The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
2. From the truth of Faith.
1. WHether it be not the ſole property of the prime verity to require ſimply a Faith, or belief unto himſelf; and to the Doctrine of his divine authority and revelation? and therfore not belonging to any humane art, ſcience, diſcipline, or inſtitution whatſoever; much leſſe to be arrogated to any, that is diabolicall and preſtigious▪ yea vain unneceſſary and unprofitable. Wherefore then ſhould Faith (pure Faith) be ſo preciſely required and ſeverely exacted (above all other helps and means) to the ſtudy and profeſſion, proficiency and ſucceſſe of Magick, and magicall operations.
2. Whether Magick and Aſtrologie (as indeed all aſcititious, and commentitious errours, and hereſies, of any art, ſtudy, or profeſſion whatſoever) have not proceeded from a falſe and ſuperſtitious Faith: and ſuch as is no whit analogall either to the object; or to the end of true religious Faith; and not only ſo, but altogether exceſſive, and repugnant thereunto?
3. For as much as Almighty God requires not a Faith in thoſe things which he hath not revealed: Why then ſhould Magicians exact it to their myſteries; which they ſo often check at themſelves and one another, for revealing; nay profeſſe, or pretend themſelves (whether through envy, or ignorance) as adjured not to reveal?
4. All Faith is not only in the Intellect, but alſo in the Will. And therefore (ere it be believed) how prove they that Magick ought either to be aſſented to▪ as true, and demonſtrable: or yet to be affected as good and lawfull?
5. Whether all that can be ſuppoſed to thoſe they call the Mathematicall arts and ſciences, be ſufficient to acquire unto them an aſſent of Faith properly ſo called? ſuppoſe ſome probable truth; is not an aſſent of opinion enough to that? Suppoſe ſome neceſſary truth, is not an aſſent of reaſon ſufficient for that? Suppoſe ſome reall effect, will not aſſent of experiment now ſerve the turn? Is nothing anſwerable to all, or the beſt of theſe but only a Faith, which properly is either in God, or of the things of God, or at leaſt to thoſe things which are directly in order to God? But ſuppoſe there be none of thoſe; muſt now this prime aſſent be allowed, where all the other are juſtly to be denied?
6. Right and pure Faith is neither of a bare propoſition, although true; nor yet of a meer prediction, although probable: but of a divine promiſe only; and that not only becauſe certain and infallible, but becauſe good and beneficiall: neither is there in either of the other the ſubſtance or evidence of things hoped for; but in this laſt alone. And therefore if Magicians and Aſtrologers cannot afford us ſuch a promiſe; ought we not juſtly to diſclaim an adherence, acquieſcence, affiance or confidence, in any of their propoſitions, or predictions whatſoever?
7. Faith is properly in the heavenly myſteries of divine revelation ſuch as cannot be otherwiſe attained, unleſs they be infuſed; nor otherwiſe comprehended but by faith alone. Now, as for the Secrets of Philoſop…e are they not acquiſite? and ſuch as may be attained by induſtrie, ſtudy, diſcourſe, reading, obſervation, art, ſcience, experience? yea▪ and ſufficiently aſſented to by the light of nature, lenſe, reaſon, opinion, perſwaſion? And though peradventure ſome Secrets of Philoſophie (ſuch as are true and uſefull) may be divinely revealed or infuſed yet for as much as that is but to the common light of Nature Senſe or Reaſon; which (for aſſent) conſiders not the authority of God revealing▪ but the evidence of the thing revealed▪ How then can this be of Faith, which is ſpeciall and ſupernaturall altogether?
8. A divine ſupernaturall, infuſed, theologicall Faith is given, not becauſe of the appearance or ev…dence of the thing propounded: but becauſe of the authority and infallibility of the propoſer. And da…e they arrogate thus much to their Art? or excuſe their defect of evidence, through a preſumption of infallibility? But if it be a naturall, acquiſite, humane, or civill faith, or aſſent, which they expect; then we ask, where the evidence proof demonſtration, reaſon? For though reaſon follows the firſt, yet it precedes the ſecond kind of faith.
9. Whether a miraculous faith, or the faith of Miracles (ſuch as muſt needs be the faith of Magicall miracles, and Aſtrologicall Predictions abovt ſu…u…e contingents) as it is defective in Theologie; ſo it be not exceſſive to Philoſophie? That is, although it be very incompleat in relation to divine doctrine: yet whether it be not too tranſcendent for any humane diſcipline to exact?
10 Whether it may be verily called a faith of Miracles, to give credit unto Magick or Aſtrologie, becauſe of ſome mirandous or ſtupendious things, either effected or foretold; in as much as we are taught to believe that ſuch things may be done▪ both by falſe arts, and to falſe ends? Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. Mat. 24. 24. 2 Th…ſ. 2. 9, 10.
11. If Magick or Aſtrologie be (in accurate ſpeaking) a Science, as they contend; then let them ſee (with the Schoolmen) how the ſame thing can be at once the object of Science, and of Faith; And if they agree (with ſome of them) to ſay; that the clearer part may be of Science, and the obſcurer of faith. Then, as the clear part muſt both be true and revealed by God: ſo the obſcure muſt be anſwerable to the firſt, and not repugnant to the laſt. But how prove they that?
12. Whether a thing Contingent can be the object of Faith, ſave only ſo farre forth as ſomething neceſſary is included, and ſuppoſed in it? For a thing meerly contingent is indifferent to either part, and not only ſo but uncertain to both; it may be▪ and it may not be. And what faith can there be? Indeed an Hypotheſis of the divine ordination▪ may make it to be neceſſary immutable, inev…able: and in that relation only it pertains to Faith And therefore that remains to be proved ere it ought to be believed.
13. Contingents (eſpecially ſingular contingents) are directly known to the ſenſes; and but indirectly to the underſtanding but how fall they under faith?
14. Is not this Faiths order in apprehending and aſſenting to the truth of things future and fortuitous 1 To believe that it is God, ſole property to know all things ſimply in himſelf▪ whether paſt, preſent or to come. 2. That the bleſſed Angels (which alwayes behold his face) notwithſtanding have not a perfect preſcience even of naturall things (whether in the heavens or in the earth) much leſſe of ſingular accidents and effects; but ſo as God is pleaſed (at the inſtant) to reveal it to them. 3 That the revevelation of things future, to the Prophets and men of God was extraordinary, temporary, ſingular. 4. Though the Devils (by their experimental… ſagacity, and buſie curioſity) may preſume to gheſſe at many things, altogether hidden to us; yet they are (for the moſt part) deceived as well as deceiving in their preſaging, or predictory ſuggeſtions. Becauſe God (many times) does many things beſides the ordinary way of his providence; and contrary to the common order of Nature. And much more diſpoſes things contrarily, in his ſpeciall converſions of men to Grace. Neither yet doth he permit the Devill a power over men free-wills, to act neceſſarily, or produce effects according to the Devils predictions. 6. That God hath taught Men to look after things future, no otherwiſe than temporally by a ſolid providence: and eternally, though a ſound faith 7. That the Creatures (in heaven or earth) may be ſignes, either naturall or prodigious; and ſo tokens either of his mercies or judgements: which although they may be particularly intended; yet are not to be (before-hand) but univerſally apprehended. 8. That no ſuch. Art is of Gods inſtitution, which teaches men to pry into his Secrets, and to pronounce upon them, otherwiſe than he hath revealed in his Word.
15. How can a Faith in aſtrologicall Predictions be true and right; when as, by how much they are propounded, or attended, with more peremptorineſs or confidence; by ſo much they are the more ſuperſtitious and unlawfull? For an indifferent opinion and a moderate ſuſpicion in theſe things is nothing ſo inordinate as an anxious fear or vehemently affected expectation.
16. With what faith or conſcience can we believe their Aſtrologicall predictions? In as much as God hath reſumed the fore-knowledge, and fore-ſhewing of things future to himſelf; and hath diſcharged Angels, Devills and Men, from all ſuch curioſities and preſumptions: and hath expreſly forbidden us ſo often both the conſulting with, and aſſenting to them, Levit. 26. 31. Iſa. 41. 22, 23. Jer. 27. 9. Dan. 2. 27, 28. Prov. 27. 1. Eccleſ. 8. 7. Mat. 24. 23, 24. Act. 1. 7.
17. How can we be perſwaded that Divining Magicians, or Aſtrologians, are either profitable to the Church, or tolerable in a Chriſtian Common-wealth? In that God himſelf hath not only given the expreſſe Law or Precept for their non admiſſion; but made it a peculiar promiſe to his Church, for their utter excluſion, even in all the kinds of them Numb 23. 23. Deut. 18. 10. 2 King. 23. 24 Ezek 1…. 24. Mich. 5. 12. Yea, and hath made that to be the mark of ſeparation, and note of diſtinction, betwixt his own people, and other Nations, Deut. 18. 14. Jer. 10. 2. Iſa. 2. 6.
18. Should we once but admit of Aſtrologicall Predictions to come into our Creed; would they not infinitely prejudice the Prophecies, and promiſes of the Word? Would they not ſeduce us from deſtiny, to predeſtination by the ſtarres? And from naturall inclinations, to propenſions to Grace; as depending upon Conſtellations? Would they not perſwade us, that the Miracles of Chriſt, his Myſteries and Ordinances, have (all of them) a reference to the Starres? And the infuſions of the Spirit, to reſpect the influxes of the Planets? Would they not make our Wills ſervile, while their decrees are taught to inforce a neceſſitation to Good or Evill? And then, what praiſe; what puniſhment, either for one or other? Yea, how careleſs ſhould we be in the one; and how excuſing in the other? Nay, would they not make us believe our very Souls to be mortall (becauſe thus acted by materialls, and made paſſive under them) and ſo, what ſhould Conſcience of Religion be thought, but a meer imagination; or hope of ſlavation eternall, but a vain dream?
19. Whether it be lawfull for a Chriſtian man, to ſtudy for the attainment of that, which his faith dares not pray for? And how can he there pray with faith, where he hath not a promiſe? And if it be a tempting of God, to invoke or deſire the revelation of future accidents: what is it then, to ſeek to wreſt the ſame from him, by a conjuring, at leaſt, by an over-inquiſitive Art, and over-daring practice thereupon?
20. Whether God may not work by a ſpeciall grace of illumination, and ſanctification, even in the forming of Nature (as in John the Baptiſt) and then, what have the qualitative influxes of the Planets, or their dominion, there to doe? But ordinarily, whether the forming of the new Creature, be not alwayes wrought by ſpeciall inſpirations, and immediate infuſions? How ſhall it then be believed, that a mans religion, or religious qualities, may be genethliacally prognoſticated from the Starres, and their influentiall Conſtellations?
21. Is the obſervation of the Sarres, becauſe of their force: or their force, becauſe of their obſervation? Is mens faith, becauſe of their vertue; or their vertue, becauſe of mens faith? For it hath antiently been doubted, whether any ſuch power as is aſcribed to them; or any ſuch effects as are pretended from them, would ever have followed, but for mens ſuperſtitious obſervations, affectations, perſwaſions, and expectations?
22. For what cauſe are Magicians and Aſtrologers ſo earneſt to require Faith (as principall) both in the Agent and Patient? Is it not to help out the validitie of their art, by the vertue of a vehement, and ſtrong imagination? For will not a ſtrong imagination, and a ſuperſtitious faith, work as well without a magicall fibrication, or Aſtrologicall configuration; as with them? Nay, are they not in themſelves ſuch a kind of art, and can they not invent, or erect to themſelves ſuch a kind of operation; and that every whit as effectuall as thoſe already invented, and erected?
23. Is it not one and the ſame kind of Faith, in a magicall Operator, and Aſtrologicall or genethliacall Calculator, a maleficall Sorcerer, a preſtigious Juggler, and a ſuperſtitious Conſulter, or Aſſentor? If not, its their part (who would diſcriminate themſelves) to ſhew us the differences that are between them.
24. Whether Aſtrologers (as touching their way of Predicting and Preſaging) ought to be believed, although they ſpeak true, and it come to paſſe accordingly? In regard that truth is ſpoken ignorantly, unwittingly, conjecturally, out of uncertain grounds, out of multiplicity of words, out of ambiguous equivocation, by accident; and not only by a divine permiſſion, but by a Satanicall ſuggeſtion: and all this with purpoſe to delude with greater untruths. Doe we not uſe to miſtruſt many truths in others, for the telling of one lye? why then ſhould we believe many lyes in Theſe, for the telling of one truth?
25. If this be a thing credible, that there is an ordinary, and perpetuall ſufficiency, and efficiency (whereby to foretell of future events (generall and particular) in Starrs and Planets: wherefore then did God ſtill raiſe up his own Prophets, to foretell what ſhould befall; and them extraordinary called, and but temporally inlightened to that purpoſe?
26. How can Chriſtians have a faith in Magick or Aſtrologie; which (ſince the time of Chriſt) have occaſioned ſo many idolatrous, ſuperſtitious, ſacrilegious, atheiſticall prophane and diſſolute Hereſies: and all of them ſo utterly repugnant to the faith?
27. Whether the magiſteriall Dictates of a Jewiſh Rabbine, or a Pagan Philoſopher, or a Chriſtianizer compact of them both, be ſufficient, either to ground, or move a rationall credence, much leſſe a religious Creed, or belief?
28. Whether a faith in the contrary, hath not prevailed to evacuate the vertue, and annihilate the efficacy of a magicall operation, and Aſtrologicall Prediction? And what reaſon elſe is there,. why their arts and abilities have ſo often failed them, and they failed in them, before the face and preſence of faithfull and pious men.
29. What faithfull Chriſtian profeſſor ſometimes peradventure addicted to the ſtudy and practice of Magick and Aſtrologie; whoſe very Faith (upon his converſion) moved him not to repent, recant, reprove, reject both his preſaging arts, books, and Societie?
30. Whether Magicians and Aſtrologers have (verely and indeed) a faith in their own arts, and artifices? If ſo, wherefore then uſe they ſo manifold ambiguities, amphibologies, equivocations, obſcurities, inſignificancies, reticencies, reſtrictions, cautions, fallacies, and evaſions?