The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
5. From the vanity of Science.
1. HAth not the Word of God concluded both the Artiſts and their Arts, for vain and falſe? Iſa. 44. 25. Ier. 14. 14. and 27. 9, 10. Mich. 3. 7. Zach 1. 2. Ezek. 3. 6, 7, 8. & 21. 21, 22, 23. Eccleſ. 34. 5.
2. Is not the Word of God ſufficient to inſtruct as touching any thing future (neceſſary to be known, for this, or the life to come) without any other predicting arts? Deut. 8. 14, 15. 2 King. 23. 24. Iſa. 8. 19, 20. and 44. 25, 26. Jer. 23. 28. Act. 19. 19. 20.
3. Whether the diſtinction, or difference (uſed by ſo many Authors, and partly conceded by ſome of themſelves) ought not to be ſtrictly obſerved, betwixt Aſtronomie and Aſtrologie? The one being a ſpeculative Science; the other a practicall art. The one ſignifying the Rule and Law of the Starres among themſelves: the other a wording or talking of the Stars, what Lawes they give, and rule they have over others. The one ſoberly conſidering the naturall motions of the Stars: the other curiouſly inquiring, and peremptorily pronouncing upon their ſupernaturall, preternaturall, unnaturall effects.
4. Whether thoſe principles that may be true in Aſtronomie, be of a right applicature in Aſtrologie? Or why ſhould this borrow the Canons, or ſo much as the Tearms of that; ſince it abuſes them to another end?
5. Whether Aſtrologie doth not more diſgrace Aſtronomie, than Aſtronomie is able to countenance Aſtrologie? And who but the Mathematicall practitioner, is he that hath diſhonoured the Profeſſour?
6. Whether Aſtrologie (the magicall divining Aſtrologer) be a liberall Science: and not rather a ſervile Art or Artifice? If it were a liberall Science, how chance not well founded, and flouriſhing Common-wealths (Chriſtian or Pagan) ever allowed the publick profeſſion of it, as of other Sciences; but that it did ſtill muſcitate in dark corners, and durſt never proclame it ſelf, but in darkened, diſtracted times? But doe not true Artiſts themſelves call it Mechanicall? And is not the higheſt ſpeculation of it percepted and perfected by manuall inſtruments, and thoſe fallacious too, as themſelves complain? So that it is a queſtion, whether is likelieſt to be the greateſt proficient, the Student, or the Apprentice in Aſtrologie?
7. Can that indeed be a true laudable art, or profeſſion, Many of thoſe principles, and moſt of whoſe practices abuſe and overthrow the very principles, and practices of other laudable and liberall arts and Sciences?
8. What certainty or credit of ſuch an art, whoſe principles are Hypotheſes, or meer ſuppoſitions; the concluſions but conjecturall, and hardly probable at beſt, the Authours obſcure, and of dubious ſaith; the opinions contrary, and oft-times contradictory; and the practices impoſturous, nay preſtigious?
9. How can Aſtrologie be accounted as a liberall, diſtinct, and uſefull art; When as take away from it what it begs, or rather ſteals to cover, and colour it ſelf withall) from Phyſicks, Opticks, Geometry, Arithmetick, Aſtronomie, and nothing is left of its own, or peculiar to it ſelf, but a bare goeticall Genethliaciſm, a fantaſticall figure-flinging, and a colluſive calculating, or caſting of Nativities?
10. Whether it be a clear and receptable diſtinction of Magick, Theurgicall, and Goeticall; divine, and Diabolicall; white, and black Magick; and Aſtrologie good, and evill?
11. Seeing all the kinds of Magicall and Aſtrologicall Divination tend to one undue end (the inordinate precognition, and prediction of things future) whether the object matter, or ſignall means of Divining (by things in heaven, or on earth) be ſufficient to diſtinguiſh the art or act, unto lawfull or unlawfull, good and bad?
12. Whether thoſe Magicall and Aſtrologicall Writers, that would ſeem ſo nicely buſie in diſtinguiſhing, doe not confound themſelves ere they are aware? and while they would pretend to ſift from their art, and reject ſo many opinions, and practices (as vain, fabulous, ſuperſtitions, idolatrous, impoſturous, preſtigious, diabolicall) doe not themſelves nevertheleſs retain, and ſeek to eſtabliſh too many of the ſame branne?
13. Whether the Divination of things future (eſpecially ſuch as concern the Soul, mind, will, affections) be a Science naturall, ſpirituall, artificiall, or diabolicall? If naturall, where are the innate principles, primely ſeminated, common to all men, perſpicuous to perceive, and profitable to life and actions? If ſpirituall, where's the extraordinary revelation, ſpeciall illumination, univerſall edification? If artificiall, where are the true and certain rules, reaſons, demonſtrations; all oppoſite to vanity, chance, deluſion?
14. May not an art be juſtly ſuſpected, nay cenſured for diabolicall, not only becauſe of a compact, either explicite or implicite, or of an invocation, adjuration, imprecation, &c. but alſo becauſe of a ſuperſtitious aſſent, proud curioſity, preſumptuous temptation, inordinate means, and incommodious, nay pernicious end and uſe?
15. If Magicall divining, or Aſtrologicall predicting had any thing of a lawfull and laudable Art or Science, would God have forbidden it? Nay, would he not have taught it his own People? If it had been uſefull to his Church, why ſuffred he none of his Servants to profeſſe, or practiſe it? why permitted he it to begin, and proceed amongſt Pagans, Idolaters, Atheiſts, but that the Devill had a hand in it, and mens corruptions led them to it?
16. Whether Magick, and meer Aſtrologie, was more ſimple and innocent of old, than of late? If ſo; what glory of Pagans? what ſhame of Chriſtians? Wherefore vaunts one, of the Arts growing to perfection? and complains another, of its falling into degenerateneſs? Alas! what perfection, of a thing not proved to be good? and what degeneratneſs, of a thing too evidently evill from the very firſt?
17. How can ſuch an art or ſcience be true and certain, which teaches no right end; for the moſt part reaches not its own end; and uſes means ordained to no ſuch end?
18. Wherefore have the Artiſts pickt, or rather patcht their words of art, out of all languages (orientall, and occidentall.) Is it on purpoſe to impoſe upon mens admiration; and upbraid ignorance to thoſe that underſtand them not, as they would themſelves? I cannot think, as they doe themſelves. For then, why are they ſo various in accepting, tranſlating, paraphraſing and explaining a many of them? Why conclude they the moſt barbarous, inſignificant words to be moſt efficacious in operating? Is not this ſtrange, that words, which operate, nay ſignify nothing to the apprehenſion, ſhould be made the great ſignificators, and operators of things both in heaven, and earth? while their words, or tearms are (worſe than ſecoud notions) exotick, barbarous, non-ſignificant, non ſenſuall; is not there the vanity of their art? but when they once grow to be blaſphemous, execrable, profane, diabolicall; what vileneſs and abhomination muſt that of neceſſity be?
19. For as much as every true ſcience abhors equivocall tearms, and voyces: what may we call that art, that (beſides them) uſes equivocall ſentences, and concluſions? And indeed, knows not well how to uſe any elſe; and therefore wholly rejoyces in them. Of the two, which is more ambiguous, the Oracles of Apollo; or the divining predictions of Magicall Aſtrologers? But what marvell is it, that the Scholars ſhould ſpeak altogether after their own Schools dialect? only on would think, they ſhould hate themſelves in their own precocity.
20. Whether the very principles and rules of Aſtrologie, or any propoſition, or prognoſtication (as well touching weatherly events, as arbitrary contingents) may not be directly proved among them both pro and con?
21. Whether Aſtrologers (old, and new) have alwaies uſed the ſame names, figures, characters, inſtruments, calculations, computations, hieroglyphicks, houſes, ſuppoſitions, ſignifications, diſtinctions, order, &c. And wherefore were they altered? and with what concent yet remaining between them?
22. How many new inventions, and devices in Aſtrologie? ſo that almoſt every later writer accounts it his only glory in the art, to have found out that himſelf, which he confidently avers, the learned before him never once obſerved?
23. Whether the ſundry ways of calculating, computing, inventing or finding out of altitudes, longitudes, latitudes, amplitudes, magnitudes, multitudes, &c. be all demonſtrable; and doe not rather enervate, and impede the certainty, and facility of one another?
24. Who of them is able to reconcile, and ſalve all the anomalies, irregularities, obliquities, epicicles, fictitious circles, retrogradations, intercalations, intervals, contrary motions, inequalities of appearance, peregrinations, corrections, ſuppoſitions, oppoſitions, &c. that they uſually talk of in their art?
25. When will the Genethliacks compoſe the differences among themſelves, about the beſt way of calculating, about the conſtituting of the natalitiall theame, about ſome ſignifications of the Stars, about the choice of ſignificators? which they ſay are ſo hard to be judged of becauſe of the equall reaſons, and authorities on both parts. Now muſt not ſuch variouſneſs of their ſcience, beget erroneouſneſs of their preſcience?
26. Whether all kind of ſtarry conjunctions have been heretofore? or whether ſome of them are not yet come? or whether ſome of them that have already been, ſhall ever be again? And how can ſo long an art (as their mathematicall is pretended) be attained to, in ſo ſhort a life? ſeeing (as themſelves ſay) the ſame revolution, poſition, conſtellation, happens not in ſo many ages; nor in ſo many thouſands, and ſcores of thouſand years. Where's then the obſervation, memory, compariſon, experiment?
27. Whether the new Aſtrologers may ground their predictions upon the old: or the domeſtick upon the forrain? ſeeing all Stars (their conjunctions, aſpects, appearances) are not for the ſame horizon, meridian, latitude, region: And therefore not ſemblably correſponding in every part, how then ſerve they for the ſame, or the like obſervation, and collection?
28. Wether there can be any univerſall rules, principles, demonſtrations of this preſaging or prognoſticating art: ſeeing the ſame Stars ſignifie not the ſame things to ſeverall places; eſpecially the remoter regions?
29. What certainty of preſaging can there be by obſervation of the Stars: when as there are infinite Stars altogether unknown▪ and not only ſo, but ſundry motions of certain Planets not ſufficiently known (as they confeſs) to the Star-gazers themſelves?
30. Whether the Stars (in their conſtitutions, conſtellations, conjunctions, aſpects, configurations, progreſſions, radiations, influences, ſignifications, portents) reſpect not univerſalls, rather then particulars? And thereupon, whether the skilfulleſt Aſtromantick (even in his preciſeſt obſervations) be not convinced within himſelf, of more cauſes of errour, and doubting; than ground of truth, and certainty, for peremptory, and particular pronouncing?
31. As there are infinite Stars whoſe names, natures, numbers, motions, vertues, are yet altogether unknown: ſo, may not all thoſe they know not, to be oppoſite (in all) to thoſe they know? what certain judgement then can there be▪ where although it were known, what might incline or diſpoſe; yet it is unknown, what may alter, and impede?
32. May not the poſitions of the Stars be ſuch, as may ſignifie ſome health, ſome ſickneſs; ſome wealth, ſome poverty; ſome honour, ſome diſgrace; ſome proſperity, ſome adverſity? And then, how can the Judiciall Aſtrologer certainly ſay, which ſhall be more, which leſs; which firſt, which laſt?
33. Which of all the Artiſts is able to inform us directly, what defluxions, or effects the ſeverall Stars have at this preſent, in the divers, and diſtant regions of the world? And what influentiall vertues have they all (jointly, and ſeverally) upon all things, either animate, or inanimate?
34. What convinc't and confeſt uncertainty of Aſtrologie, and ignorance of Aſtrologers, as concerning the ſubſtance, quality, magnitude, multitude of the Stars; the nature and quantity of the heavens, the number of the celeſtiall orbes, all their order, their difference of dignity, their variety of motion; their compariſon among themſelves, in greatneſs, light, power, and effect their proper vertues upon elements, living creatures, Plants, Herbs, Stones, metals, and things artificiall? Beſides the new Stars, and the unknown; is not all their obſervation (even of thoſe they account to be more notorious and familiar) tyed onelyonly to one ſenſe; and that often deceived, through the undiſcoverable diſtance, the imperceptible velocity of the heavenly bodies motion, the indiſpoſition and pravity of the mean, the imbecillity of the eye, the fault or defect of the Aſtrolabe, and of other their Tables, and tools or inſtruments? Is not there (in all this) ignorance enough, both argued and acknowledged? and muſt there not then needs be errour accordingly?
35. Whether not only the Planets may change their houſes; but the parts, and Signes of the Zodiack (in time) change their places; and ſo the ſeverall Regions and coaſts of the world may be now aſſigned under one of them, and now under another; and accordingly alter both their natures, manners, and religions? As for our ſelves, among the reſt, was it not judiciouſly and profoundly delivered by one, that (from the time of Ptolomie, to his own) the Spaniards, the Normans, and alſo we Britains, were under the Scorpions heart; and ſo were both crafty and covetous; who before were both faithful and honeſt, while we were under Sag…ttarius. But belike Aries is now gotten over us, or we gotten under the Ramme: nay, and one part of us (about London) under one Signe; and another part of us (about York) under another. I now doe but ask of them, what ſhall be our natures, manners, fortunes, and religions, when we come under the next?
36. What are all thoſe influences, they talk ſo much of? whether palpable, or occult vertues? If palpable, why not plain to ſenſe? if occult, how known perfectly to the underſtanding? And how far penetrate they? whether to the ſurface of the earth, and moving things there? or elſe to the immoveable Center? If to the ſurface, by what property? if to the center, to what purpoſe?
37. How prove they ſome Stars (their conjunctions, aſpects, influences, operations) to be benign, and fortunate; others Malignant, and unfortunate? If they talk of the inequalities of the firſt qualities (heat, cold, moyſture, dryneſs) may we not ſpeak to ſuch a purpoſe of a minerall, or of an Herb, as well as a Star? But grant they be indeed ſo as they ſay; yet, when is the benignity of the one, or malignity of the other verily predominant? and upon what certain particulars? and by what naturall cauſes? and to what ordinate ends?
38. Whether a Planet, or a Comet, be more ſignificant and preſaging future events? Or ſay (at the ſame time) the Planet ſignifies one way; and the Comet another; which of them ſhall prevail; Or what need the extraordinary portents of Comets; if the ordinary ſignifications of Planets be ſufficient?
39. Can an Aſtrologer as eaſily foreſee, and foretell a Comet: as an Aſtronomer can an Eclips? If ſo; how chance it hath not been hitherto done? if not; then are they not ignorant of Prognoſticating, and preſaging, of, and by thoſe things that portend the greateſt mutations?
40. Whether Comets naturally portend effects, or conſequences good, or bad? If good; how ſtands their own concluſion; That there is no Comet, but brings evill with it? If bad; how ſtands that ſtory of Sybilla Tiburtina; who (they ſay) ſhewed Auguſtus Caeſar of Chriſts nativity, from a ſtupendious Comet?
41. Whether thoſe they call the new Stars betoken not greater mutations; than the old Stars? and in that regard argue not a greater defect in the old Stars deſigns: and eſpecially in the old, and new Star-mongers art?
42. Whether thoſe letters or characters compoſed of Stars (by whoſe reading, preſagition may be made of all things future) be Hebrew, Arabick, Samaritan, Egyptian, Ethiopick, &c? And why not the letters or characters of other languages, as well as theſe, ſeeing the Stars ſignify to one Nation, as well as to another? But (in truth) if there be any ſuch art, as reading or ſpelling by letters and characters: what need now of any ſuch art, as reading and ſpelling by aſpects, and conjunctions?
43. Whether there be one way of calculating? or whether it be free for every one to invent and follow his own way? and which of them is moſt direct and certain to be credited?
44. Is not this one profeſt way of Calculators, or Nativity Caſters? Firſt (to know the ingenie, and fortune of him that is borne) have reſpect to the Sign of the Zodiack; then in the Sign obſerve the Degrees; then in the degrees diſtinguiſh ſixty parts; and in them the ſcruples, and ſections, and moments of ſcruples, &c. But who can ſo diligently and exactly obſerve all thoſe moments of time, in which one is born; and all the particles of thoſe moments; and not ſome way hallucinate in the horoſcope? Which of the skilfulleſt and moſt exact mathematicians, is able at once to obſerve the very minute of ones birth; and withall note all the Stars (both fixed, and erratile) under which one is born; and that without any errour, or erratile apprehenſion in himſelf? But could he mark all theſe never ſo accurately in a fixed obſervation: yet how can he know the moment of the conception? And is not a mans conception of as much moment, to his life and manners, as his Birth? And doe not the Stars confer as much (if not much more) to that; as to this? Now if theſe moments of times (in one or other) cannot be obſerved, nor conferred with the aſpects of the Stars, without ſome, (and no ſmall) errour: how then can it poſſibly be, that the genethlicacall profeſſion, or practice, ſhould either be certain, or true, or probable, or credible? Yea grant the Genethliack did not erre in the moments either of a mans birth, or his conception; nor yet were any whit deceived in noting all the Stars and Conſtellations under which he is conceived, or born: yet what certainty, or yet probability, is thereupon to be collected and concluded, as concerning either the good, or bad manners, and fortune of a man? Since God hath ſo created our ſouls, as that they depend not upon the qualities of the Stars; nor yet upon the condition of the body: nay ſeeing (in the very mutations of bodies) God uſes the Stars but as his inſtruments, and according to his own free will and pleaſute. I ſay (Bodies) for where did he make uſe of them ſo much as to incline; much leſſe to conſtrain the mind?
45. How can a Genethliack calculate a Nativity 20. or 40 years paſt: that is not able to doe it exactly, although he were preſent at the Birth? Suppoſe a child born, not in the day time, but in the night; and that not cloudy, but Starry bright; and the Infant not ſtaying in the birth, but ſpringing out in an inſtant; and the Star-gazers already compoſed to the ſpeculation; nay and a Poſt immediatly diſpatchd to convey the news of the bringing forth; from the childs bed-chamber, to the Star-gazers turret: yet what betwixt the Mother, the Infant, the Mid-wife, the Meſſenger, and the Star-gazer, how many delaies of moment muſt of neceſſity intervene, and elapſe, to make all at a loſſe, as touching the very point of the birth; and the very point of the Stars poſiture, and aſpect? For, take their own conceſſion of the rapid celerity of the Stars motion, and how many conjunctions may paſſe over even in the very inſtant of the birth: ſeeing every minute and moment is enough to alter the aſpect, or the aſpection? Eſpecially, before the Genethliack can poſſibly have made the leaſt part of his neceſſary obſervations. For (if he goe the old way to work) how can he diſtinguiſh or divide his orb, or Signifier into twelve parts; and every one of thoſe twelve parts, inro thirty portions; and every one of theſe portions, into ſixty minutes; and every one of thoſe ſixty minutes, into ſixty I know not what, and when they ſay into ſixty ſeconds, thirds, fourths, &c. doe they know what they ſay themſelves? I ſay, how can all this diviſion be done, in an indiviſible point and moment of time? How impoſſible is it for him to comprehend, in which ſixty, of the ſixty parts or minutes, the very moment of the Nativity doth conſiſt? And if every moment render a new face of the heavens, a new poſiture of the Stars, a new conſtellation, and thoſe of contrary ſignifications (fortunate, unfortunate) which of them now will be aſſign to the birth?
46. What can they diſtinctly and preciſely collect from any mans Nativity; when as the ſhorteſt, and moſt imperceptible atoms, points, minutes, and moments of time, and motions, are enough to make a difference betwixt long-liv'd, and ſhort-liv'd; healthfull and ſickly; rich and poor; wiſe and fooliſh; honourable and baſe; famous and obſcure; juſt and unjuſt; good and bad? And is not that difference enough to make a confuſion in the apprehenſion; and that confuſion, to cauſe a falſehood in the pronuntiation, prenuntiation, or prediction?
47. Whether the influences of the Stars, or their impreſſions of qualities, be not of the conception, rather than the birth, or bringing forth? And whether that ought not chiefly to be regarded by calculating manner-ſpellers, and fortune-tellers? And how can the preciſe moment thereof be known to them, ſince the Mother her ſelf is ignorant of it?
48. Whether one and the ſame Conſtellation be upon every part of the Nativity? If ſo, how concurre the ſwift motions of the Starres, with the ſlow motion of the birth? If not, then to which of the Conſtellations (for the grounding of judgement) ſhall the Nativity be aſcribed? To that at the firſt beginning, or in the middle, or at the laſt moment or end?
49. Whether the Genethliack (for the hour and minute of geniture) may collect more certainty of pronouncing from the light and height, and ſight of the Sunne; and of the Stars: or elſe from the going of the Clock, the Diall, or yet the relation of the Mid-wife? I can aſſure you, this is made a great queſtion among themſelves, and theſe latter are of no ſlight account in the work of the art.
50. Whether it be a wiſer mans part, to judge of the event, by the geniture; or of the geniture, by the event? To reſolve this, they ſhall need no more, but only ask ſome of their own.
51. Whether thoſe numbers and minutes, yea numbers of numbers, and minutes of minutes (which Aſtrologicall Mathematicians pretend to work by) are poſſible to be obſerved in the ſtarres; whoſe numbers are numberleſs, and motions minuteleſs?
52. In as much as the main way of operating in the predicting and preſaging art is by numbers and numberings; and numbers are but quantities, & therefore not efficacious, & numbers differ nothing really from the things numbred; and the things numbred are (a many of them) not reall, but imaginary only; and thoſe that are reall, are not to be numbred: Now, what naturall vertue or efficacie can there be in all ſuch numbers? Nay, is it not ſuperſtition, to put vertue in bare numbers; in certain ſet numbers; in a parity, or imparity of numbers; in the one more than the other? Hath not the temerity of calculating numbers given boldneſs to the impiety of canting, or enchanting numbers: by which they have pretended, and boaſted of force and power even over the Starres themſelves? And what a frivolous diſtinction is it (in aſcribing efficacy) to diſtinguiſh betwixt ſenſible, and rationall numbers? Can ſenſe judge of numbers? or any thing elſe but reaſon only? And ſo betwixt materiall and formall numbers. What's a formall, but a meer…aery notion, if there be no materiall, or thing numbred? neither is there more than one ſimple formality of all numbers; and thats a receſs from unity, or rather exceſſe of it. And if one formality, why therefore not one efficacy?
53. VVhether the Jewiſh and Paganiſh Aſtrologers have been exact in the computations of times? And if time be not exactly computed; where will the Planetarian Prognoſticator, and the Genethliacall Preſager begin his Calculation? But indeed, hath not God therefore concealed the exact computation of time (from the beginning of the Creation) and reſerved it ſolely to himſelf; that ſo he may put all audacious Calculators, and Prognoſticators, to ſilence, and confuſion?
54. VVhether the motions, menſurations, computations, eſpecially the mutations of time, and things in time; and yet more eſpecially their ſignifications and Predictions, are to be diſputed, and diſcourſed Aſtrologically; and not rather Theologically; ſince Thelogie teaches the right uſe, and Aſtrologie but the vile abuſe of them all?
55. VVhether Aſtrologie (ſo much of it as may be lawfull, or uſefull, viz. in the obſerving of times and ſeaſons, for Navigation, Medicine, Husbandry, and ſuch like occupations and actions) be not really a part of Phyſicks, or naturall Philoſophie, rather than Aſtronomie? And therefore why doe they not rather ſeek to inform our underſtanding, and confirm our judgement by ſound and plain Phyſicall reaſons: than only impoſe upon our faiths, and conjure and charm it by ſtrange and not pure Aſtronomicall termes?
56. Whether all their ſignall Prognoſtications, even in Phyſick and Husbandry (as blood-letting in ſuch a Sign, gelding cattell in ſuch, ſowing and planting, the Moon being ſo, and ſo) be true, neceſſary, and advantagious?
57. If their Prognoſticks ſo often fail them, and abuſe the world, about the changes of weathers and ſeaſons (hot, cold, dry, rainy, windy, &c.) for which there may be ſome naturall cauſe, and probable conjecture: who will believe them in Divining and Predicting ſuch accidents and events, as belong not to their art?
58. Whether the proper matter, ſubject, or object of divining Aſtrologie, be the celeſtiall Spheres and orbs, yea or no? In as much as the Soothſaying artifice is preſuming to act upon Angells, Spirits, Souls, Religions, States, rationalls animalls, vegetables, inanimates, mineralls, artificialls: yea, and buſies it ſelf with ſuperſtitious, and ſupercilious obſervations, and concluſions, about actions, and accidents, from the moſt excellent, to the moſt ignoble of them. Is not an Artiſt then a John of all trades? For ſurely the art muſt either be all arts, or elſe no art at all.
59. Whether a Rabinicall tradition, Cabbaliſticall fancy, a Platonicall idea, a Paganiſh ſuperſtition, a Phreneticall Enthuſiaſm, a preſumptuous faith; a legendary authority, a prentices Arithmetick, an illogicall Rethorick, a vain ſpeculation, a paradoxall aſſertion, a depraving adulteration, a ſacrilegious detorſion, a catachreſticall, hyperbolicall ratiocination, ambiguous equivocation, affected decurtation, or ſophiſtication of expreſſion, a prophane aſſeveration, an arrogant boaſting of their own learning, and an odious undervaluing of all others; be powerfull and ſufficient to make Magick and Aſtrologie (arted, and arrant magick and aſtrologie) not only of prime-materiall non-entities, aenigmaticall oracles, obſtruſe hieroglyphicks, chimicall and chimericall ſperm and chaos, preternaturall mirables, occult antipathies, impertinent curioſities, diabolicall injections, preſtigious impoſtures, and ſorcerous practices: but alſo of Divine operations, Angelicall offices, coeleſtiall influences, naturall inſtincts, intellectuall notions, rationall faculties, artificiall experiments, caſuall accidents, extraordinary revelations, ſacred inſpirations, ſpirituall illuminations, propheticall predictions, parabolicall ſignifications, dogmaticall ſentences, gracious promiſes, legall types, evangelicall myſteries, religious ſervices, morall manners, politick affaires, arbitrary actions, heroick motions, common converſations; and indeed what not?
60. Whether all the preſaging Science (let them make never ſo much of it) be any more than a meer conjecturall imagination? And ſuch an imagination of a Diviner, whoſe efficacy oft-times depends more upon anothers imagination, than upon his own? For what can he (out of all his art) inquire of concerning thee; unleſſe thou (out of thy curioſity) inquireſt of him firſt? And what is he able to effect for thee, unleſs thou believeſt. If thou propoſeſt it not, can he tell for what particular cauſe thou commeſt to him? which way can our ſecret intentions be made known to others; but either by our own information, Gods revelation, or the Devills ſuggeſtion?
61. Whether an humane prudence (that I may ſay nothing of an illuminated diſcretion) I ſay, an humane prudence, ſtudying men, expert in affaires, obſervant of times, and manners, mindfull of providence in the gubernation of the world, and fearfull of impending judgements, and juſt deſerts; may not make a more probable conjecture, and utter a more likely omination, of mutations, and future events, both publike and private; than the Scioliſt, or the Artiſt, with all his Magick and Aſtrologie?
62. What difference betwixt ſome of the Artiſts Almanacks, and Ephimerides; and an Erra Pater, or the Sheepheards Kalender? and in which of them is more ſuperſtition and futility to be found?
93. Whether the Mathematicall maſters, Proſelytes, and Paraſites, ſo immoderatly and immodeſtly, idolatrouſly and blaſphemouſly, extolling, preferring, admiring, and adoring their own art, have not the rather betrayed it to cenſure, infamy, deriſion, and contempt; not only in the judgement of all good and wiſe, but of all moderate and indifferent men? Wherefore then doe they ſo …inſolently inveigh againſt the ignorance and ſtupidity of all ſuch, as (they ſay) detract from it; when it is confeſt among themſelves, that he is (of all) moſt ignorant of it, that attributes moſt to it; and that indeed their own arrogance and temerity, have expoſed it to more contumely and deteſtation; than all others envy and detraction?
64. How many Arch-magicians and Aſtrologers have (either ingeniouſly or anxiouſly) confeſſed, and condemned their own art or Science, for worſe than the Vanity thereof?