The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
8. From the order of Cauſes.
1. VVHether, becauſe Aſtronomicall obſervations, and Predictions may be true, and lawfull; being Phyſicall, and having their naturall cauſes: therefore the Aſtrologicall muſt be ſo too? Being (as is their own word) anaitiologicall; or not having any naturall cauſe at all.
2. Of all the cauſes of humane actions, and accidents (God, Angells, Devills the will of mans mind, the temperature of his body, externall violences, accidentall occurrences, and the ſtarres influences) whether theſe laſt (of all the reſt) be not the moſt remote, and feeble in their operation?
3. Whether the Artiſts, in their Predictions ought not to moderate themſelves (if the Art may admit of moderation) according to this known order, and received diſtinction of cauſes? 1. Some Cauſes produce their effects neceſſarily, and alwayes: and thoſe Cauſes being underſtood and diſcerned, the effect may certainly be pronounced and prenuntiated; as in Eclipſes. 2. Some Cauſes again produce their effects, though not neceſſarily, and alwayes; yet for the moſt part, and ſeldome faill: and ſuch may be Prognoſticated only conjecturally, but not peremptorily; as the changes, or alterations of Weather, 3. Some Cauſes are only generall remote, indefinite, indeterminate, partiall, accidentall; whoſe effects follow neither neceſſarily, nor alwayes nor for the moſt part, nor indeed ſcare at all (as in tempers and manners) and ſuch, as they cannot be foreknown; ſo they are not to be foretold. But as for more rationall, and arbitrary actions, and future contingents meerly fortuitous; theſe can have no Cauſes all, but in the ſecret and hidden will of God; or elſe in the indiſcernable will of man: and therefore are in Gods power alone; and not in mans art, either to forknow, or foreſee.
4. Whether the ſtarres be not only Signes, but Cauſes? or whether Signes, where they are ordinarily no Cauſes? or Cauſes, where they are no Signes? or (as they ask of Comets) whether they be either cauſing or ſigning from their matter, or from their form? Eſpecially to our purpoſe; whethrr they be both Cauſes and Signes of things future and fortuitous? Cauſes they cannot be but of naturall things; and they generall only, and indefinite. And therefore cannot be Signes of determinate and particular effects. For if they ſigne not the cauſes in particular; how can they ſign the effects in particular? Again, Signes naturall they cannot be, but either as Cauſes, or effects, or elſe as proceeding from the ſame common cauſe and ſuperiour to both. And that common cauſe cannot bee corporeall: becauſe there is no bodily thing ſuperiour to the heavenly bodyes. That ſuperiour Cauſe therefore (upon which they both depend) muſt needs be incorporeall; even God; not Angells, becauſe Angels have no ſuch tranſient action common to them both. If therefore they be ſo much as Signes, they are only ſo according to divine ordinance and inſtitution; and not according to any humane art, or invention.
5. How the Stars can ſignifie ſuch an effect, whereof they are not the cauſe? And eſpecially whoſe ſpeciall cauſes they ſignifie not at all? And for as much as ſuch aſtrall effects, as have their naturall cauſes, can be forecold but conjecturally, and indefinitely; upon what grounds then doe they particularly define and determine upon caſualties, and voluntaries, whoſe events are not ſo much as probable; as not having any ſuch cauſes as aforeſaid?
6. Whether the Cauſes (namely the ſecond and particular cauſes) of meer accidents and contingents, are to be foreſeen and foreknown by mortall men? For how can things by accident, be foreſeen in their naturall cauſes? when (as Philoſophie concludes) there can be no naturall cauſes of things by accident.
7. Whether the Starres are the cauſes, or ſignes of any kind of Contingent; as well thoſe that follow from arbitrarious actions; as thoſe that depend upon more ſtated matters? Nay, whether thoſe that have their ordinate cau…es, and revealed ſignes, can properly be called Contingents?
8. Upon what grounds doe the Aſtrologers undertake to predict, or foretell of future Contingents, ſince they can no way fore-ſee them, neither in themſelves, nor yet in their cauſes? Not in themſelves, becauſe they yet are not. Nor in their cauſes, for they are either God, or the heavens, or mans free will. And firſt, how are they able to foreknow thoſe things that depend upon the prime cauſe Gods ſecret will, and abſolute pleaſure, without his ſpeciall revelation? Next, how can they ſee any ſuch things in the heavens? which are but generall and remote cauſes; and ſo nei…her cauſe, nor ſigne any thing determinatly and particularly? Yea are but materiall cauſes at moſt, and therefore betoken, or effect nothing of the actions of the mind or Soul. Then, for the will of Man (which is the proximate cauſe in all arbitrary actions) how can they prejudge of that? Unleſs they take upon them to know the heart, with its intentions and affections. And if they could know it for the preſent▪ yet how can they doe ſo for the future? And indeed, how is it poſſible for them to determine upon that; which is indifferent, and indeterminate in it ſelf?
9. Whether the cauſes of meer accidents and contingents be internall, or externall? If internall, then either in a mans rationall will; or in his naturall temper. If in his will, how come the Stars to neceſſitate that free faculty? If in his temper, ſuch a diſpoſition is eaſie to be foreſeen, without a Planetary Prognoſtication. If externall, it is either God, or the Creature. If God he is free to work both without the ſtarres, and againſt them. If the creature, how comes it to be comprehended in a particular conſtellation: and ſo as prognoſtication may be made thereby?
10. Whether the Stars work upon mans body mediatly or immediatly? If immediatly; how doe they that, without a divine, and infinite power? If mediatly, or by means, ſc. of the ayr, &c. then whether the affections of the Stars be not varyed, through the various affection of the ayr, or means? and whether the diſ-affection, or indiſpoſition of the ayr, or means, may not hinder, and prevent both the operation of the Stars, and the diſcerning thereof?
11. Whether the Planets be imperiall, or miniſteriall operators, and effectors? If they command, neceſſitate, enforce us (abſolutely, univerſally) what is become of our naturall liberty, and free-will in all humane actions? what praiſe have we for our welldoing, and deſerving among men? what excuſes have we not for our errors and offences, both againſt God and men? If they ſerve us; why go they about to proclame us deſtinated to their fatall ſlavery?
12. Whether there be any kind of neceſſity, as touching the aſtrologicall predictions of ſydereall effects? If an abſolute neceſſity; how can a divine power prevent them? If a Phyſicall neceſſity; how are they ſo the naturall and ordinate cauſes of voluntary, and free actions? If a neceſſity of conſequence? By what certain cauſes, and reaſons, doe they argue, demonſtrate, and conclude it to follow?
13. Whether the Planetary influences doe cauſe, and rule nature, and temper: or elſe doe they only work upon it, as they find it, and ſo follow it? If the firſt; how can they be exempted, or excuſed from being the Authors of their ſpoken-of Malefices, and malignities? Or, how can they put off theſe to the diſpoſition of the matter they work upon?
14. Whether any thing can be determinatly prognoſticated or predicted from the Stars: being but univerſall cauſes at moſt; the particular cauſes not conſidered? Nay, may not a truer and ſafer prediction be made, from the particular cauſes, the univerſall not conſidered? Doe not ſeverall creatures, and ſeverall ſeeds bring forth ſeverall things, for all the ſame conjunction, or conſtellation?
15. Whether the remote cauſes (the moſt that the celeſtiall bodies can be) may not (in naturall generation, conſtitutions, complexions, tempers, humours) both be directed, and ſuccoured; and alſo corrected and prevented, by the proximate cauſes? yea and (in other matters) by externall, and adventitiall cauſes; by rationall, and voluntary cauſes; how much more by the prime cauſe of all?
16. Whether the Planets have (either actually, and formally in themſelves; or virtually and effectively upon others) thoſe prime elementary qualities, of hot, cold, dry, moyſt: eſpecially in ſuch different meaſures, and unequall degrees; as to make ſome of them benign, others of them malign in their influences, and operations? For all the Planets are but of one kind of ſubſtance, and one kind of light (all of them, as they ſay themſelves▪ borrowing their light from the Sun) why therefore ſhould they not all be of one kind of influence, and one kind of operation? Since they have the ſame light (in which is their main efficacy) albeit in ſeverall degrees: why ſhould they not have the ſame effects, albeit in ſeverall degrees?
17. What are thoſe influences of the Stars? motion, light, or elementary qualities? or elſe ſome occult, inſenſible vertues, ſympathies, antipathies, &c. And how operate they upon theſe inferior bodyes? Generally, or particularly; ſimply, or mixtly; ſolitarily▪ or conjunctly; actually, or potentially; formally, or virtually; mediatly or immediatly; inſtantly or ſucceſſively; partially, or totally, who can directly tell?
18. Whether ſuch Influences, as Aſtrologers aſcribe to the Stars; be not contrary to the nature and underſtanding of cauſes, viz. Such influences as proceed not from their naturall ſubſtance, nor inherent quality: but from their imagined aſpects, and ſuppoſed (if not feigned) conjunctions. Such virtuall influences, as muſt be made to operate clean contrary to their formall qualities. Such influences, as they make to be efficacious from the fictitious figure of the Planets. Such influences, as the antient, pure Philſophers, and Aſtronomers once dream't not of: but are the dreams of later Planetarians, or Magicall Aſtrologians. Such influences as wherby they would pretend to deep inſight, and profound learning: but (in truth) make no other advantage of them, than as a painted plea of blind and lazy ignorance. I ſay ignorance; as indeed inhibiting the ſtrict inquiry of all proper cauſes. For aske them; how come the Stars to work thus and thus, upon inferiour bodies? why (ſay they) by their influences. And what are theſe influences? Nay, if you cannot conceive them in the groſſe, they cannot preciſely diſcover them. Unleſſe you will be contented to have an obſcure thing deſcribed, by a thing more obſcure. Are not the true cauſes in occult qualities, and in natures mirables, all put off to more occult influences? Why doth the load-ſtone draw the Iron? why, by reaſon of ſome Starry influence. Why doth the little Remora ſtay the maſſy Ship? Why, by reaſon of ſome Starry influence. Why are there ſuch antipathies betwixt creatures▪ ſuch vertues of minerals, and herbs, plants, ſtones; ſuch colours, figures, reſemblances, &c? Why all is by reaſon of ſome Starry influence. And if you aske after any other cauſe or reaſon, for theſe and many the like; you may (for them) go ſeek it out your ſelf.
19. Whether the Magicall Aſtrologer make not himſelf to be the chief cauſe of the Stars influencies, and their efficacies? For if he hath not a power to compoſe them ſo, as they may bee moſt ſuitable to his own purpoſe; why then both practiſes, and teaches he, to make ſuch a Sign, or Image, under ſuch a Conſtellation, to ſuch intents? To make choice of ſuch a Star, Sign, Aſcendant, Aſpect, &c. and then (the Figure thus diſpoſed) the Stars impreſs ſtreight-way, and operate (by reſemblance) to the deſired end. How ſhall we beleive it now, that the Stars have a power over our wils: when thus they make their own wils to have a power over the Stars?
20. What certain effects, or Prognoſticks of thoſe effects, are to be made from the Stars: in as much as their ſtrengths, and validities▪ depend upon ſo many, and contrary cauſes, and conſiderations? Namely, of Stars erratick, and fixt (and they more efficacious than theſe) of rayes manifeſt, and occult; of influxes ſimple, and mixt; of light cognate and mutuatitious; of motions proper, and common (and the proper more active▪ than the common) of Planets amicall, b…nevolous, auſpicious, fortunate; and …nimicall, maleficall, unfortunate, exitiall; as alſo ancipitous, and indifferent to both (and all theſe ſometimes roborated, and holpen; ſometimes infirmed, and hindred one by another) of Planets maſculine, feminine, androgynous (and theſe again now ſtrengthning, now weakning one another) of Stars auc't, and dimi…ute; diurnall, nocturnall, and ambiguous; aſcending, and deſcending; ſlow, ſwift, and …ean; direct, Stationary, and retrograde; Of the Signs of the Zodiack, their Quadrants, and Trigons; and how they are maſculine, or feminine; imperant, or obedient; right, or crooked; humane, brute, reptile; vocall, and without voyce; fruitfull, or barren; beautifull, or deformed; happy-witted, or unhappy; conjunct, or diſtinct; of the eſſentiall dignities of the Planets, or increments, with their contrary dejections or detriments; their houſes, exaltations, triplicities, tearms, thrones, decurions, faces, joys; of the accidentall dignities of Planets, in reſpect of motion, poſiture, aſpect; ſc. combuſt, peregrine, captive, afflicted, oppreſſed, &c. ſextile, quadrate, triangular, &c. partile, platick; ſolitary, ferall; applicate, defluent, &c. of the celeſtiall houſes; their number, oppoſition, repreſentation; and in every houſe, the order, nomenclature, ſignification, joy, conſignificator, colour, condition, and temperament; of the ſeverall wayes of erecting Theams, Scheams, Figures, &c. All theſe generals conſidered, beſides infinite more particulars to be added, what a wild wood, or imaginary miſt is here, to find out a future contingent, or fortuitous event? For ſo clearly doe even the exacteſt of them make their grounds, and means, whereby to paſſe (with great peremptorineſs) their prognoſticating judgements upon all accidents? Nay, for as much as ſome of them ſay, there are 120. divers conjunctions of the 7. Planets, and moreover of them generally 13092. Conſiderations, beſides innumerable myriads of them in particular: are not theſe direct (to uſe their own word) directions not only to gheſſe at, but conclude upon things future, and fortuitous.
21. Whether this order of arguing be with probability: much leſſe infer any cauſall neceſſity? viz. From the conſtellation of the Nativity of a child, to the naturall conſtitution; from the naturall temperament, to the humours of vegetation and growth; from the humours of the body, to the manners of the mind; from the manners, or naturall diſpoſitions, to the politick, morall, yea and religious actions; and from the manners, and actions, to ſuch and ſuch determinate fortunes, and events. Seeing all theſe may bee quite otherwiſe altered, by the conſtitution of the Parents, by natures work, different to both their conſtitutions; by the complexion of the Nurſe; by adventitious nutriments; by education; by Art; by Diſcipline; by freewill, and reaſon; by grace, and conſcience; by the wiſdome, power, and goodneſs of Gods providence; yea and by externall accidents, or occurrents.
22. If this way of argument were admitted in ſome part, and probability, that the Starres may have their vertue, and efficacy upon this ſublunary orb; and ſo upon the inferior Elements; and ſo upon Bodyes compounded of thoſe elements; and ſo upon the humours in thoſe bodyes, and ſo upon certain paſſions, and affections of the mind, that follow thoſe humours or tempers: would it therefore follow, that they have the like (though not as efficients, yet but as inſtruments) upon the Soul, Spirit, Underſtanding, Will, Conſcience: not only not to compell, or enforce, but ſo much as to incline or diſpoſe them to actions rationall, voluntary, politick, morall, or religious: and ſo bring them to reach the end, or runne into the events of all thoſe actions good or evill? What rationall man can be perſwaded that it is in the influences of the Starres to beget in a propenſion either to vertues, or to vices? and that it is in thoſe vertues or vices (as ſo begotten) to haſten, or prevent the hoped, or feared effect? However, what Chriſtian man will be brought to believe, that wicked men, and godly men, their temporall proſperity, or adverſity, is from their auſpicious, or their unfortunate ſtarres? how much leſſe then, their ſpirituall endowments, or defects; together with their eternall rewards or puniſhments?
23. Whether in all Planetary Conſtellations, Aſpects, Cojunctions, there be a neceſſary conjunction betwixt all cauſes, and all effects? Though we may grant much of theſe in the Eclipſes themſelves: yet what neceſſity (of all theſe) may move us to admit ſo much, as touching the portents of thoſe Eclipſes? And therefore I demand further of Eclipſes (as I doe of Comets alſo) if they have no more but naturall cauſes, and common apparitions: whether have they then, more than naturall ſignifications, and common effects? If the ſignifications and effects be to be thus doubted of in the eminent and viſible, what may we doubt of concerning the inviſible, or elſe but imaginable conjunctions?
24. Why are the daily effects of the ſame ſtarres (as touching the weather) ſo different in divers Horizons? And why are the prognoſticks of them ſo different although within the ſame Horizon? Now if Prognoſticators have ſo often hallucinated (or deceiving, been deceived) about naturall effects, or conſequences (of heat, cold, fair weather, rain, wind ſnow, ha…l, thunder &c.) how can they be credited in their Predictions upon arbitrary actions, and fortuitous events?
25. Whether there be not a ſufficient end, and uſe of the ſtarres ſubſtance and motion, in the ornament of the Univerſe, the beauty of the heavens, their riſing, and ſetting in their own order their light and heat upon inferiors, their diſtinctions of times and ſeaſons▪ with other their unknown motions, actions, ſervices, all tending to the glory of the Creator, and benefit of the creature, although their Aſtrologicall, and Genethliacall, yea, and magicall benevolences, and malevolencies, had never been excogitated or invented?