Pus-mantia the mag-astro-mancer, or, The magicall-astrologicall-diviner posed, and puzzled by John Gaule ...

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 ther∣fore not belonging to any humane art, sci∣ence, discipline, or institution whatsoever; much lesse to be arro∣gated to any, that is diabolicall and prestigious▪ yea vain un∣necessary and unprofitable. Wherefore then should Faith (pure Faith) be so precisely required and severely exacted (above all o∣ther 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 pro∣fession whatsoever) have not proceeded from a false and supersti∣tious 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 altoge∣ther 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 Magici∣ans exact it to their mysteries; which they so often check at them∣selves 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 Ma∣thematicall 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 sup∣pose there be none of those; must now this prime assent be allow∣ed, where all the other are justly to be denied?

6. Right and pure Faith is neither of a bare proposition, al∣though true; nor yet of a meer prediction, although probable: but of a divine promise only; and that not only because certain and infal∣lible, 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 adhe∣rence, acquiescence, affiance or confidence, in any of their proposi∣tions, or predictions whatsoever?

7. Faith is properly in the heavenly mysteries of divine revela∣tion 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, sci∣ence, experience? yea▪ and sufficiently assented to by the light of nature, lense, reason, opinion, perswasion? And though peradven∣ture 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 as∣sent) considers not the authority of God revealing▪ but the evi∣dence 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 na∣turall, acquisite, humane, or civill faith, or assent, which they ex∣pect; then we ask, where the evidence proof demonstration, rea∣son? 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 Theolo∣gie; 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 ob∣scure 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 sup∣posed 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••••a∣ble: 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 al∣wayes behold his face) notwithstanding have not a perfect pre∣science 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 reve∣velation 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 pre∣dictory 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 con∣trarily, in his speciall conversions of men to Grace. Neither yet doth he permit the Devill a power over men free-wills, to act ne∣cessarily, 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 parti∣cularly 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 Astro∣logicall 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 Pro∣phecies, and promises of the Word? Would they not seduce us from destiny, to predestination by the starres? And from naturall incli∣nations, 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 illumi∣nation, 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, whe∣ther 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 ge∣nethliacally 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, affectati∣ons, 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 imagina∣tion, 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 in∣vent, or erect to themselves such a kind of operation; and that eve∣ry whit as effectuall as those already invented, and erected?

23. Is it not one and the same kind of Faith, in a magicall Ope∣rator, 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 them∣selves) 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 igno∣rantly, unwittingly, conjecturally, out of uncertain grounds, out of multiplicity of words, out of ambiguous equivocation, by ac∣cident; and not only by a divine permission, but by a Satanicall suggestion: and all this with purpose to delude with greater un∣truths. 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: where∣fore 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 idola∣trous, 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 eva∣cuate 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, re∣cant, reprove, reject both his presaging arts, books, and Societie?

30. Whether Magicians and Astrologers have (verely and in∣deed) a faith in their own arts, and artifices? If so, wherefore then use they so manifold ambiguities, amphibologies, equivocations, ob∣scurities, insignificancies, reticencies, restrictions, cautions, fallacies, and evasions?