intervalls, and eſſentialls? If after it, how can they beget humours, and qualities, (anſwerable to their Conſtellations) in a creature already compleated, and furniſhed before-hand? Yea, why conſider they not what conſtellations upon nutrition, education, and erudition? If not after it, then have nutrition, education, and erudition a power to change or alter both tempers and manners; without, beyond, and againſt all influences of the Stars: yea, and religion, more than all the reſt.
20. Whether the nativity of an Infant be under one, or many; the like, or different conſtellations? Seeing Nature ordinarily brings not forrh at once, but by delayes and degrees. Firſt, the head comes forth, and ſo one part and member after another, even unto the feet. Now then ſeeing the parts of the body move not ſo ſwiftly out of the womb; as the heavenly bodyes doe in their orbs: why ſhould there not be one Conſtellation upon the head of the child that is born, another upon the neck, and ſo of the ſhoulders, the breaſt, the belly, the thighs, the legs, the feet: and they all as different in themſelves; ſo alſo in their ſignifications?
21. How comes it to paſs that Twins (as Jacob and Eſau, Proclus and Euriſthenes) are of different natures, or conſtitutions, conditions, fortunes, fates or ends; although born under one conſtellation or conjunction? If they have got Nigidius Figulus his device, and ſo can allege, that the ſwift motion of the heavenly bobies, may alter the conſtellation, and cauſe the variation. May not the birth of one oft-times be as ſlow, as the birth of twain? and why not then the like variation alſo. If it be from the delay that is between the birth of the Twins; then, whether is that delay alwayes alike: and the difference accordingly? or if it be ſometimes in their birth; whether is it likewiſe in their conception? Nay, how can there be any exact obſervation (although it be but in the birth of one) if the ſwiftneſſe on the one part, and the ſlowneſs on the other be well examined? If they ſay, the difference betwixt the Twins, may be by reaſon of the difference in their conception; why then doe they never bring that into their calculation? Is not the moment of the conception more conſiderable (for naturall impreſſions) than the birth? But how ſhall they know that, ſince ſhe that bears, knows it not? Or how pretend they to gheſſe at it from the Nativity: ſince that may fall out (from the conception) ſeven, eight, nine moneths; more or leſs?
22: Whether Aſtrologie be of any naturall uſe, ſo much as to Phyſick? eſpecially, according to the Magicall application of it, by Periapts, Amulets, Charms, Characters, Words, Figures, Alligations, ſuſpenſions, &c? Likewiſe (to cure the diſeaſes of old, or young) by chooſing a Planet convenient to their age. As for the old men Saturn; for young men Mercurie, &c. Likewiſe in chooſing Signs convenient to the part affected. As for the diſeaſes in the head, Aries: for thoſe in the feet, Piſces, &c. As alſo in the ſuperſtitious obſervation of Criticall dayes, in which ſuch a Planet governs, as may be moſt apt to repell the diſeaſe, &c. Concerning all which, let them ſee to the refutations of learned Phyſicians.