The Magical-Astrological-Diviner Posed and Puzzled, Treatise · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
6. From the obſcurity of Originall.
1. WHether the vertue or viciouſneſs, profit or perniciouſneſs, dignity or obſcurity, lawfulneſs or unlawfulneſs of an Art or Science, may not well be argued from the primordiall cauſe, Infuſer, Suggeſter, Inventer, Inſtitutor, and Author of it?
2. Whence ariſeth the very name of a Magician? whether from theſe, or thoſe Nations, Cities, Towns, Countries, Languages, Profeſſours, Sects, Religions, Derivations, interpretations? Who (of the Magicians themſelves) is able preciſely to define?
3. Whether the name of a Magician be derived from Latine, Greek, Hebrew, Syriack, Arabick, Chaldaean, Aegyptian, Perſian? &c. and whether thoſe derivations that ſeem to be accepted in the good part, and to import any dignity; be not contorted▪ jejune, frigid, abſurd, ridiculous: and thoſe accepted in the bad ſenſe, and ſignifying malefice, be not more proper, apt, orthodox, genuine, and generally received among knowing Chriſtians; and the other left to Pagans, and Paraſites alone?
4. Whether Divination ſimply was ever taken in the good part, or approved by any good and approved Author? However, is it not (in ſacred Scripture) taken in the bad part altogether?
5. Whether it be not a Jewiſh blaſphemy, although an heatheniſh glory, to father the Magicall art of Starre-divining upon Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joſeph, Moſes, Job, Salomon, Daniel: And not only ſo, but upon Chriſt himſelf?
6. Whether it be not (of all other) the moſt probable opinion, that the black art of Aſtrologicall Magick or Magicall Aſtrologie, had its firſt Profeſſours and Practiſers in Cain, and in his poſterity before the Flood: and after that in Cham and his poſterity? And that thoſe Pillars (if indeed there were any ſuch, as they traditionally talk of) were of Chams ſetting up, rather than Seths?
7. Whether the Aſtro-magicall divining was not antiquely founded and grounded upon the idolatrous Oracles of the Pagans (for they pretended to make their anſwers, or predictions from the Starres) And theſe once ſilenced, after it ceaſed to be a religion; was it not then wholly taken up as an art?
8. With what execrable blaſphemy do they affirm their Primitive magick to be in God, eternall, a notion of the divine wiſedome, an operation of the divine Spirit, &c? How much more evident is it to be from the Devill from his fall, a notion of his prevaricating knowledge, ſince the depravation of his will; and an operation of that ſame Spirit, working now in the children of darkneſſe and diſobedience?
9. From whence elſe, but from the Devill, can the Magicall arts and operations come originally; who (the firſt of creatures that abuſed himſelf) ſeeks ever ſince to abuſe the creatures (caeleſtiall, terreſtriall, infernall) againſt their own nature and inſtitution? Did not he himſelf firſt excogitate and invent this metamorphoſing, and preſtigious Magick, in firſt turning himſelf into an Angell of darkneſs, and again into an Angell of light? Did he not firſt teach it in the deception, and prevarication of our firſt Parents? Gen. 3. Firſt practice it in abuſing the Serpent to his purpoſe? Firſt communicate it, in telling them they ſhould bee as Gods, knowing good and evill? For what was that ambition of knowledge, which he then ſuggeſted to them, but a vain curioſity, tempting God, by being inquiſitive after things, and meaſures, altogether beyond the creatures naturall inclination, proper condition, and preſent perfection?
10. Whether the Devill did not inſtitute, and ordain Augurs, vaticinators, Diviners, Preſagers, Predictors, Sooth ſayers. Prognoſticators, Fortune-tellers, &c. in an apiſh emulation, and preſtigious, imitation of Gods Prophets, and Chriſts Apoſtles?
11. Whether thoſe Angells (to which they impoſe names of their own inventions) Spirits, good Daemons, and Souls of the Bleſſed, &c. (which the Magicians make to flye in the ayr, and to be the Authors of their arts) be not very Devils? Elſe, why talk they of their veneration, as the Tutors of their arts; and ſometimes again of their coaction, as the miniſters thereunto?
12. Whether many profeſſors and practitioners of Magicall arts (in all kinds) although (while they have flouriſhed and been favoured) they have pretended, and vaunted them to be innocent, lawfull, commodious, nay divine; yet when they have been brought to ſevere examination, and execution by Magiſtrates, have they not then been Convicted, and confeſſed, all was proceeding from the Devill, and tending to them.
13. Whether ſuch an art may not (without injuſtice) be imputed to, and from the Devill; where (at leaſt) an occult, ſecret, tacite, implicit compact or covenant is more than to be ſuſpected from a curioſity, temerity, ſuperſtition, of believing, aſſenting, hoping, expecting, inquiring, requiring, conjuring, adjuring, pretending, promiſing, endevouring, and attempting: and all this concerning ſuch events or effects, as can neither religiouſly, nor reaſonably be expected from God, or Nature, nor yet from orderly and ſober Art it ſelf?
14. Whether judiciary Aſtrologie was firſt founded upon diligent obſervation, or palpable event: and not rather upon diabolicall ſuggeſtion, and ſuperſtitious imagination? For how can they ſay, it was grounded upon obſervation, or experiment? When as (by their own rules) the very ſame face of the heavens, and poſiture of the ſtarres, ſeldome or never happens. Becauſe innumerable ſtarres ſhall not have abſolved their circuit, and return to the ſame habit; if the world ſhould laſt more than ſix times ſix thouſand years?
15. Was ever heard a more ſenſleſs ſhameleſs fable? That the Chaldaeans have had the Monuments of Aſtrologicall obſervation, for four hundred and ſeventy thouſand years? How long is it then (according to that account) ſince the world began? Nay, how long before the ſtarres began, was Aſtrologie on foot? The next lye is not altogether ſo lowd, but a great deal too big for truth, and credibility; That the Aegyptians have profeſt Aſtrologie for this hundred thouſand years.
16. Whether the Magicians and Aſtrologers (after all their ſearch among Jewes, Aegyptians, Chaldaeans, Phoenicians, Perſians, Syrians, Graecians, Romans, &c.) are able to find out exactly the true originall of their own art: or preciſely ſet it forth as touching the firſt profeſſors of it? Doth it not require a brighter and ſafer Spirit of divining, than ever was in Aſtromagicall Diviners, to divine when Aſtrologicall Magick had its firſt profeſſion among men, and by whom?
17. Whether Magick and Aſtrologie was invented by o…e perſon, or many; one Nation, or many; in one place, or many; one Age, or many? And whether thoſe many Authors (ſo uncertain, ſo obſcure) are worth the reciting, or the asking after? Nay, whether the ſundry names, numbers, and operations of the Starres themſelves were not invented and divulged ſome by one man, ſome by another; ſome at one time, and ſome at another? and whether wee have not new inventions ſtill broached and vented: and thoſe condemning and deſpiſing the former for fictitious, and ridiculous?
18. Whether the firſt Inventors and profeſſors of Magick and Aſtrologie were not men Heatheniſh, Idolatrous, ſuperſtitious, impious, profane, hereticall, hypocriticall? And how far their followers came ſhort of them in all, or moſt of theſe?
19. If Magick was at firſt (as ſome ſay) no more but a morall kind of divinity, or diſciplinary inſtitution: how grew it then into an Idolatrous Religion, ſuperſtitious ſpeculation, and preſtigious operation?
20. Whether Star-gazing, Sooth ſaying, prognoſticating, preſaging, &c. began firſt within the Church, or without it? If within; why are Gods people admoniſhed againſt it, as the way, and cuſtome of other nations? If without, then was it not a doctrine of Gods gracious inſtituting, neither yet neceſſary, nor uſefull to his Church. Let them tell us, who brought it firſt into the Church? of what note he, or they were? by what warrant they did ſo? and to what fruit, or edification? Nay, can they deny? they that brought in Star-divining; did they not alſo bring in Star-worſhipping together with it?
21. Whether the obſcurity and baſeneſs of Originall in Magick, and Aſtrologie, argue not ſufficiently the vileneſs, and abhomination thereof; as well touching the doctrine, as the practice: in as much as the heavenly, and holy truths, either of nature, in her integrity; or of the Law, in its morallity; or of the Goſpell, in its ſpirituality; are all of them of ſo eminent, and evident originall, or deſcent?