The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
XII. From the Conſciouſneſs of Caveats.
1. WHether ſuch an art muſt not needs be both unſound in the ſtudy, and ſearch of it; and unſafe in the practice, and aſſent thereto; that conſiſts more in cautions, and corrections; than in rules, and directions?
2. Wherefore doe the more wary I heoriſts in Aſtrologie, ſtill give ſo many cautions (ſo often repeated) to the raſh Artiſts, or practitioners; to take heed of Chaldaizing Judaizing, Paganizing; of Idolatry, Atheiſm, Superſtition; of Sorcery, inchantment, witchcraft; of curioſity, temerity, tempting of God; of imprecation, adjuration, conjuration; of circulatory, joculatory, and preſtigious deluſion; of pride, arrogance, impudence; of impiety, hypocriſy, profaneſs, &c. Is it not becauſe of the arts obnoxiouſneſs, and the Artiſts proneneſs to all theſe, and the like?
3. Whether their diſtinguiſhing betwixt Magick Theurgicall, and Goeticall; black, and white; naturall, diabolicall, and (as ſome adde) divine; of Aſtrologie naturall, ſupernaturall, and ſuperſtitious; of both theſe Jewiſh, Heatheniſh, Chriſtian; of the arts perfection, and imperfection; or rather of the arts integrity and the Artiſts imbecillity; of the practices lawfulneſs, and unlawfulneſs; of the uſe, and abuſe, &c. be not indeed a conſciouſneſs and conviction of the worſe part; rather than any demonſtration or declaration of the better?
4. Whats the reaſon they adviſe ſo often to diſtinguiſh betwixt neceſſary, and probable; betwixt infallible and conjecturall? but becauſe ther's no other diſcipline, that is, or can be invented, that hath ſo little infallibility, or certainty; and ſo much contingency, or uncertainty. What certain judgement then of future contingents can be by ſuch an art, or diſcipline; that is it ſelf but a kind for contingency?
5. Whether they themſelves that would ſeem very ſcrupulous and preciſe in diſtinguiſhing and diſcerning truth, and falſehood; good, and evill; lawfull, and unlawfull; in Magicall Aſtrologie: doe not in very deed commix and confound them, in one kind or another? and ſo impinge upon the ſelf ſame rock they would pretend to avoid. Is this caution; or colluſion? For doubtleſs, this is done not that they would be more wary and conſcientious themſelves of what they deliver: but to make others more unwary and ſecure in receiving and approving what is delivered.
6. Whether as (with the Patrons and Advocates of Aſtrologie) it ſeems to be a ſober caveat among themſelves, to diſcern betwixt the uſe, and the abuſe: it be alſo a ſound plea to others, that they ſhould likewiſe diſtinguiſh them? For is it not requiſite that they themſelves ſhould firſt really, ſincerely, and clearly diſcern; ere that they injoyn others to diſtinguiſh? Now (in birth-ſpelling, and fortune-telling Aſtrologie) where is the uſe? nay wherein is not an abuſe? Should not they firſt here undertake to ſatisfy us, ere they take upon them to adviſe us? How loath would they be, we ſhould be too ſevere in this impoſed task; which they truly perform not; but only (enough for conviction) would ſeem to ſlubber over?
7. Whether this cautelous concluſion and (as they think) ſober ſentence (The Stars incline onelyonly, but neceſſitate not) be verily delivered by Aſtrologers; or craftily propoſed in excuſe? For if they believe this their own ſaying, how then dare they be ſo peremptory in pronouncing upon Fate, and fatidicall deſtiny from the Stars? But would they not thus evade the fallacy of the prognoſticated event? For, others are eaſily Judges of the effect: but if the execution fail, they thus make themſelves the ſole Judges of the diſpoſition. And ſo, from the hidden inclination, think to ſave the credit of their Art, againſt the palpable fruſtration of the effect. As alſo by contriving (who knows what?) oppoſites, interventions, obſtructions, impediments. And if they know not how Stars are averſing: how come they to know how they are inclining?
8. Was there ever yet a judiciary Aſtrologer that duly obſerved that old caution, given him by the Prince of his Profeſſion? not to mingle, among his predictions, nor at all to meddle with the foreign, viz. the Prognoſtication of all ſuch things as can have no naturall cauſes?
9. As concerning this caution, or conviction (by no means to ſubjugate the rationall will, with its arbitrary acts to the power of the Stars) how chance this is propoſed by ſome of them, admitted by many, and yet obſerved by none?
10. Whether their more than abundant cautelouſneſs, for the ſalving of the Phaenomena (their many-fac't miſtreſſe in all her dreſſes or apparitions) be ſufficient ſo to doe? And how many aſcenſions, and deſcenſions; riſings, and ſettings; times and degrees, &c. muſt here be divined, ere it can come to Divination?
11. As touching Planetary events (benevolous, malevolent) whether their uſuall reſervation (for the time of their taking effect, how far they ſhall extend, how long laſt, or for their utter impediting) to be in God, in nature, in the prime cauſe, and divine providence: be not a conviction within themſelves of their uncertain and doubtfull predictions; if not rather uſed as a fallacy to ſave their skill in caſe of fruſtration?
12. Whats the cauſe, in their own aphoriſms, canons, rites, &c. they are fain to admoniſh one another to ſuch cautelouſneſs in the reading of them; much more in the apprehending of them; moſt of all in the practiſing according to them? Is not here a conſcious, and confeſt incidence to error; not only in the Reader, his apprehenſion, and practice; but even in the very rule or art it ſelf?
13. Whether it be not ſtill the trick and guiſe of Magicall Aſtrologers, to adjure, and conjure (after the old Heatheniſh manner) their Diſciples, and Clyents; to beware how they once ſo much as intimate their venerable myſteries, and admirable ſecrets, to unskilfull (as they call them) and profane ears? And what is their intent in ſo doing? Surely ſuch kind of cautionary and conjuring ſecrecy, as not to reveale to any (ſave only among themſelves) the art, rules, tearms, characters, phraſes, figures, fabrications, operations, intentions, profections, defects, time, place, perſon, habit, inſtruments, &c. what can all this argue, but a conſciouſneſs of ſuperſtition, ſorcery, envy, ignorance, ſophiſtry, preſtigious jugling, and plain knavery?
14. Wherefore adviſe they ſo earneſtly both Agent, and Patient, to take heed however of all heſitation, or doubting; either in doing or receiving? Doe they indeed reduce all the efficacy of their art to a Faith, or ſtrong imagination? and to the ſaith of one, as well as another? Nay, does all the vertue of the art conſiſt more in the inferiors confidence; than the ſuperiors influence?
15. Why bid they beware what aſſociats they take to themſelves in the art; eſpecially in the operation? Does the efficacy of the art depend upon the dignity, not only of the Excerciſer; but his Aſſiſtant alſo?
16. To what purpoſe doe the Arch-Magicians and Aſtrologers make caution, and admoniſh ſo ſtrictly (upon pain to forfeit all the fruit.) That the Pupill be naturally inclined to the art; or eaſily diſpoſible thereto, by a faith in his Tutors ſufficiency? That he con ſuch words, tearms, phraſes, characters, figures (though indeed inſignificant, or of no proper entent) whereby he may preſerve cloſe the ſublime Majeſty of the art; glory in his own profoundneſs of learning; and upbraid others, eſpecially his oppoſites, with ignorance and unskilfulneſs. That he ſtudy other learning by others; but this by himſelf. That he glory in the multiplicity of his Authors, more than their emendation. That he boaſt of an extraordinary gift, yet not beyond his Teachers; till hee can correct them in the invention of a new and nearer way. That he leave the order of ſuperiors, and inferiors, of aſcents and deſcents, of ſimilitude and diſſimilitude, of ſimple, and compounds. That he obſerve diligently matter, form, number, degree, time, place, order of operation: and eſpecially the Planet, or Lord of the operation; under whoſe dominion the ſpirit of the day, and hour is, for the effectuall operating. And laſtly, that he operate with wiſedome above all. Were it not for this laſt, to what purpoſe were all the reſt of the directions? which are not only inobſervable by the Attenders: but in explicable (and ſo confeſt by) the propounders themſelves. But weel take them at their word; let wiſedome be purſued to ſome purpoſe: and then all their other cautions, or conditions, will prove to no purpoſe.
17. Whether the confuſed cautions of dayes, hours, minutes, points, numbers, meaſures, degrees, orders, harmonies, ſimilitudes, congruities, diſpoſitions, compoſitions, elections, preparations, obſervations, fabrications, &c. argue not their art or artifice, a difficult vanity, an unprobable fiction, an impoſible operation?
18. What fickle, tickle, fallible arts are Magick, Aſtrologie, Alchymie? to have ſo many cautious directions, ceremonies, circumſtances (and they ſo difficult to be apprehended, more difficult to be obſerved) and yet the ignorance (as they ſay) neglect, or miſcarriage of the leaſt circumſtance enough to fruſtrate the whole ſubſtance or effect?
19. Upon what pretexet is it that ther are ſuch caveats in Magick, Aſtrologie, Alchymie, yea and Sorcery it ſelf; for faſting, abſtinence, cleanneſs of affections, members, garments, habitation, inſtruments, &c. ſince the arts themſelves are unclean and the beſt of them (by their own confeſſion) not throughly purged therefrom?
20. Is it not well known, that the Devill (even in the moſt execrable arts, and acts of conjuration, inchantment, ſorcery, witch-craft) hath cautioned, admoniſhed, and exhorted to faſting, prayer, chaſtity, charity, juſtice, forbearing of certain ſins, frequenting of divine ordinances? Now will any ſay, theſe arts, or acts, were any whit the better, or ſafer, for thoſe cautionings, and conditionatings ſo p…erequired?
21. What good end elſe can there be of their own counſelling and warning, that an Aſtrologer be a man both expertly Ethicall, and Phyſicall? Save that, as he ſhould not exerciſe his own: ſo he ſhould not Prognoſticate of others manners; beyond all grounds of morality. And that he ſhould correct, or rather prevent his Aſtrologicall Prognoſtications, by true phyſicall principles.
22. Whether this be not a proper caution for all Aſtrologers; to forewarn one another, of gazing ſo long upon the ſtars, till they fall (as one of them did) into the ditch?
23. Whether it be not the beſt caveat that can be given to an Aſtrologer, and ſo confeſt by ſome of them, to account it moſt ſafe and ſure (after all inſpection of the ſtars) to look to the Parents, for the conſtitution; to the temper, for qualities; to the will, for actions; to induſtry, and externall means for acquiſitions; and to divine providence, for events?
24. VVhether any ſound Orthodox Chriſtian ever did write in the approof of judiciary and predicting Aſtrologie? And if any ſuch have treated of the ſpeculation (if their recantation followed not after it) then with what moderation, and reiterated caution? yea and that ſo ſevere, ſo ſincere; as that a Chriſtian Reader might eaſily perceive, it was the caution which he intended (through the main of the diſcourſe) and not the Inſtitution?