HAd Mr. Gadbury's Annotator de­signed to have dealt impartially, and (as he pretends) like an un­byass'd Person, he would never so severely have examined the extravagancies of a Man, so long time reputed non compos men­tis; nor ought he to have taken notice of his inconsistencies and contradictions, in a Book that was scribled in a delirious fit; but have cited his opinion of the influence of the Stars, before they had so unhappily exerted it upon his brain, i. e. before he was quite infatuated, and turned Mad-man: for in his Preface to his Coll. Gen. (particularly that Part that is borrowed from Sir Chr. Heydon nomine sup­presso) he tells us, That the Stars do so strong­ly encline, that the effects of Nature are com­monly seen beyond the force of education. Nay, within these seven years it pleased God to ho­nour the Stars with such Energy (which I con­ceive consists not with gently inclining) that among five thousand Nativities, he can with con­fidence assert, they have never been found to fail, see Prognost. for 1669. Might not the Title of Silly Sophister have been as justly at­tributed [Page 2] to him by his Annotator, for ex­cluding the Heirs of Hell from being any part of Gods Creation, because they have no pre­tence to Heaven, as for endeavouring to prove by a Negative? With what face can J. G. object to Mr. L. his stigmatizing Scor­pio, when in the gross he so irreverently transfers the particulars of the change on Sampson? But to come more closely, Really, Gentlemen, I must tell ye, if ye did believe Mr. Lilly in his black charge to be true, you ought to anticipate his malice; take courage and be­come your own Butchers, for certainly Persons of his character, as he saith ye all are for being born under Scorpio, can but faintly hope for any share in Heaven at last, and then to what pur­pose should we, that are born under so dismal an Ascendant, covet to live? Senceless Sot! but argued like the Author.

Might not our Annotator have observed (had he been unbiass'd) that these words do most apparently convict our Astrologer, ei­ther of Heresie, or folly and stupidity? I confess I am willing to put the safest con­struction upon it, and for once admit it to proceed out of his abundant simplicity, and only tell him that he argues like a most egre­gious Ass: For if he believes a future punish­ment, and by the misfortune of his Horos­cope is incapacitated for pretending any share [Page 3] in Heaven, it is stupendious folly to accele­rate those inexpressible torments that afflict the damned, by cutting his own throat.

Plato (as quoted by Plutarch) maketh Pro­vidence superiour to Necessity or Destiny; Mr. L. if he allow Providence at all, placeth it below them. But why should J. G. transfer this confounded non-sense upon Mr. L. when it had its conception of his own Addle-pate? For I would fain be satisfied, how Provi­dence can be imagined by any rational Man, if there be a necessity in the disposition of humane affairs? though I doubt not, but our Author can reconcile Fate and Providence as easily, as the hooks and eyes of a Suit.

Mr. L. must pardon me, I cannot help it, &c. This is the mighty Advocate for free-will, he that would exclude all coercion upon the mind of Man, cannot now help his differing in opinion from Mr. L. and how should a Man, in whom non-sence and repugnancies are inherent, avoid contradicting himself, and writing like an Ass?

I cannot but commend his prudence (or rather subtility, for you know his Horos­cope) in waving those disputes, which God knows he is no more able to manage or de­termine than his quondam Goose notions, which at second or third hand he hath glean­ed up, and here shuffling in by the head and [Page 4] shoulders, by his hints would be thought a Philosopher. I cannot but laugh at his Epi­thet of prodigious for Scorpio, there being such a prodigy of Astrology, and an olio of Saints spawned under it, for you may observe, good Reader, Scorpionists spawn apace. I would desire our Author to tell me by what figure of non-sence he terms that immorta­lity, which is no longer liv'd than the carkess.

Mr. L. (it seems) in his Almanack for 1673. hath a little severely reflected upon Scorpio, and Persons born under it: Gadbury in recapitulating the affront, doth not only exert his resentment, but very wittily (as he thinks) upbraids him with tautology; But would not a wise Man have taken care, that he had been secure before he had recrimi­nated? But to prove this Coxcomb's pre­tence by right of birth equivalent to Mr. Lilly's, pray read in the very page where he makes this observation, and you shall find, This Mundane frame or fabrick is of so excellent a texture and composure, and is so choice and exquisite a piece of clock-work, so glorious and orderly as well in each particular, as in its ge­neral motion, that should the least pin or par­ticle thereof be wanting or amiss, or indeed in any other nature or temper, shape or condition, or in any other order than it is, the whole World would run to ruine or destruction. If ever such [Page 5] an hideous piece of bombast (for bombast, if for once you will admit a clench, hath formerly been as essential to his profession as filching) was read before in a Fellow, that pretended to reprove tautology in another, I will be bound to read the non-sence of this Author as long as I live, and I think my life would then be as uncomfortable as a Scorpio­nists, were Mr. Lilly's charge true.

As it is our Author's endeavour in all his writings, to illustrate and adorn (as he thinks) his discourses with hard words, so hath he no small affectation to lard them with Greek and Latin Verses: His skill in the Greek is unquestionably as eminent as Sir Hu­dibras's, and for Latin he hath as much I dare swear as the Geese that preserved the Ca­pitol; for an instance take these two (Verses I cannot call them) as they lye p. 5.

Here hath our Author outdone the Pro­verb, killed three Birds with one stone, given us a specimen of his skill in the Latin, of his Poetick vein, and lastly girded his An­tagonist; but would any but our egregiously stupid Fop, have thus shamefully betrayed his own ignorance? Can he think Men such [Page 6] Sots, as to believe that he who would ex­pose such stuff to the publick, could have any understanding (as he pretends) in the learned Languages? Seneca, I remember, hath an expression that runs thus: Quibusdam ca­nibus sic innatum est, ut non pro feritate sed pro consuetudine latrent. But because I am sen­sible he is ignorant enough, not to apprehend the absurdities of his own without some inti­mation, I will desire him to scan the first line, then construe it and tell of what use natum is, and where he meets with the Verb feritare, except in his own barbarous Poetry? Yet to convince you further of his skill in the Latin, hath he not in his Doctr. Nat. pag. 137. put Woman in breeches, and made her of the Masculin gender, moriturus ante natum? what think you of applicat. ad □☿ Dominus nonae? hath not he (to prove his acquaintance with the Poets) discovered Seneca to be but a plagiary, and stole that Chorus Fatis agimur? &c. which we find in his Oedipus, from Clau­dian; as very gravely he cites him for the Author of it, in his Title-page to the Nativity of King Charles Astrologically handled. His Annotator has (I think) sufficiently lashed him for his challenge, to produce one Au­thor that hath stigmatized Scorpio. But, saith John, if such Authors there be, they and Mr. Lilly stand in eminent need of Heaven's [Page 7] Amnestia. But, Friend John, have the Hea­vens a greater respect for Scorpio, than any other Sign of the Zodiack? Or may you alone securely cast what imputations you please upon the Celestial Bodies? For if I mistake not, you charge the Planets ill digni­fied, (Vide Doctr. Nat. pag. 67, 68, &c.) as scandalously as Mr. L. doth Scorpio.

Your Annotator hath very justly acquitted Mr. L. from your scandal, of believing the Stars to be essentially evil, and impellent causes: But how you will purge your self, I cannot conceive; for by as much as may be collected from expression, I am satisfied that you did believe them to be cogent (however you have now changed that note) when you wrote these words: If Venus be found in Libra or Taurus, whatsoever the nativity be, the Na­tive shall affect lewd Women, and he shall be a Fornicator. Doctr. Nat. pag. 80.

And what construction will the subsequent words admit: And I am perswaded; that who­ever have ♂ and ♀ in their nativities (as of ne­cessity all Persons have) will be more or less (according to their dignities therein) concerned in the question: that is, they will by an innate Impulse, do that which is much worse, Vide Doct. Nat. p. 130. And now whether these words do not imply a coercion, contrary to the do­ctrine which he here maintains, I appeal to [Page 8] any Scorpionist in Europe. But whether by much worse he means fornication, or Istud quod digitis Gadbury perdis homo est, I cannot determine, but it may be both.

Now for the particular branches of the charge, and the first that occurs is falsity, and (quoth John) That is the counterfeit of verity according to the etymon, such an one as breaks open Letters, &c. if it be wickedness to conceal the fault of that which a man selleth, surely open, publick and professed falshood is wickedness with a witness. Besides the non-sence and tauto­logy here, you may observe that according to the etymon (as he absurdly calls it) falsity is the counterfeit of verity, i. e. either it hath some resemblance to verity; That essentially there is between them, is obvious: and ta­ken in the other sence, it is a flat repugnance to open publick, &c. So that you see here is non-sence with a witness; thus doth this stu­pid disputant blunder in his first particular.

Secondly, Arrogance, and there he tells us out of Solomon: There is more hopes of a fool, than of one that is wise in his own conceit, and subjoyns that 'tis the greatest enemy to prudence that can be. From whence I collect that this J. Gad­bury is like to be a fool to the end of the play: For, saith Solomon, There is no hope of him. But this learned Author can't be content to quote a Wise Man, but he must make him break poor Priscian's head.

Thirdly, Ambition is the mother of Super­stition; and yet (quoth he) vain glory (which with him idem sonat) ends in lewdness, so that to be ambitious is to live vitiously: How these cohere I apprehend not, nor it may be the only wise and learned J. Gadbury.

Fourthly, Ingratitude, and of this was ne­ver any Scorpionist guilty; I only desire him to reflect upon himself, and what excuse he can frame, let him know according to his own maxime, Knavery in one person, is no excuse for ingratitude in another.

Fifthly, Boasting, which is a vice (saith John) opposed to valour; which by his favour is no consequent, there being so frequent examples of their compatibility. It is wonderful to him, how boasting falls to the share of a Scor­pionist, since Scorpio is the House of Mars, and Mars the author of true courage; and this you have in general, be Mars well or ill dignified: So that a pratler (which is consisting enough with boasting) without modesty or honesty, a Broacher of quarrels, a Thief, a perjured or turbulent Fel­low, a Promoter of mischiefs, a rash inhumane treacherous Fellow, a meer Incendiary, one that neither Years God, neither cares for honouring or revering Man, (which is his own character of Mars ill dignified) and such a Mars as himself was born under, may have as just a pretence to true valour as any, and if so, I see no rea­son [Page 10] for the exclusion of the Boaster.

Sixthly, Lying; and here Mr. Lilly hath hit it: and John, notwithstanding all the Authors which so learnedly thou enumeratest, thou wilt never be able to acquit thy self from this stigma; for certainly thou (if any Man) art according to thy own pretty Phrase, the very Coloquintida of conversation. A Thief (saith John) is better than a Lyar. We have indeed a Proverb that saith, He that will lye will steal; and no man doubts, but he that will steal will lye: That John will steal, I can prove by his plagiarism; that he will lye, by his words.

I could not choose but laugh, when I saw lechery in the seventh place, and John Gadbury at the beginning; but his learned Annotator (though no Church-warden) hath brought home the brat to his door again, though like an unnatural Father he had renounced it, and exposed it to the mercy of the Parish. Yet ought the Annotator not to have been so se­vere, but to have considered that besides the provocations of the flesh, there was a mighty sympathy in their Nativities; and that though the Stars are no impellent causes, yet sometimes they incline very strongly. In the mean time let Mr. G. tell me, whether in all his Astrolo­gical reading he never met an Author that (speaking of a Scorpionist) saith, Erit talis [Page 11] qui semper advenereos coitus oculorum cupiditate cogatur? And doth he not remember that his Friend Firmicus tells him, that Lollianus his own Patron, Ob crimen adulterii in exilium da­tus est? yet this Lollianus was a Scorpionist too.

Eightly, Perjury; I cannot blame Mr. Gad­bury for being a little on the huff in this para­graph; yet to qualify him a little, let him re­member his peremptory character of Mars ill dignified; but what then? I can take a box on the ear with less regret from my self, than from the best Astrologer in Europe.

Ninthly and lastly, comes Revenge; and he assures us that Mr. L. hath tryed, Whether the Scorpionists are Pigeon-liver'd, or have any such commodity as revenge; and that he hath rendered Heaven (for I suppose he means no more by that enthusiastical tautology, of the most holy Seat of the most holy and tremend God, the habi­tation of the blessed Angels, the resting place of the Faithful, the Church of the Elect) a place of hor­rour and blackness, a Desart of destruction, a Source, a Sink, a Seed-plot of all terrene unhap­piness. Now how prettily these fulsome Meta­phors cohere, let any Man of sense judge; but it was the zeal, the abundant zeal of our in­toxitated Author, that belch'd out this absurd bombast.

I concur with him, that it is very rare to find a Fool born under Scorpio; yet I neither [Page 12] speak treason, nor contradict my self, if I af­firm I know several Cockscombs, and parti­cularly one egregious Fop, by name John Gadbury.

Again (quoth John) If Scorpio were a Sign so bad, &c. how comes it to pass that neither the learned Cardan, nor the ingenious Morinus say not one word thereof? Although the Annota­tor had not the happiness to recollect Cardan's and Morine's testimonies (for who can retain every expression in so many hundred Pages?) yet will it be no affront to him, to observe the transcendent impudence and ignorance of this pretending Astrologian? This is the Man that would be thought to have read Cardan and Morine so accuratly, that no expression hath escaped him, or else he sawcily concludes all Men as ignorant as himself; and because he never read them (at least to no purpose, ne­ver understood them) no Man hath. But to demonstrate his ignorance to his indelible shame, let him read Card. Aph. 55. Segm. 2. and he shall find, that Compositos & pulchros Aries facit, Scorpius mendaces, and there I think is one word for him. Again Aph. 166. Segm. 5. Aquea signa faciunt proditores atque in his Scorpius excellit, there is another. I will not insist upon Aph. 140. Segm. 2. Mercurius ma­xime hebetatur in signis humidis, sed in Scorpione facit maleficum. Nor had I cared if he had o­mitted [Page 13] Scorpius solicitudinem animi (intellige denotat) & deceptionem, because Morine comes to my assistance, pag. 462. Astr. Gall. Quibus ascendit Scorpio hi sicut timidiores, prudentiores, ad dissimulandum aptiores, & clam insidias iram suam explevit ultionibus. Here is hypocrisie, treachery, revenge and anger; and what will an angry, treacherous hypocrite, that studies revenge, boggle at or not attempt? But Mo­rine hath not yet done, for p. 504. disputing, whether the Celestial Bodies are only universal causes, he hath these words: At prout effectui, hoc est, homini vel equo genito particulares con­fert qualitates, qu as nec homo, nec equus conferunt quod nempe sint a propria signi influentia, ut ma­ligni mores a Scorpione in ascendente. For the true understanding the question debated by Morine, let Cap. 6, lib. 21. be consulted; what I have here transcribed, is sufficient to de­monstrate Mr. G. an huffing ignorant preten­der. He can't be to seek in the signification of maligni est, as his Annotator wittily observes, he knows most words in Rider & Thomas too: Yet believing, he may be as perfect in them as in Morine and Cardan, I would advise him to betake himself to one of them; and I am con­fident, he will find no one word that doth more significantly express, or fully compre­hend the whole charge, drawn up by Mr. L. against Scorpio, than maligni doth.

But how could Mr. G. were he not a Scor­pionist, upbraid Mother Shipton, & the Sybils? with what face can he so wittily (as he thinks) joke upon him, as if he could produce none but Astrologers of his own begetting, to te­stify to his charge?

Haly, an eminent Arabian Astrologer, is pleased to terme Scorpio an humble and depressed Sign. How Mr. Haly, an humble and depressed Sign, and yet guilty of perjury, lying? &c. Yes, Mr. G. he is pleased to do so, and at the same time he terms it deceptor too; but like a true Scor­pionist you take occasion to leave out that. But, upon these words of Haly, he endeavours to prove ♏ an obedient Sign, and obedience a passive quality; and then brings in Johannes Angelus and Firmicus, to testify that it denotes the Native to be iracundos & agiles; but how humilitas and iracundia do consist, I do not conceive.

Our Author need not to have taken such pains, to have enumerated such an heap of A­phorisms, to prove the influence of ♂ (as we know it) destructive and pernicious. Nor do I conceive that, because ♂ is a Planet of a malevolent influence, ♏ is an innocent Sign; and that because those Authors, which he cites, do condemn ♂ his heats, they therefore acquit ♏ from all intemperance. Nor do I care whether ♏, as the House of ♂ or from [Page 15] any innate vicious quality, does inflict such vices into the Native; yet we know aliud ef­ficit ♂ in ♈, aliud in ♏. But let it suffice, that for any thing alledged by our Friend John, Scorpionists may be as profligate Raskals, as for John's, and the sake of some others, we have reason to suspect they are. But for the operation of the Signs, either dependenter a Plaueta, or per se, Vide Morinam c. 4. l. 20.

Guido Bonatus (it seems) had observed Scor­pionists (as I have) to be very great Lyars; and therefore says, that a Person born under ♏ shall be one In cujus ore vix aut nunquam in­venietur veritas. But, saith Mr. G. he can be no more true in this than he that said, In his hast all men were Lyars; which is a modest way of giving King David the lye: But Guido contradicts himself, and therefore no way serviceable to Mr. L. saith Mr. G. but if Guido's repugnancies do invalidate his autho­rity, than I do pronounce this whole Book of Mr. G. in defence of ♏ ipso facto null and void, being repleat with nothing but flat con­tradictions, as I think his Annotator hath proved to his indelible shame.

I cannot but laugh at that high-strained piece of experimental Philosophy (as 'tis phra­sed) so much applauded by John, viz. Campa­nella's putting himself into a distorted po­sture, when he was writing to a crooked Car­dinal: [Page 16] he ought to have put on his Robes too, and in every thing else as near as he could have personated one of that function, and then I believe his fancy might have operated as effe­ctually, as if he had written in his natural po­sture. I am resolved, if ever I should have oc­casion to make use of Mr. G. I will (as near as I can) put my self into the shape of a Hog, and represent Epicuri degrege Porcum; nay, I will imagine Scorpio to be my Ascendant, and then assume my pen, and try to meet his hu­mour in the thing I write about.

In the mean time, I am glad there is so compendious a method discovered, for the reconcilement of differences: Put your selves into the frame of your Adversary, send him a Letter; and, quoth John, there is a Period of the contention.

Our accurate Astrologer (like an insensible Blunderer) is again at Mr. L. for contradict­ing himself, but it is endless harping upon that string: Only let me ask him, what he will prove by producing his twenty genitures? for when all comes to all, he tells you he will prove; but, what? go look, and prudently he evades that; for I see nothing he is like to prove, but himself an Ass.

He is not only offended at Mr. L. for bring­ing in the Natives of ♏; but all Persons that inhabited that part of the Earth, to whom ♏ [Page 17] ascended at the Suns entrance into ♈. Yet you shall hear this perfidious Scorpionist him­self speak upon the very same occasion. If ♏ be a Sign of falsity, as Hermes in the 9th. Aph. of his Cent. affirms it to be, then we may be glad, it is so nearly of the Horoscope at the time of this vernal ingress, &c. a little after; this part of it is the decanate of ♀, & habet significationem ebrie­tatis bellorum & fornicationis, to all which kinds of evils and debauchery men will much incline, &c. [See his Judgment upon the year 1669.] With what brow then can this fulsome Astro­loger call Mr. L. Impostor, and transfer all those Epithets upon him, which Scorpio doth so naturally challenge for its Natives? But, I think, I may as justly (without any viola­tion of truth or breach of good manners) pronounce this J. G. an illiterate trifling Scribler, and a bungling Astrologian: the first I have already proved, and the last too in part; but more fully to confirm both, I will examine his twenty examples, at least what hath been by his learned Annotator omit­ted: And the first that occurs is King Ed. 3. of England; and it is pity we have him not under the title of Monarch of Great Brittain, as (like an Owl) he gives us H. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, in his Coll. of Genit. But what will he prove by his Nati­vity? Why, that he was a valiant Prince. Who [Page 18] denyes it? But will he prove that Mrs. Alice Pierce and he, were no more contemporaries than Dido & Aeneas? Or can he justify the Exe­cution of the Earl of Kent? But perhaps our Author may reply, the first of these was occa­sioned by the ☌ of ♂ and ♀. But what then? All things are subordinate to the Horoscope. Were that then a sign of that vertue and conti­nence, which he would have us believe, it might have overborn that single testimony. Seeing therefore the matter of fact is true, it must be attributed to his Horoscope, according to our Author, who (like a wise Astrologer, but more zealous Scorpionist) tells us, that there is nothing in this Nativity, but the Horoscope to recommend it to the World: For, saith he, ♂ Lord of the Ascendant therein combust, in ☍ to ♃ and ☌ with ♀ Lady of the 7th. But did ever any Fellow argue thus against himself? For what could be desired greater for a Prince, whose design and glory it was to be victo­rious, than to have the Lord of the Ascen­dant strong therein, disposing of his Enemies (as ♂ doth of ♀) in ☌ with the Lord of the M. C.? and he must give me leave to tell him, that it is the opinion of some more learned than himself, that an ☍ of ♃ and ♂ makes men successful in War: and of this (were it ne­cessary) I could produce many instances. But if the grandeur of this Native be, to be at­tributed [Page 19] solely to his Horoscope; why is not that of every Scorpionist? or why is not every Scorpionist as eminent (quoad capax, as Astro­logers cant) as this Native, and as worthy.

The Electour of Saxony is (by the Annota­tor) very pertinently charged with ingrati­tude, and consequently with the whole indict­ment; for ingratum si dixeris omnia dixeris: Yet this Electour was a freeholder of Reason as well as of his Electourship, and though there was an Antipathy betwixt the Emperour's Nativity and his, yet his reason (one would have thought might have exterminated his vices. But (saith he) their ambition and particular de­signs might differ: observe this conjuring dis­putant! he undertakes to acquit all Scorpio­nists from the black charge of Mr. L. and here makes no more, but point blank confounds his design, confutes himself, and very wisely charges this Prince (brought by him to give a testimony against Mr. L.) with ambition a particular branch of the Charge.

I shall observe nothing in the 6th example, but Mr. Gadbury's Epiphonema, viz. Kings and Princes are Mr. Lilly's tennis balls as well as the Stars, and must be toss'd and struck up and down as he is pleased, to bandy them with his black and envious racket. Here's a Metaphorical piece of non-sence for you, and is scarcely so good as if he had said, I am a wooden Astro­loger [Page 20] made of flesh and bone, and so speak non-sence very elegantly with my pen.

I have too great a veneration for the Royal Family to make any ill reflections (were I able) upon the seventh example; yet can I not omit Mr. Gadbury's praevarication, for first he publishes this Lady's Nativity (in that Book where he pretends to exhibit all the genitures of the most illustrious Branches of that Family) and makes ♏ 22. ascend. Af­terwards in his Coll. Gen. he is ashamed of that Horoscope, and therefore recants, and tells us that the proceeding was erroneous, and that sine dubio, that which he there presents us with, is the true one; and in that he places ♎ 27. ascending, and very pertinently gives the Ascendant ad □ ♂ for the small Pox, of which she expired. Here again like a false and subtile Scorpionist, he would perswade us that ♏ 1, 52. did ascend; But what credit is to be given to a Fellow that shall print a Na­tivity three times variously, especially when it may rationally be presumed, that this alte­ration is only to accommodate it to his idle purpose? but admitting this to be true, I demand what the Ascendant ad □ ♂ gave her about 23? I hope a Direction, which he makes fatal if ♎ ascend, shall not pass without ef­fect when ♏ is in the Horoscope: But find­ing this inconsistency in him, this example [Page 21] can prevail nothing with the Reader to recon­cile him to ♏, when there is greater probabi­lity that ♎ was Horoscopical.

I do not conceive that this row of Cardi­nals, which this Trifler produces, do at all contribute to the redemption of his own or Scorpio's credit: For first, he borrows them all from the most uncorrected collection (abate but his own) of one of the most negligent Authors (J. G. alwayes excepted) that ever wrote: But then admitting the figures to be true, what he can collect from the words of Argol. I apprehend not, he having only pre­tended to give an account of critical dayes, it being eccentrick from his purpose to men­tion any thing of their merits. But Mr. Gad­bury esteems it no small indication of the de­sert of the first and second Cardinal, whose Nativities he produces, that they had the favour of so great a Man as Pope Clement the Eighth, Who know well enough how to make choice of Ministers for the Churches Peace and happiness, saith our Author. Yet you shall hear his opinion of this very Pope, in his Ob­servations upon his Nativity in his Collect. Gen. pag. 79. If this be this Pope's true Nati­vity (as Argol avers) it seems to me that he at­tained the Papal dignity more by Policy than de­sert, and was made the Head of the Church more for necessity than for any Religion. So that what [Page 22] instruments a Pope that had neither desert nor Religion, was like to make choice of, let any Man judge.

The tenth, is a Cardinal with a long name, that flourished under Pope Paul the Fifth, and received according to his worth and merit favours from him: So that you see Scorpio, or Persons born under it, are not so notoriously wicked, &c. You may observe that Mr. Gadbury in all these examples, makes them to have attained their preferments by their merits. But hear him in his calculation of his own Nativity, in his Doctr. Nat. Seriously protesting that the great reason, why he hath no more honour and prefer­ment (and what could a nitty Astrologer ex­pect or deserve?) according to the best of his judgment is, because he hath alwayes detested and hated the art of flattery and dissimulation, the ONELY Stairs by which ALL Persons ascend to honour and preferment. So that ac­cording to the best of his judgment, All these Persons whom he so descants, attained their preferments by no other means but flattery and dissimulation: Thus doth Jack Gadbury sawcily contradict the Astrologer, and makes no more of proving him an Ass, than if he still lived by the Goose.

In the Nativity of Dr. Gell I shall only ob­serve the position of ♄ in ♌ in the 9th: and quote that Aphorism, which he accommodates [Page 23] to Pope Clement the Eigth, ♄ in the ninth House ill dignified, denotes an hypocrite or dis­sembler: makes him heretical and guilty of great errours in matters of Faith and Religion What can be from hence concluded, but Mr. Gad­bury is an hair-brain'd, hot-headed Astrolo­gian, giving his judgment as the toy takes him, or prejudice or favour sway him, and not from any sober and regulated principles of Art.

Regiomontanus is the twelfth, and seeing Mr. Gadbury hath taken occasion to dignify him with the titles of learned, judicious, and ingenious, and with Origanus stile him Ma­theseos ocellus, hear Cardan of him: Monte­regius multa sibi ex aliorum laboribus ascripse­rit, Tabulae Directionum magna ex parte sunt ipsius Joannis de Bianchinus Ital. extant apud me locupletiores, illas Monteregium vidisse con­stat cum de aspectibus loquitur, epitoma est Me­diolanensis cujusdam antequam etiam Purbachius Monteregii magister nasceretur, liber de trian­gulis Sphaericis inventio tota est Hebri Hispani: Ephemerides inventae sunt antequam nasceretur, habui enim Ephemeridem anni 1412. So that you see Cardan hath almost put out this Ma­thematical eye, and Regiomontanus being thus furtivis nudatus coloribus, appears like a true Scorpionist. For, saith Mr. Gadbury, It is as horrid a crime to steal the labours of the dead, as to rob the houses of the living.

For the account we have of Ramzovius, we are chiefly obliged to his own self, and a few parasitical Poetasters: But from his wri­ting I do pronounce him a vain-glorious Ass, and a boasting Astrologer. As any Man will be convinced, that will view his Tracta­tus Astrologicus, & de Annis Climacterieis, at the end of both, which Books you may find not only a medly of other mens Syco­phantry, subjoyned purely for ostentation, but his own vain account of his extraction; which is a thing so childish and ridiculous that a Wise man would blush at it. However, boasting is a branch of Mr. Lilly's charge, un­der which this Person comes, so that this nati­vity is impertinent as any of the other, and proves nothing in defence of ♏.

Then for Angelus Politianus (whose Nativi­ty follows) he did onely (as your Annota­tor, Mr. Gadbury, observes) say that he never spent his time worse than when he read the Bible, but that reading Saint Hierom's tran­slation, it had made him forget to write good Latin; but in defence of his poysoning him­self, it may be alledged that the poor Church­man had got a pocky Ozoena, the shame of which drove him him to despair, so that he not only dyed, but had lived like a true Scor­pionist. But let me not forget his pride and vanity, which was so eminent that having a [Page 25] contemptible name of which he was ashamed, he changed it from Johannes Bassus to Johan­nes Angelus Politianus; and this was a blessed example (was it not?) to vindicate a Celestial Horoscope?

And certainly when Mr. Gadbury recom­mended this blessed Church-man's Nativity for the glory of ♏, he was not aware how he betrayed his own ignorance; for before his Works printed at Basil 1553. you may find this Character of him: Erat distortis saepe moribus, ubi facie nequaquam ingenua & libe­rali, ab enormi praesertim naso subluscoque oculo per absurdu, ingenio astuto, aculeato occulreque livido, cum aliena semper invideret.

The next is Argol's celebrated Friend, whom Argol gives a very kind Character. Yes, and so he does ♏ too, Ptol. Parv. pag. 95. Scorpius facit bellicosos immanes, improbos, fal­laces, seditiosos, malorum morum.

Sir John Gheik is the next, and as our Au­thor supposes, Neither Mr. L. nor any of his Tribe, will presume or esteem it a crime in him to have been Secretary of State. No not they, I dare engage, had not you very uncivilly laid Flattery and dissimulation to his charge, the ONLY stairs by which ALL Persons ascend to honour and preferment.

I have nothing to say against Doctor Fisk, only Mr. Gadbury was his Pupil; and as he [Page 26] himself observes, Qualis Dominus talis Servis, Like Master like Man.

Last of all comes our Author; and to his Nativity I shall onely accommodate an A­phorism of his own (and you know as him­self observes all Aphorismes are indubitably true) as it is to be found in his Century at the end of his Coll. Gen. Aph. 87. ♂ in ☍ to the Ascendent, and ♄ in the same Aspect to the ☉, makes an absolute Knave or Treacher. But replyes John, ♄ is in □ to my ☉ if in any Aspect at all; for ☉ is separated nine deg. from him, and ♂ is out of Orbs. But let me ask him one question, why may not I allow as large Orbs as he? For he imputes a kind of necessity to the influence of the ☍ of ♂ and ♀ in Ssorza's Nativity; who are as far asunder as ♂ from his Horoscope; and though a □ be not so bad as an ☍, yet it is next and im­mediate after it. It may be as you say, that you never took the turn about Oaths of the times, yet you pretended to print Nativi­ties which the Law makes treason to calcu­late: but who were you, John, that should have Oaths imposed you? Alas! who could have found out a smyling Fellow, that (as your Annotator observes) fat cross-legged all day up in the Garret? But, saith John, I am a very surly Fellow sometimes, therefore provoke me not too far; Howbeit at this time [Page 27] I will RƲLE my Stars, and FOLLOW Ju­piter's gentle influence. Is not this a pleasant Rhetorical Cockscomb? Is is not a cunning way of ruling the Stars, by submitting to their influences? Why could he not with the Poet have said: I'le follow Fate, which doth too fast pursue. But it is impossible for our Author not to write non-sence, as it was in the dayes of yore, to patch a Suit without his Goose.

I have now almost run through this migh­ty Book, nothing remaining but a Postscript, an Advertisement, and his Almanack Rimes in defence of ♏. In his Postscript; I cannot but laugh at his Posthum'd legacy, which he shall leave the Sons of Art. I doubt his Prin­ter is mistaken, and it should have been im­posthum'd, like Cleavland's Imposthum'd bubble of a wave, and it may be as much in it. But to leave trifling, saith John, let us come to his bouncing non-sence in rime, and when I read his Poetry I do not admire at our Pro­verb: as bad a Rimer as an Almanack maker: The gingles foisted, the wearish stuff, and contemptible fancy, are enough to make a man renounce Rime eternally. Yet is not this troublesome Fellow ashamed, to reprint these Rimes again in this Pamphlet, as a Corollary to his defence? In his February's Observations you find these words:

Which is as much as to say, the parts of Heaven, viz. the Signs, &c. and God Al­mighty, are very much alike.

Though it be not understood by thee, nor thousands as dull as thy self (if so many there be) yet John I would have you know, that Men of stronger intellects do compre­hend it; and they will tell you, that those parts of Heaven, that are observed to be of evil influence in respect of us (though in re­spect of themselves and us, they are essentially good) are very properly termed bad, in con­tradistinction to those that are kind and pro­pitious: Thus is ♏ as properly stilled false, and treacherous, and ♄ and ♂ infortunes, as Hemlock, &c. poysonous and destructive. For God saw all that he had made, and it was good.—But surquedrious!

For I declare I ken it not, but leave it for a pure piece of non-sence to the Author, to [...]e what Rider and Thomas say to it.

Here our Poet thought he was praying for [...]he destruction of his Enemies; but for the [...]ime's sake was forced to leave out, It, and [...]o to make it cry clink, wrote false Grammar.

I wish with all my heart, thy pen would once be so dull, or thou so sottish as to be whist, we should have the less noise with non-sence and tautology by far.

These run, methinks, like his Epiphonema [Page 30] to his wit-ensuring Verses, to Phantast [...]al Heydon upon his Temple of Wisedom. Viz.

Now this was like the Conjurer of Brick­court, and certainly Poet thou went'st to the Divel for this prediction; for did ever Man but thou undertake to presage a thing that is.

Now for a piece of our Poets Religion, viz. A Trinity in unity; but Pictoribus atqu Poetis.

And why (thou Goose-cap) Trismegist O yes, he is the greatest Physician, the great­est Philosopher, and the greatest what? Not Priest I hope: no, it shall be Scorpionist; much to the Doctor's reputation. But [...]nder favour, doth not the Physician come under the notion of a Philosopher? so that for ought I can see, the Doctor must be content, and hereafter write but Bismegist. But you shall hear the complement, our Poet passes upon this learned Person in another place, occasio­nally speaking of him he tells (Doctr. of Nat. [Page 31] p. 130.) That although he wished we might pre­creat like trees, yet shortly after (though he is mistaken, for it was almost, or full seven years after) not being able to contain, he was so wrought upon by the power of Venus, that he was forced to betake to a comfortable importance. So that you see Mr. Gadbury making lechery the sole motive (or rather incentive) that this Gentleman had to marry, brings him under one branch of Mr. Lilly's black charge before he is aware.

But I am (and I believe, the Reader too) tired with the non-sence and contradictions of this Author, but had they not been dis­played, he would have been so insolent and intolerable in his boasts, that he would not only have again confuted himself, but have been troublesome to his Neigbours, and have made such a noise and bluster about that part of Mankind, that cannot with judgment distinguish, and would have concluded that he had really obtained that victory, of which he will find he hath hitherto but dream'd.