Tetractys anti-astrologica, or, The four chapters in the explanation of the grand mystery of holiness which contain a brief but solid confutation of judiciary astrology, with annotations upon each chapter : wherein the wondrous weaknesses of John Butler, ... his answer called A vindication of astrology, &c. are laid open ... / by Hen. More.

CHAP. XVI.

1. That the Stars and Planets are not useless though there be no truth in Astrology. 2. That the Stars are not the causes of the variety of productions here below. 3. That the sensible moistening power of the Moon is no Argument for the Influence of other Planets and Stars. 4. Nor yet the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, and Direction of the Needle to the North Pole. 5. That the Station and Re∣pedation of the Planets is an Argument against the Astrologers. 6. That the Influence attribu∣ted to the Dog-Star, the Hyades and Orion, is not theirs but the Suns, and that the Suns Influence is only heat. 7. The slight occasions of their in∣venting of those Dignities of the Planets they call Exaltations and Houses, as also that of Aspects. 8. Their folly in preferring the Planets before the fixt Stars of the same appearing magnitude, and of their fiction of the First Qualities of the Pla∣nets, with those that rise therefrom. 9. Their rashness in allowing to the influence of the Hea∣venly Bodies so free a passage through the Earth. 10. Their groundless division of the signs into moveable and fixt, and the ridiculous Effects they

attribute to the Trigons, together with a demon∣stration of the falsness of the Figment. 11. A Confutation of their Essential Dignities. 12. As also of their Accidental. 13. A subversion of their Erection of Schemes, and distributing of the Hea∣vens into twelve Celestial Houses. 14. Their fond pretences to the knowledge of the exact moment of the Infants Birth. 15. A Confutation of their Animodar and Trutina Hermetis. 16. As also of their method of rectifying a Nativity per Acci∣dentia Nati. 17. His appeal to the skilful, if he has not fundamentally confuted the whole preten∣ded Art of Astrology.

1. WHerefore to their first general pretence, That the very Being of the Stars and Pla∣nets would be useless, if there be nothing in the Art of Astrology, I answer, That though there were cer∣tain Influences and virtues in every one of them, yet it does not follow that they are discovered in their Art: And then again, That though there were none saving that of Light and Heat in the Fixt Stars, it will not follow that they are useless. * Because the later and wiser Philosophers have made them as so many ‖ Suns: * which Hypothesis our Astrologers must confute before they can make good the force of their first Argument. And for the Planets, they have also suggested that they may have some such like use as our Earth has, i. e. to be the Mother of living Creatures, though they have defined nothing con∣cerning the natures of them; whereby their opinion becomes more harmless, and unexceptionable * as it is in it self highly probable: Forasmuch as the Earth, as well as Saturn, Iupiter, and the rest, moves about

the Sun, and is as much a Planet as any of them; as the best Astronomers do not at all stick now adays to affirm. Which does utterly enervate the force of this first general pretence of the Astrologians.

2. To the second I answer, That the Stars are but Lights of much the same nature as our Sun is, only they are further removed, so that their contribution is much-what the same. And again, nothing turns off their more subtil influence, according to their own concession; and therefore though there were this va∣riety in them, * yet because all this variety reaches every point of the Earth, the product would be the same, unless the particles of the Earth were diversi∣fied by some other cause, which assuredly they are. And thirdly, That neither their own variety, nor the Influences of the Heavens, if they be merely ma∣terial, are sufficient causes of productions here below. Fourthly, * That the Celestial matter is every where, and that the Earth swims in it, as Wood doth in Wa∣ter, so that we need not have recourse to so remote, unknown, activities. And lastly, That that general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Spirit of nature, is also every where ready to contrive the matter into such shapes and virtues as its disposition makes toward. And this is enough and more than enough to take off the edge of the Knights Argument.

3. I do acknowledge that the Moon in her Full swells certain things with moisture; which effect is both sensible and palpable, and also reasonable, by reason of her proximity, and of the reflection of the Suns beams from her body, which being but of a moderate power, * melt the Air and vapours into an insinuating liquidness, but do not dissipate them, as his direct beams do by day. Which feat I do not

doubt but that any other of the Planets would per∣form, * if they were so placed that their Discus would seem of equal bigness with the Moons, and she were removed into their place. * But it is an unsufferable folly to argue from such both reasonable and palpable effects of the Moon, that the other Pla∣nets also and Fixt Stars, have as powerful effects upon us; which yet we can deprehend by neither Reason nor Experience.

4. The like may be answered concerning the Flux and Reflux of the Sea; the ground whereof is ra∣tional from what Des Cartes has set down in his Prin∣cip. Philos. Part. 4. namely, * That the Ellipsis of the Celestial matter is streightned by the Moons Body, which makes the Aether flow more swift: which is a plain and mechanical solution of the Phaenomenon. And then we find by certain experience, that this Flux and Reflux depends on the course of the Moon, so that there can be no deceit in the business. But when there is no reason nor sufficient experience, that this is the cause of that, to attribute the one to the other is no good Logick. And to that of the Load-stone and Polar-Star, I say again, as I have said already, that it does not follow, because there are some sen∣sible Effects from the Heavens, certain and constant, that therefore we may imagine what effects we please to proceed from this or that particular Star, without due experience or reason for the same. And then in the next place, That it is not so much the Influence of the Heaven, as the Magnetism of the Earth, in which this Direction of the Needle toward the North consists. For the Needle varies in certain Meridians, and some three miles from Rosseburg, a Town near upon the very Corner where the Finnick Seas, and

sinus Finnicus are join'd, the Needle amidst a many Sea Rocks turns about, nor ceases so to do for the space of a whole Mile. Which is a further demonstra∣tion that the direction of the Needle depends upon the Magnetism of the Earth. But truly if the Events which the Astrologers take upon them to predict, did as steadily point to the causes they alledge, This Pla∣net or that Configuration of Planets, Signs or Stars, as the Needle and Axis of the Earth to the North; though they could give no reasons thereof, I could easily allow their Art. But there being such demon∣strative Reasons against their Grounds, and no cer∣tain experience for them, these particular Allegations concerning the Moon and Pole Star will stand them in no stead.

5. The Station and Retrogradation of the Pla∣nets is a very considerable Argument against them, and shews how foolish and imaginary their Art is, that is upheld by such gross mistakes. For they that un∣derstand the right Systeme of the World, * know very well that those Phaenomena are not real but seeming: which is a Scurvy Slur to the Astrologers. But this I shall meet with again hereafter.

6. To the last I answer, * That neither the Dog-Star, Arcturus, the Hyades, nor Orion, are concei∣ved to have any such effects as are attributed to them, but then when the Sun is in such places of the Zodi∣ack as himself without them would bring forth. And therefore they do fallaciously attribute to those Stars what is really the virtue of the heat of the Sun ap∣proaching nearer us, or abiding longer upon us. And as for the wrath of the Dog, which is abated already in some considerable manner, how tame a Creature think you will he be, when the Anticipation of the

Aequinoxes shall appoint him his Kennel as low as Capricorn, if the World should so long continue? These may serve for Poetical expressions (such as that of Virgil, who attributes that to the Signs which be∣longs to the Sun;

Candidus auratis aperit cùm cornibus annum Taurus — When the white Bull opens with golden horns The early year:)

but they will not endure the severity of the Laws of an Art, which is, to speak properly, not to entitle things circumstantial and concomitant to real causa∣lity. But as for the Suns efficacy it self, I will not de∣ny it, nor yet acknowledge it any more than in the general influence of Heat, which cherishes and excites the seminal Principles of things into act and perfecti∣on. * Which is no more mysterious than the Aegyp∣tians and Livia's Maids of honour hatching of Eggs without the help of the Hen; the same which the Sun does to the Ostriches left upon the sand. And I will also acknowledge that the rest of the Stars do not stand for Cyphers, but that at a competent distance they will have their effect: which the Sun it self has not when removed from us but to the other side of the Aequator, whereby his rayes become more oblique. How inconsiderable then think you would he be, if he were removed as far as the fixt Stars, all whose in∣fluence put together cannot supply his absence in the depth of Winter? Whence it is plain, that it is a very fond inference to argue that those remote bo∣dies of the fixt Stars and Planets have an influence upon us, because the Sun and Moon that are so near

us have; when as if they were as far removed, their influence would assuredly be as insensible as that of the five Planets and fixt Stars.

7. And yet notwithstanding such is the intolerable impudence of the Inventors of Astrology, that they have at random attributed such things to the other Planets and Stars as they have only ground for, if any at all, in the two Luminaries. As for Example, * be∣cause they might observe some more sensible mutation in the Air and Earth at the Suns entring Aries, it would be the more tolerable to phansie that sign his Exaltation. But now to appoint places of Exaltati∣on to other Planets, as Taurus to the Moon, Libra to Saturn, is a mere running the Wild-Goose Chase, from one single hint to matters where there is nothing of like reason or experience. So likewise because they had some intimation * to make Leo the House of the Sun, his heat being then most sensible, and Can∣cer the House of the Moon, because then she would be most vertical to us; * they have without either fear or wit bestowed Houses, two a piece, upon the rest of the Planets, though there be neither Reason nor Effect answerable.

And lastly, For Aspects. In all likelihood the sensi∣ble varieties of the Phases of the Moon in Opposition, Trine, and Quartile, gave them first occasion to take notice of Aspects: * and then another thing happen∣ing, though independent on the course of the Moon, namely, that every seventh day, in an acute Disease, is Critical, and that there are usually at those returns the greatest stirs and alterations in the Patient, and the Quartile Aspect of the Moon happening also about seven days from the Conjunction, and then about se∣ven dayes more she being in Opposition; this natural

Circuit of Fermentations in acute Diseases, has given them occasion to slander the Moon in those Cases, and for her sake to reproach the Aspects of Opposition and Quadrature, in all the rest of the Planets. Such small hints as these are the solidest Foundations of the phantastick structure of Astrology. Which we shall now something more nearly lay battery to, and so shatter it, that it shall not so much as find room in the imaginations of men.

8. To begin therefore with the first of their Prin∣ciples I have set down, That they prefer the Planets before the fixt Stars (I mean those so remote ones, that they seem but about the bigness of the greater Stars) is without all reason; * the Planets being but heaps of dead matter much like that of the Earth, and having no light but what they reflect from the Sun. For that which seems to be the innate light of the Moon, is but the reflection of the Suns beams from the Earth. Wherefore their activity and influence may justly seem less * than that of the fixt Stars, which shine not with borrowed but innate light. And for their powerful penetrating into the Bowels of the Earth, that is a mistake arising from the supposed in∣fluence of the Moon, on the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, even when she is on the other side of the Earth; to which with the like fallacious inference I have ‖ answer'd already. But then, for the Qualities of the Planets, where they define the Sun to be hot and moist, rather than drying, but Mars hot and parch∣ingly dry, and Saturn dry and cold; what will not these impudent Impostors dare to obtrude upon us, when they will vent such stuff as is liable to confuta∣tion by our very senses? For does not our very sense tell us that the Sun is the most hot and drying Planet

that is? His heat it is, and not that of Mars, that withers the Grass and Flowers, and parches the tops of Mountains, and even roasts the Inhabitants of the Earth, when they expose their Bodies to his more direct rays. But what faculty could ever inform us, that Mars was such a parching and heating Planet, and Saturn so cold? Assuredly he that will expose his head to their Acronycal Rays, which are most po∣tent, and profess he feels more cold from one, and heat from the other, than he does from the other parts of Heaven, will approve himself as mad as that old Dotard that pretended that he could as often as he listened, plainly hear the Harmony of the Cele∣stial Spheres. * All the Planets are opaque Bodies, and whatever their colour is, are as cold as Earth. For neither yellow nor red clay cast any more heat than white, nor has any soil any sensible influence but what is drawn in by the nose, which sometimes proves wholesome and savory, and sometimes offensive. But how our Star-gazers Proboscides should be drawn out to that length as to smell out the different virtues of the Planets, I can no way understand. Wherefore the pronouncing of Mars hot and dry, and Saturn cold and dry, &c. is a shameless Foolery, and a de∣monstration of the vanity of the rest of their allot∣ments of the first Qualities to the Planets. * And since from these they are reputed Malign or Benign, Masculine or Feminine, and the like, all this part of their pretended Science is but a Rhapsody of Foole∣ries also.

9. To the second, of the Earths being so pervi∣ous to the influence of the Stars and Planets, I say▪ first, that it is a Principle without proof, as I have al∣ready evinced: and then secondly, if I give them it,

they will be fain to vomit it up again, it being de∣structive to their whole Art. For if the rayes and influence of the Stars and Planets have free passage through the body of the Earth, the whole Ceremony of erecting a Scheme for such a Longitude and Lati∣tude is needless; nay, as to the Heavens, the fates of all men would be alike. * For that hidden influ∣ence which governs all would reach to all points from all parts of Heaven at once.

10. Thirdly, Concerning the division of their Signs into Mobilia, Fixa and Bicorporea. The mo∣bilia are the Aequinoctial and Solstitial Signs. The latter whereof might deserve better the name of Fixa than Mobilia. And in my apprehension the tempers of the Year might as well be said to be begun, sup∣pose the cold in Sagittarius, and fixed in Capricorn, and the heat in Gemini, and fixed in Cancer, as be∣gun in Capricorn, and fixed in Aquarius, &c. But we will wink at small matters. * That of the Fiery, Aery, Earthy and watry Trigons is more notorious, and I cannot but smile when I read the effects of them. As for Example, in Physick, as Dariot has set down, the Moon and Ascendent in the Fiery Signs comfort the virtue attractive, in the Earthy signs the retentive, the Aery the digestive, and the wa∣tery the expulsive. Would any man dare to admini∣ster Physick then without consulting the Precepts of Astrology? Also in Husbandry that's a notable one of Sir Christophers, who tells us how we may cause a plant to shoot deep into the Earth or higher into the Air, by setting of it at such an Aspect of the Moon; namely, if the Moon be in the Earthy Triplicity, the root will shoot more downward into the Earth; if in the Airy more upward into the Air. Which is a

rare secret. Now, to omit the groundless and arbi∣trarious division of the Zodiack into these four Trigons, of which there is only this one hint, that I can imagine, namely, the fitness of Leo for one part of the Fiery Trigon, the Sun being most hot in that Sign; (from which little inlet all the four Elements flew up into Heaven, and took their places in their respective Triplicities in the Zodiack, with great nimbleness and agility, playing at leap Frog and skip∣ping over one anothers backs in such sort, that divi∣ding themselves into three equal parts, every Trien∣tal of an Element found it self a Fellow-member of a Trine Aspect:) The best jest of all is, * that there is no such Zodiack in Heaven, or, if you will, no Heaven for such a Zodiack as these Artists attribute these Triplicities to. For this Heaven, and this Zodiack we speak of is only an old error of Ptolemie's and his followers who not understanding the true Systeme of the World, and the motion of the Earth, in which in salv'd the Anticipation of the Aequinoxes, have phansied a Heaven above the Coelum stellatum, and a Zodiack that did not recede from West to East as the Starry Zodiack does. And this figment which later Ages have laughed off of the Stage, is the only subject of these renouned Trigons and Triplicities, which therefore are justly laughed off of the Stage with it. Which discovery is a demonstration that the whole Art of Astrology is but upon frivolous and mere imaginary Principles, as we shall further make manifest. And therefore Physicians proclaim them∣selves either Cheats or Fools, that would recommend their skill from such vain observations.

11. Fourthly, Now for the essential Dignities of the Planets, sith it is nothing but the increase of their

innate virtue by being in such or such a sign, and these being the Signs of that Zodiack which has no Hea∣ven, nor is any thing; it is manifest, that the whole Doctrine of Essential Dignities falls to the ground. But we will also cast our Eye upon the distinct parts of this vain Figment. And therefore as to the first Essential Dignity, the House of the Planet; there is no sagacious person but can easily smell out the meaning of making Leo the House of the Sun, namely, not that that Sign has any virtue to increase heat, but that the Sun then has been long near the Tropick of Cancer, and so has more than ordinarily heated the Earth by so long a stay in so advantageous a posture. And this is it, not the being in his House then, that makes the heat so great; for those beyond the other Tropick sure are cold enough. The same may be said of Cancer, the Moons House, that it is posture, not the nature of the place, that makes her virtue more then to us, but less to our Antoeci. From this small hint from sense and mistakes of Reason, have they without all reason and sense bestowed Houses on the rest of the Planets, * guiding themselves by the con∣ceit of the malignity and benignity of Aspects. Which to be a mere figment I have ‖ noted already, it having no ground but that rash joining together of Critical days with the Aspects of the Moon.

What a small preferment Astrological Exaltation is, you may understand from Albumazar's liberality, who amongst the Planets has advanced the head and tail of the Dragon to the same Dignity, which yet are * nothing else but intersections of the imaginary Circles of the course of the Moon and the Ecliptick. But of this Dignity I have ‖ spoke enough already, and therefore I pass to the next.

As for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Lords of the Tri∣gons, what great pity it was there were not just eight Planets, * that each Trigon might have had its two Consuls, and Mars not rule solitarily in his wa∣tery one? But the foolery of the Trigons being al∣ready confuted, I need add nothing further concern∣ing this Dignity. * The Prerogative of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is destroyed by that first general Argument, the parts of the Signs being as fictitious as the whole. And as for the Carpentum or Royal Seat or Throne, it be∣ing a compound Dignity compacted of the former, the parts being but imaginary, it is evident, that the whole is a mere nothing.

And that Persona Planetae, or Almugea is as little, appears from hence, in that Aspect is an empty con∣ceit, raised upon no solid ground, as I have more than once already intimated.

And that the Lords of the Decanats have but ima∣ginary Provinces, is again plain, For that their whole Zodiack wherein all those Fripperies are lodged, is but imaginary, and their Order also of assignation upon a false Hypothesis, viz. according to that range∣ing of the Planets that is in Ptolemie's System.

And lastly, Gaudium, the last of the Essential Dignities, supposes two falsities; that there are Hou∣ses in this fictitious Zodiack, and that Planets are Masculine and Feminine: which supposition has been confuted already. So that all these Essential Digni∣ties are devoid of all substance and reality, and the numbering of their particular fortitudes is the telling out so many nullities to no purpose.

12. Nor can you hope for a better account of their Accidental Dignities. Cazimi, Combustion and Freeness from Combustion. How fond and inconsi∣stent

conceits are they? For first it is unreasonable, if they know the nature of the Planets, of the Sun, and of the Celestial Vortex, to make a Planet in Cazimi to gain five fortitudes: * For beyond the Sun the Planet is at the furthest distance it can be from us: and Saturn, Iupiter and Mars, a whole Diameter of the Suns Orbit, more distant than when they are in Opposition to the Sun: and Venus and Mercury half of their own. * Besides, how can their virtue pass the body of the Sun, * or the bearing of the Vortex against the Planet and against us, and all the attempts of influence from the Planet not be elu∣ded? * Again, if Cazimi on this side the Sun be good, why should not beyond the Sun be bad? And if Venus or Mercury in the body of the Sun be so con∣siderable, * how much more are the Spots of the Sun that are far greater? which their ignorance could never reckon in the compute of their Digni∣ties. Besides, what wild and disproportionable jumps are these, * That Cazimi should be five fortitudes, and yet combustion, which is to be but a little di∣stance from the Sun, should be five debilities; and yet to be free from Combustion, that is further remo∣ved from the body of the Sun, should be again five Fortitudes? Things so arbitrarious and groundless, that none but sick-brain'd persons can ever believe them.

That also is notoriously foolish, * That Saturn, Iupiter and Mars from ‖ their Conjunction with the Sun to their Opposition should have two fortitudes, and from their Opposition to Conjunction should have two debilities. For in a great part of that Semi-Cir∣cle that carries from Opposition to Conjunction, they are far nearer, and therefore much stronger than in

the beginning of that Semi-Circle that leads from their Conjunction to Opposition.

Moreover those Dignities and Debilities that are cast upon Planets from Direction, Station and Re∣trogradation, the thing is mainly grounded upon a mistake of the System of the World, and ignorance of the Earths Annual motion, and from an Idiotick application of accidents or phrases amongst men. And therefore because when things succeed ill they are said to go backwards, and when we are weary we go more slow, or stand still to breath us, or when we are most vigorous we run swiftest; therefore must Station be two debilities, Retrogradation no less than five, but Direction must be five fortitudes: whereas in reason * Station should rather seal on the effect of the Planet more sure. But the truth is, a * Planet is neither Stationary nor Retrograde truly, but in ap∣pearance, and therefore these Debilities no true ones but imaginary.

The last Accidental Dignity is Configuration or Aspect, the vain grounds whereof have been ‖ alrea∣dy taxed. To which I add, that it is utterly unrea∣sonable to conceive, * that Sextile and Trine should be good, and yet Quartile that is betwixt both be stark naught. Nay, it were far more reasonable to conceive, that if Conjunction and Sextile were good, * that Quartile should be better than Trine, as being further from Opposition, and because * the Planets thus aspected are in better capacity both of them to strike with more direct raies on the Earth, than if they were in a Trine Aspect. And therefore I know no reason imaginable that could move them to have so ill a conceit of Quartile Aspect, but because of the great unquietness of acute Diseases that happens about every

seventh day, which is the time also of the Quartile Aspect of the Moon: and therefore the whole my∣stery of Aspects is to be resolved into this rash mis∣application.

You have seen now how little worth all the Astro∣logical Dignities are; and yet out of these huge No∣things of their fictitious Art is the whole Fabrick built of whatever predictions they pretend to: So that we may be assured that all is vain and ridicu∣lous.

13. Concerning their twelve Houses of the Nati∣vity, the Division is arbitrarious, * and their erect∣ing of a Scheme so many ways, and that with like suc∣cess, an evidence that the success is not upon Art but fortuitous. * The Configuration also of the Houses and those ‖ Septennial 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Alfridarii do intimate that the whole business is but a figment, going upon that false Hypothesis of Ptolemy, That the Planets and the Earth have not the Sun to their Centre. But this is not all we have to say against these Celestial Tenements. * For either the Earth is pervious to all the raies of the Planets and Stars, as well beneath as above the Horizon, or only they above the Horizon shed their virtue on the Child. If the former be true, all Nativities are alike. If the latter, why have they any more than six Houses, and why any at all under the Horizon? And in good sadness what is the meaning that their Horoscope, and the sixth House, being Houses of so great concern∣ment, should be under the Horizon; especially when they are pleased at other times to pronounce; * that a Star or Planet that is Vertical is most efficacious? And can it be thought any thing but a meer phancy that led them to make the Horoscope the House of

life, namely, because the Stars arise from thence, and are as it were born into the World? whence (as I have shewed their custom to be in other things) they have feigned the rest of the Houses at random. And that you may still be more sure that there is nothing in these Houses, (or rather that the Houses themselves are nothing) they are but the distribution of that imaginary Zodiack and Heaven, which (I told you ‖ before) the error of Ptolemy brought into the World, into twelve imaginary Sections, beginning at the East point of this Zodiack: So that their Art is perpetually built upon nothing.

14. Now for the exact time of the Nativity, that one should know the very moment when the Child is born, I say it is a curiosity nothing to the purpose. For first, if the hard and thick Earth be pervious to the Raies of Heaven, how easily may those thin co∣verings of the Womb be penetrated continually by the power of the Stars? and therefore * even then is the Child as much exposed to them, as when it is newly born. Or if it be not; why may not it some moments after its being born, be still as liable to their influence as in the moment when it was born? For cannot these Influences that pierce the very metal∣line bowels of the Earth, pierce a Childs tender skin without any resistance? But supposing this curiosity to be to the purpose; how hard and lubricous a mat∣ter is it to come to that exactness they pretend to be requisite? * For first they must know the exact Lon∣gitude of the place, (a thing of extream uncertainty) or else the exactness of time will do them no good. And yet again, their affectation of exactness seems ri∣diculous, when we cannot well determine the pro∣per time of his Birth. * For he is born by degrees,

and few or none come out, after first they appear, in a shorter space than half a quarter of an hour. Where∣fore their head being exposed to the starry influence, why should not that Celestial infection pervade their whole body? But suppose that to be the moment of their birth wherein the whole body is first out, how shall this moment be known? By an exact minute watch, such as Tycho had, and Sir Christopher Hey∣don professes himself to have had, which would ex∣actly give him the minute and second scruple of time. But how few Nativity-Casters can boast of the same priviledge? Or if they could, to what purpose is it, when it seldom happens that they are in the same House, much less in the same room where the party is delivered? Wherefore the report of the Midwife is the best certainty they have: and how many Nativi∣ties have been cast without so much as that? And yet they will confidently predict Fates and Destinies upon an uncertain time given them. For they can, say they, correct it, and reduce it to the right moment of the Nativity, and that by no less than three several ways; by Trutina Hermetis, Animodar, and Accidentia Nati: which how bold and groundless a boast it is, let us now see.

15. Trutina Hermetis goes upon this ground, That that degree of the Zodiack the Moon is in at the time of Conception, the same is the Horoscope of the Nativity. But what a Foolish subterfuge is this when-as the exact time of Conception, is as hard to be known as that of the Nativity? And if it were known, there is yet no certainty, some coming soon∣er, some later, as every Mother, Nurse or Midwife knows full well; nor will any of them presume to tell to a day when a Woman shall be brought to Bed.

In Animodar the Nativity is either Conjunctional or Preventional, that is, either after or before the Conjunction of the Sun and Moon. If the Interlu∣nium precede the time of the Birth, the degree is to be noted in which it happens; if the Plenilunium, that degree in which that Luminary is that is above the Horizon in the time of Opposition, the Sun by day, the Moon by night. The degrees thus given, the Almuten Almusteli is to be found out, which is the Planet that has most Dignities in that place of Oppo∣sition or Conjunction; which are Trigon, House, Al∣titude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Aspect. Then the degree of the sign is to be noted, in which the Almuten was at the time of the estimated birth, &c. For I need not hold on; enough has already been said to de∣monstrate the whole process a Ceremonious Foolery. For the computation being to be made from the place of the Almuten Almusteli, and his Election by Dig∣nities, and Dignities being nothing but empty phan∣sies and vanities, as I have already proved, the Cor∣rection of the Nativity by Animodar must needs be idle and vain. Besides that, the Almuten being one and the same, as belonging to one and the same Con∣junction or Opposition of the Luminaries, how can it be a rule to Children born at the same times in di∣verse Climates? For it is evident, the Horoscope al∣ters with the Clime. And lastly, not only Picus, a Foe to Astrology, professes how false both this me∣thod of Animodar, as also that rule of Hermes is, and clashing one with another; but Origanus himself, a Friend to the Art, advises us rather to listen to the Relations of Mother Midnight, than to give any credit to either of these ways.

The most certain way of correcting a Scheme of

Nativity in Origanus his judgment, is per Accidentia Nati, whether good or bad, as Honours, Prefer∣ments, Gifts, Sickness, Imprisonment, Falls, Con∣flicts, &c. which way notwithstanding at the first sight is very lubricous. For it is at least disputable and uncertain, whether there be Liberty of Will in man or no. But I will venture further, that for my own part, I think it demonstrable from inward Sense, Rea∣son and Holy Writ, that there is free will in men; whence it will necessarily follow, Quòd multa acci∣dunt hominibus praeter naturam praeter{que} fatum. Diseases therefore, Imprisonments, Disgraces and Pre∣ferments may be brought upon us by the free Agency of our selves or others, and that sooner or later, ac∣cording as mens Virtues or Vices act. * Which takes away all certainty of computation per Acciden∣tia Nati.

16. Besides, that the manner of it is very frivolous and ridiculous. For it being threefold, as Origanus has set down, Profection Annual, Transition and Di∣rection; there is none of them that are any thing more than meer phancies and figments. For what can be more vain and imaginary than their Annual Profection, which makes the Horoscope and the rest of the Houses move thirty degrees a Year till the whole period be finished in twelve? * Is this Circuit of the Nativity-Scheme any where but in their own brain? And then their Predictions or Corrections, are by Aspects of the Cusp of the Root with the Cusps of the present Scheme Calculated for this or that Year. And how Aspects themselves are nothing, I have again and again taken notice.

And for Transition, what is more monstrous than to think that a Planet by passing the same place in

which it self or others Planets were at the Nativity, should cause some notable change in the party born? As if the Planets walked their rounds with perfumed Socks, or that they smelt stronger at the Nativity than at other times, and * that another Planet come into the trace thereof should exult in the scent, or the same increase the smell: or what is it that can adhere in these points of Heaven that the Planets were found in at the Nativity? or why is not the whole tract of the same scent, or why not expunged by the passage of other Planets? But what will not madness and effa∣scination make a man phancie to uphold his own pre∣judices? And truly these two Origanus himself is wil∣ling to quit his hands of, as less found and allowable: but Direction is a principal business with him.

Which yet in good truth will be found as frivo∣lous as the rest. For as in Transition, so also in Di∣rection, the great change must happen when a Pla∣net, or Cuspe, or Aspect come to the place where such a Planet or Cuspe were at the Nativity. When the Significator comes to the place of the Promissor, then the feat does not fail to be done. For the Pro∣missor is conceived as immoveable, and such as stands still and expects the arrival of the Significator: * which is a demonstration that this Promissor is either imaginary space or nothing: and which of these two think you will keep promise best? nay, the significa∣tor also, if it be the Horoscope or any other House, is imaginary too, as I have demonstrated. And if it be a Planet, seeing yet the Planets move not as a Bird in the Air, or Fishes in the Waters, but as Cork car∣ried down the stream; * it is plain, how this Planet never gets to that part of the Celestial matter in which the Promissor was at the Nativity, the Promissor

ever sliding away with his own matter in which he swims: and therefore if he hath left any virtue be∣hind him, it must again be deposited in an imaginary space. Which is an undeniable Argument that the whole mystery of Direction is imaginary.

Wherefore if Profection annual, Transition and Direction are so vain that they signifie nothing for∣ward, how can we from Events (though they should be judged and reasoned from exactly according to these phantastick Laws) argue backward an exact indication of the time of the Nativity? If they could have pretended to some rules of nature or Astronomy to have rectified a Geniture by, they had said some∣thing; but this recourse to their own phantastick and fictitious Principles proves nothing at all.

17. And thus have I run through the eighth and ninth Sections of the foregoing Chapter before I was aware. And he that has but moderate skill in the so∣lid Principles of natural Philosophy and Astronomy, and but a competent patience to listen to my close reasonings therefrom, cannot but acknowledge, that I have fundamentally confuted the whole Art of A∣strology, and that he has heard all their fine terms of Horoscope, and the Celestial Houses, Exaltation, Triplicity, Trigons, Aspects benign and malign, Sta∣tion, Retrogradation, Combustion, Cazimi, Signi∣ficator, Promissor, Apheta, Anaereta, Trigonocra∣tor, Horecrator, Almugea, Almuten, Alcochodon, together with the rest of their sonorous nothings, to have fallen down with a clatter like a pile of dry bones by the battery I have laid against them. And truly here I would not stick to pronounce I have per∣fectly vanquished the Enemy, did I not spie a little blind Fort, to which these Fugitives usually make

their escape. And surely by the Title it should be a very strong one; They call it Experience or Obser∣vation of Events, which they boast to be accurately agreeable to their predictions.

ANNOTATIONS. CHAP. XVI. Sect. I.

BEcause the later and wiser Philosophers have made them as so many Suns. Ans. As if be∣cause they are Suns, sayes J. B. (p. 54.) it were ex∣cuse enough for them to stand for Cyphers. Whereas standing for Suns the more rather is expected from them, the Sun being the Prince of all Stars, &c. Repl. If they be Suns they cannot stand for Cyphers, but be of the same import that our Sun is, who ad∣ministers light and heat to those in his respective Vortex. Neither, it being once admitted, that the fixed Stars are Suns, can any one Sun be the Prince of all the Stars, but only of the Planets of his own Vortex. J. B. his ignorance of the Cartesian or rather ancient Pythagorick Philosophy, makes him argue so weakly in this point.

Which Hypothesis our Astrologers must confute, &c. Answ. The Hypothesis it self, sayes he, (p. 55.) is but a meer conceit without proof, and yet forsooth we must confute it. Repl. Amongst the learned in Philosophy, especially the Cartesians, it is so well known and generally admitted, that it wanted no proof. And it were too long here to insist on it. Let

J. B. lay his beloved Astrology a while aside, and read Galilaeus his Systema Cosmicum, or Des-Cartes his Principia, or my first Epistle to V. C. and then let him tell me whether the opinion of the fixt Stars being Suns be a meer conceit without proof. But suppose them so many Suns, saith he, and without all Influence but light and heat, whom is it that they are made to shine to or make warm? As for us we feel nothing of their heat, and make ten times more use of a Candle than of their light. Repl. As if there were no sensitive Creatures in this vast li∣quid Aether of the Vniverse, but the Men and Brutes on our Earth. Our Sun having the Satellitium of so many Planets of which our Earth is one, why may we not rationally conclude, that other Suns have Planets about them, at least some of them, as well as our Sun, as also that the Vortices of all the Suns or fixt Stars are replenished with Intellectual Inha∣bitants, or Aethereal Genii? And all Genii or Angels according to the ancient Cabbala and Primi∣tive Fathers, having Bodies of Aether, or the Cele∣stial matter, and being able to see, and in a capa∣city of having their Bodies conveniently and in∣conveniently affected, why may not the Sun mini∣ster to the gratifications of these Aethereal Inhabi∣tants, and that be true of the blind Poet, as you call him in reproach (who was not the less capable of Philosophizing by being bodily blind, sith Demo∣critus deprived himself of his Eye-sight that he might the better Philosophize) why may not that, I say, of his be true concerning the Sun.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

that is to say,

He rose to shine to Gods as well as Men.

And it is in it self highly probable; forasmuch as the Earth as well as Saturn, Iupiter, &c. Answ. It is highly probable, and that's the utmost of his Argument, sayes J. B. (p. 56.) and yet how confi∣dently he concludes, That this first general pretense is utterly enervated! Repl. What a vain Insulta∣tion is here over the modesty of an expression, though backed with little less than a Demonstration from the proof and acknowledgment that our Earth is a Planet as well as those other so called? And the Earth being habitable and created to that end, un∣less Nature be defective, what less can be surmised of the rest of the Planets, especially those that are called Primary Planets? And if the Secondary Pla∣nets as the Moon which the Pythagoreans called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is as much as Terra ex opposito sita (and the spots in it shew, that there is Water or Sea there as well as Land) be habitable as some contend she is, much more the Primary. These things are highly rational to them that have reason, but men of phancy phancie things as it happens. But J. B. goes on. But what says he, if the Earth were certainly a Planet, and the Planets Saturn, Jupiter, &c. were all Mothers of living Creatures as well as the Earth, what is all this to the purpose? God made the Stars for us and to influence us, &c. Repl. But if they be Mothers of living Creatures, it is manifest they were not made for us alone. Nor does it follow they being made also for us, that they were made in an Astrological sense to influence us, but to be marks of time and serviceable to Chrono∣logy, and to exercise the wit of man in making Ob∣servations touching their courses, which is the Art of Astronomy. So that it is manifest, that they have

manifold uses, partly in regard of others, and part∣ly in regard of our selves, without Astrological In∣fluence, and that therefore the force of this first general pretense of the Astrologians is defeated.

Sect. 2. Yet because all this variety reaches every point of the Earth, the product would be the same, &c. Ans. The Doctor knoweth, saith he (p. 60.) that the Weapon-salve points meerly at one wound, viz. that which the Weapon made, besmeared now with that salve, and be there ten thousand wounds between, yet it misseth them all. And so may he as well conceive, that the influence of every star and of every part of Heaven, does not like Water scatter it self into all pores of the Earth as it flies along, but though one Star may have more than Millions of Influences (which if they have, what need so many Stars) going at once, yet as the Weapon salve, sends it forth each unto its proper object, and all this without diversifying the Earth or any part thereof. Repl. This is very pretty in good sooth, but altogether as impertinent. It does not reach the case nor the defence of Sir Christopher Heydon's Argument, which is the thing in hand. He would prove the necessity of variety of Influence of the Stars from the Non-variety, Simplicity or Homo∣geneity of the parts of the Water and Earth. Where∣fore J. B. his reasoning is upon a quite contrary sup∣position to Sir Christopher's, whose Argument yet he pretends to defend. And then releasing him from his obligation to Sir Christopher, whom he has ser∣ved such a slippery trick as to slide quite from the concern of his cause, what is this instance of the Weapon-salve which I mention in my Immortality of the Soul, Book 2. Ch. 10. Sect. 7. to the Influence of

the Stars in a Conception or Nativity? Which Con∣ception is a pure Crystalline homogeneous liquor, as Dr. Harvey describes it, unvariegated of it self, and to be variegated or modified by the Stars. But the wound is modified already to cause a peculiar sym∣pathy betwixt it and the Weapon-salve on the knife that made it. Wherefore there being no premodifi∣cation in the Conception, but it being to be modi∣fied by the Stars, and the Stars by reason of the simplicity of it, reaching it by their Influence alike, can give no peculiar modification unto it. And so for the Nativity it self. Forasmuch I say as it is supposed, that whoever is born under such a precise Positure of the Heavens, is impressed precisely by such an Influence, it is plain, that the difference of impression he is modified with, is not at all from himself but from that particular Positure of the Hea∣vens at his birth, and therefore cannot be resolved into this Principle of distinctive sympathy. And indeed, if the difference of modification of the Birth, came not from the Stars, but from the Birth it self, as the healing of the wound from being the wound of such a knife with salve upon it, this would destroy the very pretense of Astrology, which diffe∣renceth the Birth according to the difference of the Schemes of Heaven. And therefore the distinction not being in the Birth, it is liable to be imprest upon by all the Stars alike.

The Celestial Matter is every where and the Earth swims in it, &c. Ans. Neither the Earth, says J. B. (p. 58.) nor the Air about it can be so situated as to swim all parts of it at once in the Celestial matter, much less to apply every part of the Earth to its proper Instrument of nature, so as to be wrought by

it with an immediate Conjunction, but these pro∣ductions here below must necessarily be caused by the activity of remote Instruments and their Influences, &c. And these Instruments, as remote as they are, that they may send down their Influence to the Earth, he would prove from the Polar Star, which draws the Magnetical Needles pointing upon it self from the utmost Southern Coasts. And from the working of the Weapon-salve at a great distance by Sympathy. This is the main of what he alledges a∣gainst this passage. Repl. The former part whereof is from his being not skilled in the Cartesian Philo∣sophy, and his want of rightly conceiving what the Celestial matter is, it being a substance so subtile, that it will pass the very pores of glass, much more of Air, and Water and Earth, so that all parts of this Terraqueous Globe, together with its Atmosphere, is easily understood to swim in the Celestial matter, it penetrating throughout. And this is the most immediate material Instrument of Nature, that is to say, of the Omniform Spirit of Nature, that guides and modifies the gross matter according to certain vital Laws the Creator of all things hath indued it with. So that we need not have recourse to those remote Instruments for the production of the varie∣ties of things below, and himself avows there is such a spirit of the World, and acknowledges it to be Vegetative or Plastical, but the delicacy of his phancy it seems carries him out to such remote In∣struments of Generation according to the Proverb, That far fetcht and dear bought is good for Ladies. And for the mystery of the Load stone I will refer him to Gilbert and Des Cartes, in whose Philosophy he will find rationally asserted, that the Magnetical

Particles, which the Cartesians call the particulas Striatas, come from a certain part of the Heaven, and cause this posture of the Earth's Axis, and of the Magnetical Needles accordingly. But if J. B. has been so profoundly taken up with his Divine Science of Astrology, as to neglect Philosophy, these brief Annotations will not afford space to instruct him therein. But in the mean time he may take notice, that some few certain effects from the Heavens, that are constant and palpable, are no warrant for the uncertain, slight and imaginary pretences of Astro∣logy. And as for the sympathy of the Weapon-salve, how little it makes to his Astrological purpose I have shewn above, and that its distinctive symphathy is ill applyed to the free Influence of the Stars, their operation being determinative not determined in Nativities. And that there are de facto any such remote Influences, besides those that are constant and palpable, his own concession of the Spirit of the World shews to be vain and needless.

Sect. 3. Melt the Air and vapours into an insinu∣ating liquidness, &c. Ans. Well but which way, says J. B. (p. 42.) gets this liquidness into the Brains or Eyes of living Creatures? Repl. How come wooden Doors to be so much swelled in a moist Air? Why may not the subtile moisture of the Air thus liquified by the moderate beams of the Moon, insinuate it self into the Head, Brains and Eyes of Animals, as well as ordinary moisture doth in rainy weather into wooden Doors? Certainly there are as open passages to the Brains and Eyes of living Crea∣tures as there are into the body of wood, and more open too.

If they were so placed that their Discus would

seem of equal bigness with the Moon's, &c. From this passage J. B. (p. 48.) would collect that I grant that Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury, have indeed Astrological Influences in them, but that they only want proximity to discover them. But for the matter of proximity, sayes he, the Doctor it seems is yet to learn how the Heavenly Bodies are neither helped by proximity, nor hindred by longin∣quity in the exercise of their power, or in the pour∣ing down of their Influences. It seems either he had forgotten, or did not know that the farther the Moon is from the Sun the greater is the light she receives from him, and the nearer she is to him, she receives still less and less. Repl. But as for the moistening faculty of the Moon, I deny that it is any Astrological Influence, I having given so appa∣rent reason of the Phaenomenon. And that of the Flux and Reflux, we shall consider it in the next Section, and therefore if Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Ve∣nus and Mercury, should exhibit any such effect as the moist Moon by their proximity, it were not pro∣perly Astrological. But for that Astrological Axiome of his, that the Heavenly Bodies are neither helped by proximity, nor hindred by longinquity, it is point-blank against what he writes (p. 21.) where his express words are these. All Astrologers do hold the Moon to be the nearest to us, and nimblest ply∣ing about us above all other Planets, and therefore to have more powerful effects upon us than any other Planet has. And then for his Argument, it is ut∣terly false, nay the thing is quite contrary. For the Moon, the nearer she is the Sun, the more she is illu∣minated, according to the known principles of Op∣ticks, though by reason of her positure the light is

less reflected to us. But it seems J. B. was yet to learn that Optick Maxime, That a round opaque body, whose diameter is less than that of a round lucid body, the nearer it approaches the lucid body the more it is illuminated.

But it is insufferable folly to argue from such both reasonable and palpable effects of the Moon, &c. Ans. If the Moon, says J. B. (p. 60.) which is one Planet, have such and such Influences, which are so apparent that they cannot be denied, what hinders but that it may aptly follow, that her fellow Pla∣nets may have Influences too, &c. Repl. The fel∣low Planets of the Moon are all secondary Planets, she being of that Classis and attending her primary Planet the Earth, and so the conclusion is rational enough for her fellow Planets, that is, the secondary Planets, that they may have some palpable effects on their own Primary Planets, as this secondary Planet the Moon has on its primary Planet the Earth. But it does not hence follow, that other Planets so far removed and of so small an appearance, have any ef∣fect on our Planet to cause any considerable change to any thing there.

Sect. 4. That the Ellipsis of the Celestial matter is streightned by the Moon's body, which makes the Aether flow more swift, which is a plain and mecha∣nical solution of the Phaenomenon, &c. In answer to this section, J. B. (p. 44, 45, 46, 47.) by reason of his not being acquainted with either Gilbert de Magnete, or, which is of most consequence, with the Theory of the Flux and Reflux of the Sea in Des Cartes his Principles, Part. 4. Artic. 49, 50, &c. and of the Magnet, Artic. 145, 146, &c. he is so be∣wildered in his phancies and reasonings, that it

would be too operose a business to reduce him into the way. It is not worth the while for me to read Philosophy Lectures to him, but I desire that him∣self would set so much time apart from the Divine Science of Astrology, as to be vacant a while to the study of these Theories in Natural Philosophy. And then I don't despair but that he will discern the so∣lidity of what I return in answer to the experiment of the Loadstone, and to this Phaenomen of the Flux and Reflux of the Sea depending on the course of the Moon. I will only advertise thus much by the by, that whereas I say, it is a plain and mechani∣cal solution of the Phaenomenon, the sense is, That this mechanical way of solution makes the Doctrine of the Flux and Reflux, plain and intelligible. But that it is not merely Mechanical, I have shewed in my Enchiridion Metaphysicum, cap. 14. Of which the natural upshot is, that the Laws of the Aestus marinus are executed sympathetically and synener∣getically by the spirit of the World, and by the body of the Moon Mechanically as by his Instrument, and not by any strange Influence from her. And so the spirit of the World in Magnetical Phaenomenons acts Synenergetically and sympathetically from it self, but mechanically by those instruments of his operation, the Magnetick Particles which Cartesius calls the particulae striatae.

Sect. 5. Know very well that these Phaenomena are not real but seeming, &c. Ans. Here J. B. (p. 62.) But however seeming, sayes he, this Station and Re∣trogradation is, by experience such is it found unto us as if it were really so. And a little above he says, It is well known that we Astrologers understand the Phaenomenon beyond mistake. Repl. But did your

great Author Ptolemy understand it? And your Rules went upon the faith of his Hypothesis. And what was taken upon this ground, credulity phan∣sied afterward to be confirmed by experience.

Sect. 6. That neither the Dog-star, Arcturus, the Hyades, nor Orion, &c. Touching this notion of ours of the nature of these Stars or Constellations, J. B. spends almost three whole pages, 63, 64, 65. But the main lies in a very little room. For as touching Arcturus, the Hyades and Orion, he quotes Job 38.31. Canst thou bind the sweet Influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his Sons? This is in Job, which is acknowledged to be an highly Rhetorical Poem, and therefore to use such figures of speech as other Poetry does, and accordingly it is expounded by sober Interpreters.

Wherefore not taking notice of J. B. his confound∣ing of Hyades and Pleiades, as if they were the same, I shall set down Grotius his Gloss, and it is the sense of Vatablus, and other Interpreters. Canst thou bind the sweet Influences (the Hebrew word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deliciae simply, there is nothing of Influence in the word) of the Pleiades? Which are a clustre of little Stars in Taurus a vernal sign, in which when the Sun is, it is Spring. Whence Grotius glos∣ses it thus, Potésne impedire flores vernos Vergilia∣rum? And loose the bands of Orion? The Hebrew word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Hierom translates, Orion sydus hybernum, says Grotius, Est autem frigoris constrin∣gere. And, Orion tempore hyberno assurgit, sayes Vatablus, and adds this short gloss on this last part of the Verse, Efficiésne, says he, ut tempore hyberno

flores erumpant? And Grotius, Poterísne tu rusticis facultatem dare laborandi ubi labores Orion inhibet? But this constriction of cold is attributed to Orion, because when he rises Achronychally the Sun is in his Winter signs. So that it is really the absence of the Sun, or his lowness that occasions this cold. But to fancy any Stars efficiently and positively to cause cold, is as extravagant and ridiculous as that con∣ceit of Paracelsus, that imagined that it was not the absence of the Sun but certain Tenebrificous Stars that caused Night. But now as for Arcturus, there is nothing touching him but his motion. And the sense of both the Verses put together is only this, Canst thou change the seasons of Summer and Win∣ter, or is it thou that makest Mazaroth, viz. the twelve signs of the Zodiack to ascend, and guidest Arcturus with the lesser Stars about him in their Circuit? But of Astrological Influence in the He∣brew Text there is not one syllable.

And, as to the Pleiades and Orion is attributed what really belongs to the site of the Sun, so is it also in the Dog-star, whatever J. B. will pretend to the contrary, which I will give you in his own words, p. 64, 65. But when the Doctor, says he, doth thus entail the heat and cold to the place of the Sun, he forgets how that in Ptolemie's time, when the Dog-days were long since observed, they happened in May and June, a whole month before what they do now. And therefore had the sultry season pertained to the Sun only after he had heated the Earth, how came it to pass that in those olden days it happened so soon ere the Sun came to its full heat? Or why is it that this sultry Air goes along with the Dog as he meets with the Sun, and that varying as the

Dog varies, and not fixing to any point of the Sun's Circle? Repl. That the Dog-days should happen in Ptolemie's time a whole month before they do now, is not likely. For Timocharis, who lived about three hundred and thirty Years before Christ observed Azemech or Spica Virginis to be placed in the begin∣ning of the 23. degree of Virgo. And two hundred Years after Abrachis, who usually is called Hippar∣chus, observed the same Star to be in the beginning of the 25. degree of Virgo. Whence it is concluded, that the motion of the Coelum stellatum, to speak in the Ptolemaick language, moves from West to East about one degree in an hundred Years. And from that time and Ptolemie's, who was a little Junior to Hipparchus, to this day, it has got but to the 18. degree of Libra. So that from Ptolemie's time to this it has not gone passing 23. degrees, which falls short about a fourth part of a month. And therefore reckoning from the 19. of July, to the 26. of June, it will want some 25. days of having the Dog-days begin in any part of May, and in those hotter Coun∣tries, where Ptolemy lived, it is no wonder that the Sun being entred so many degrees into Cancer, should cause very hot weather though the Dog-star stand for a Cypher in the Case. But by reason of the Sun's heat coming into that Sign, Cancer is called, though figuratively, yet judiciously, the burning Crabb by Dionysius Afer in his Geographical Poem.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

that is to say,

Round in the Heavens is whirl'd the burning Crabb. But here let J. B. give me leave to ask him whether he thinks that when the Dog-Star and the Sun join

forces together, that our Antoeci feel any such sultry heat. And for my own part I have observed more sultry hot weather before the Dog-days as they are now placed, than in them. So that this sultry heat is by no string tied to the Dog's Collar. And because he will have Adam and Seth Astrologers, I desire to know of him whether in their Almanacks (reckon∣ing according to his account, that makes the Dog-days in May, in Ptolemies time, which therefore would be in March in those olden times) whether, I say, in the Month of March in Adam or Seth's Al∣manack it was writ down, Weather hot and sultry.

Which is no more mysterious than the Aegyptian's and Livia's Maids of Honour hatching of Eggs with∣out the help of the Hen, &c. Here J. B. (p. 51, 52, 53.) makes long but weak ambagious steps toward an answer, but the most pertinent part of it is this, That in these Eggs there was a seed of life fore-pre∣pared by the Influence of the Sun and Moon, and other Planets, insomuch that nothing was wanting but heat only to perfect the act of producing the fruit. And that that very heat too, whereby they were produced, was influenced by the quickening and qualifying faculty of the Sun. Repl. This is the main, and shews that my Antagonist can phansie rather any thing than disphansie his Divine Science of Astrology, or be brought out of conceit with it. For certainly he must have a wonderful peremptory phancy, that can imagine that Plastick power, which is in the seed of Animals or their Conception, to be the mere Influence of the Stars, as if they guided the work into Organization. And as needless a phancy it is with J. B. he acknowledging a spirit of

Nature and arguing better for it, than for any thing that I see he manages in his whole Book. Wherefore there being a Plastick Power, whether the spirit of nature, or proper to the soul of the Animal it self, what needs any other vivisick power but this and a well moderated heat to make the matter more pliable to the operations of the Plastick upon it? What ever is besides this is precarious and imaginary.

Sect. 7. Because they might observe some more sensible mutation in the Air and Earth at the Sun's entring into Aries, &c. Ans. There are some, saith J. B. (p. 66.) who are not satisfied with this rea∣son, if that were all, because there is the like sensible mutation at his entrance into Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. Repl. Who those some are I know not, But Origanus Part. 3. de effect. cap. 4. writes ex∣presly thus. Sol exaltatur in Ariete, quia cùm id Sig∣num ingreditur, in septentrionalem mundi partem supra Aequatorem exsurgens, calorem vivificum, quo in subjectam Terram ac Animantium corpora agit, vehementer intendit, lucis{que} diurnae sensibile incre∣mentum efficit. And Dariot speaks to the like pur∣pose in his Judicial Astrology, Chap. 5. And it is evident to sense that mutations are not so notable, either in Cancer, Libra, or Capricorn, as in Aries, when the World seems to awaken into a natural Re∣surrection.

Omnia tunc florent, tunc est nova Temporis Aetas. as Ovid (fast. lib. 1.) argues it with Janus, for the beginning of the Year with Spring.

To make Leo the House of the Sun, his heat being then the most sensible, and Cancer the House of the Moon, because she would then be most vertical to

us, &c. Ans. As for Leo, says J. B. (p. 66.) if that were Sol's House only for his sensible heat there, why then was not Capricorn the Moon's House because of her sensible cold there, she being a Planet as much delighted in coldness as the Sun in heat? And as for Cancer, were that the Moon's House only because there she is most vertical, why then was not Cancer Sols House too, because he is also most vertical there as well as the Moon? And if that were all, how is it that the Moon doth not change her Houses as she hath to do with the change of Countries, seeing that in some places she is vertical in Gemini, and elsewhere in Taurus and Aries. But had the Doctor a little better perused Ptolemy, or the Arabians, or Origanus, whom he sometimes quotes, he would have found that Cancer is generally esteemed the Moons House, as well in those Countries where she is not Vertical, as where she is. And that Leo is the House of the Sun, as well there where he has less heat as where he has most. Repl. Full Moon in Ca∣pricorn causes no more cold than full Moon in Can∣cer, nor so much I trow. For if she be in the full in Capricorn, the Sun must be in Cancer, and then I think J. B. will acknowledge it hot enough. But full Moon in Cancer supposes the Sun in Capricorn, and therefore I should think her cold and moist In∣fluence should be most sensible then, though I be not so deeply studied in this Divine Science of Astro∣logy as J. B. And that Cancer is not Sol's House, though he be more Vertical to us then, is, because the effects of his heat are more sensible in Leo than in Cancer, as also the Moon's in Cancer more than any where else. And therefore these two Signs are with fairest colour constituted the Houses, the one of the

Moon, the other of the Sun, and they the proper 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of them. But that the Moon's being more vertical to us in Cancer, should make that Sign her House, does not at all infer that her Houses should change with the change of Countries, to which any Sign is Vertical. And J. B. is to remem∣ber that his Divine Art of Astrology was invented by them that liv'd on this side the Tropick of Can∣cer, and that to all those of this side that Tropick the Moon is most vertical in that Sign, that is, is the nearest to them, but the inventers of the Art were not concerned for any that liv'd in the Torrid Zone or beyond it. And I would have J. B. to con∣sider, where he says, that Leo is the House of the Sun, as well in those Countries where he was less heat as where he has most, whether the Inhabitants of the Temperate Zone beyond the Tropick of Capri∣corn, if they had made an Astrology, would ever have constituted Leo the House of the Sun, his heat being so inconsiderable to them when he is there.

They have without either fear or wit bestowed Houses, two apiece, upon the rest of the Planets. &c. Ans. That there is the very same reason (p. 68.) why Aquarius should be the House of Saturn, as he him∣self alledges, why Leo should be the House of the Sun. And as much reason why Capricorn should be the other House of Saturn, as he affirms why Cancer Should be the Moon's House. For if the hottest Pla∣net may have that House where is at hottest; why may not the coldest Planet have that House where he is the coldest? And if the Moon who is a friend of Nature, may be Housed in the most vertical Sign, why may not Saturn who is the Enemy of Nature,

dwell in the most unvertical? And a little after in the same page: Why does he charge us to have no reason for the Houses of the other Planets, besides the Sun and Moon? For if he had asked we could have told him reason enough. Repl. But I answer first, that it is not so apparent that Saturn is cold, as that the Sun is hot, but 'tis only the Astrologers imagination; nor that Saturn is such an Enemy to Nature, as it is that the Moon is friendly to her by her kindly moisture. And besides, this account does not reach down to the rest of the Planets. But I perceive J. B. has other reasons in his budget if he would produce them, nor do I question but they are those that Origanus and Dariot offer, the latter, Astrolog. Judicial. Chap. 4. the former, Part. 3. de Effect. Cap. 4. Briefly therefore Saturn has Aquarius and Capricorn for his two Houses, be∣cause he being a malign Planet his two Houses are to be in a malign Aspect to the Houses of Sol and Luna, and Capricorn is in Opposition to Leo, and Aquarius to Cancer. But Sagittarius and Pisces be∣holding the Lion and Crabb with a Trine Aspect, are the Houses of the benign Planet Jupiter. But Aries and Scorpio beholding the Crabb and Lion with a Quartile Aspect, which is a malign Aspect, are the Houses of Mars who is no friend to Nature. And Taurus and Libra which are in Sextile Aspect to Cancer and Leo, which is a benign Aspect, are the Houses of Venus, she being more friendly to Nature. And lastly, Mercury has for his Houses Gemini and Virgo, because they behold the Houses of the two Luminaries with no Aspect, neither benign nor ma∣lign, as he himself is a Planet neither good nor bad of himself, but such as he keeps Company with. And

is not this a trim distribution of the Houses amongst the Planets? But yet it seems such, as J. B. himself thought would not hold water, else why did he not produce it? If the benignity and malignity, as well of Aspects as the Planets, were Solidly made out, this account were handsome, and had some shew of congruity in it; but these being imaginary figments, not grounded upon reason and certain experience, to give such an account of things, is but cum ratione ineptire.

And then another thing happening, though inde∣pendent on the course of the Moon, namely, that every seventh day in an acute Disease is Critical, &c. Answ. As for acute Diseases, saith J. B. (p. 67.) all men are not apt to believe the Doctor, that every seventh day they are so Critical and stirring, &c. Repl. Whether all will believe me or no I know not, but that this has been an ancient tradition, that every seventh day from the beginning of an acute Disease is Critical, you may read in A. Gellius, Noct. Attic. lib. 3. cap. 10. who calls them dies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And that famous Physitian Daniel Sen∣nertus, in his Chapter de Causis Dierum Criticorum writes thus, and I suppose pretty well to the tooth of J. B. himself. Quantas Luna, says he, in Conjun∣ctionibus, Oppositionibus & Quadraturis mutationes in inferioribus hisce efficiat notissimum est. And then a little below, Non sine causa statuitur, Lunam etiam in morbis insignes quasdam mutationes excitare in iis locis, quae locum in quo Luna initio morbi fuit Qua∣drato vel Opposito radio aspiciat, & cùm eous{que} pro∣gressa sit, ut novam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & insignem luminis mutatio∣nem subeat. Crises tamen fortiores sunt ubi septena∣rii exactè incidunt in Lunae quadras. And lastly,

Quocun{que} ergo díe, says he, in morbum quis inci∣dat, in primo morbi insultu conjunctio quasi fit Morbi & Lunae. Hinc ubi tria signa emensa est Luna seu 90 gradus peragravit, & primum quadratum attigit, pri∣mus fit dies Criticus. Ubi sex signa seu 180 gradus peragravit, oppositúm{que} Signum attigit, secundus dies Criticus incipit. Ubi ab opposito Signo and secundum Quadratum pervenit, tertius Criticus initium sumit si eous{que} extendatur morbus. Where it is plainly asser∣ted by Sennertus, that every seventh day in A. Gel∣lius his sense and mine, is Critical, though most Critical of all when the very Conjunction of the Moon falls in with the beginning of the Disease, or with the beginning of some quarter of the Moon.

But from hence may any sagacious person easily smell out, that the Phases of the Moon were the shop wherein this Conceit of the Aspects of the Planets was forged, and the natural determination of the Crises of acute Diseases to Septenaries, gave that unfortunate Character of malignity to the Quartile Aspect and Opposition. For that there is no real malignity in the Moon's Oppositional Aspect more than in her Conjunctional, appears by the frequent prescribing Medicines about the time the Moon is in Conjunction and Opposition. But the seventh day being Critical, and the night before the Crisis happens being most trouble some and painful, according to that known Aphorism, Nox ante Crisin est molestis∣sima, hence Opposition and Quartile, first in the Moon, and then in all the rest of the Planets and parts of Heaven, have been phansied inauspicious or malign. And that it is the Critical days indepen∣dent of the Moon, that has given occasion of phan∣sying this malignity in the Aspects of Quartile and

Opposition, is plain from that passage in Sennertus, In primo insultu morbi conjunctio quasi fit Morbi & Lunae, and then they number by those Critical Septena∣ries, that answer to the seven days of the Moon's Quar∣ters, as if the Moon were in Quartile Aspect and then in Opposition in reference to the beginning of the Dis∣ease. Which plainly betrays the Imaginariness of the business as to the Moon and her Aspects, as also the Imaginariness of the malignity or benignity of Astrological Aspects in general; the Critical Septe∣naries depending nothing on the Moon but on the Nature of the Disease, no more than the Paroxysmes of a Tertain or Quartan do of the Moon, but of the Nature of these Diseases. These things can't but seem plain to those that are not effascinated with Astrological prejudices.

Sect. 8. The Planets being but heaps of dead mat∣ter, much like that of the Earth, and having no light but what they reflect from the Sun, &c. Here J. B. (p. 69, 70, 71.) trifles egregiously and flutters in empty words, of which the most weighty are those that pretend that I only think so, as if the Asser∣tion were without proof, or as if it were my private conceit, whenas there is no Philosopher of note now adays, but thinks the Planets as inert and opaque Masses of matter as our Earth is, the Earth it self so apparently approving it self to be a Planet by moving about the Sun as other Planets do. And J. B. himself in that passage seems to acknowledge the Moon to be opaque. The Moon, says he, has no innate light but what she borrows, this is reasona∣ble and palpable, but what reason or experience can deprehend that Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury, must therefore have none also? Repl. It was wisely

or luckily done of the man that he left out the men∣tion of Venus, in whom Philosophers observe so pal∣pably such Phases as are observed in the Moon. And she moreover is a Primary Planet. So that it is ma∣nifest, that two Primary Planets are opaque: to say nothing of Mercury in whom such like Phases have been also noted by some, though not with like confi∣dence. But his body appearing blackish when he is in the Discus of the Sun, as well as the Moon's body does, it is a plain Argument of his Opacity. Wherefore four of the Planets being found opaque, viz. the Moon, Mercury, Venus, and our Earth, it fairly leads to the belief that Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, are so too, sith it cannot be expected of them by reason of their situation, that they should either be seen in the Discus of the Sun, or exhibit such Phases as the Moon. But Mercury shining with the briskest raies, and Saturn with the dullest, the one being the nearest, the other the remotest from the Sun, it is a sign their light is mutuatitious and borrowed from him. These hints are sufficient and beyond a Think so, to assure us that all the Planets properly so called are opaque. But J. B. had rather think or unthink any thing than that his beloved Astrology should be thought a Foolery, as it will undoubtedly be so thought by all wise men and considerate. But he will at last allow them opaque (p. 71.) and yet pre∣tends to gain by the bargain, because they are thereby more nearly apt to sute with and make impression upon our bodies, which are neither Light nor Air, but rather Earth, whence, says he, the Planets are the greatest Agents at least, if not the noblest bodies. Repl. As if opaque bodies at such a vast distance acted by virtue of their similitude. No more than

one bullet of lead at a distance acts upon another. And what Influence more than a Bullet of lead has our Earth, or any other Planet beyond their Atmo∣spheres? Besides that there is a great deal of Fire and Air in mens Constitutions, or else they could not so nimbly weild their bodies of Earth.

Then that of the fixt Stars which shine not with borrowed but innate light, &c. To this J. B. answers (p. 71.) That is the Doctors think so touching the innate light of the Stars. For he has no other proof. Repl. And who I beseech you ever thought other∣wise? So that there was no need of any proof. The light of the Planets we see depend of the Sun. But no such discovery is made of the fixt Stars. Nay it is impossible they should be illuminated by the Sun so far distant from them, that if we were where they are, the Sun would seem no bigger that an ordinary Star. What light therefore could such a solitary Star afford when so many put together afford so little light in the night? Besides it is a thing well known amongst the best Philosophers, that the fixt Stars are so many Suns, they being fixt as he is? Where∣fore if our Sun have innate light, the fixt Stars have innate light also. And lastly, the Scintillation of the fixt Stars which is not observed in the Planets, is another Argument of their innate Light. And he must be blind in the mysteries of Philosophy that does not see the reasonableness of these things.

Define the Sun to be hot and moist rather than drying, &c. Ans. I will not say, says he (p. 72.) the Doctor lies, but I am sure it's false that he says, Astrologers holding no such thing, as that either the Sun is hot and moist, or that Mars is parchingly dry. Repl. And yet that famous Astrologer David

Origanus, expresly declares, that the Sun is not ve∣hementer siccus quoniam quasi humido jungitur, But that Mars does exsiccare & arefacere, & in calefaci∣endo urere. What in Latin can be more significant of what we have declared in English? See what we have said upon Ch. 15. Sect. 2.

All the Planets are opaque bodies, and what ever their colour be are as cold as Earth, &c. Here again J. B. swaggeringly denies (p. 83.) the Planets to be opaque bodies, but I have proved them already to be opaque, so that I need insist no further thereon. And whereas he would insinuate that in [all the Planets] I do imply the Sun, 'tis a mere cavil, the Planets that move about the Sun being peculiarly called Planets, and the Sun improperly as being fixt, and having no Planetary motion at all.

And since from these they are reputed (namely from the first qualities) benign or malign, masculine or feminine, &c. Ans. Here says J. B. (p. 83.) the consequence is unsufferable, that if the Planets be opaque bodies they cannot be Male and Female. Ash-Trees are opaque bodies without dispute, and yet by all Herbarists are allowed to be Male and Fe∣male, &c. Repl. He makes here a foolish conse∣quence of his own, and then Tragically exclaims against it, as if I were the Author of it. I no where say, if the Planets be opaque bodies they cannot be Male and Female; but that since Astrologers account the Planets Male and Female from those first qualities phansied in them without any reason, the grounds of this distinction into Male and Female failing, the Astrological distinction it self necessarily fails. So that all the course Buffoondry he uses in this page returns upon himself. But (p. 72.) to repair the

loss of the first qualities in the Planets he will not have Mars hot and dry as is the Sun, or as Fire, but as Pepper or Salt. Repl. Certainly J. B. must have a long neck or a long tongue to reach a tast of the Pla∣net Mars to perceive it has a smack of Salt or Pep∣per, which is as true as that the Moon is made of green Cheese. Which if it were, the Salt or Pepper of Mars were excellent Correctives of the Phlegma∣tickness thereof, that it may the easilier digest in an Astrologers Stomach. But in good sadness, how can we be more assured of this Salt or Pepper in Mars, or internal cold in Saturn, than of the Ele∣mental heat or cold in either? So evident is it, that these are pitiful subterfuges, and that the whole distinction of Planets into hot and cold, and con∣sequently into Masculine and Feminine, is a meer phancie.

Sect. 9. For that hidden Influence which governs all, would reach to all points, &c. Here J. B. has re∣course again to the Weapon-salve (p. 74.) and to the Magnetical Particles. But I have so sufficiently baffled this evasion upon Sect. 2. of this Chapter, that I need say nothing here.

Sect. 10. That of the Fiery, Earthy, Watery, and Aiery Trigons, is more notorious, &c. In this Se∣ction, because I seem to bestow a silent smile or two upon the pretty conceits of Dr. Dariot, and Sir Chri∣stopher Heydon, of the one in Physick, the other in Husbandry, in observing these Triplicities; J. B. (p. 77, 78.) takes occasion to play the Robin good Fellow, or laughing Goblin at such a rate, and to raise such Horse-play, that if the Parish of this Minister of Gods Word, as he stiles himself should spie him in such a vain pickle and scandalous strain

of levity, they would be tempted much to despise his person for his fond buffoondry and idle mirth, as all sound Philosophers would be asham'd of him to see him so triumphantly exulting in his own gross ignorance and unskilfulness in matters of Philoso∣phy. That I smiled at the conceived virtues of the abovesaid Triplicities, which Dr. Dariot and Sir Chri∣stopher attribute to them, is from my firm assurance, that they are placed in no subject but the imagina∣tion of the Astrologer, there being no such Zodiack in Heaven, or as I have said already, no Heaven for that Zodiack, which is divided into these Tri∣plicities. For to make a distinct Impression of the

[illustration]

truth of the case upon the Readers mind, and upon J. B.'s too, if it be penetrable or impressible, I shall set forth the mistake of these Astrologers by this plain Scheme. Where ABC is their supposed Hea∣ven, that does not move from West to East, and in which the Zodiack cast into four Triplicities, is ima∣gined to be. The Fiery Triplicity is ♈, ♌, ♐, the Watery, ♋, ♏, ♓, the Airy ♊, ♎, ♒, the Earthy, ♉, ♍, ♑, DEF is the Coelum stellatum, where the real signs of the Zodiack, namely the Constellations called Aries, Taurus, Gemini, &c. are to be seen, and from whence the other had their names. For cer∣tainly they gave the names to these visible Constel∣lations before they were given to that invisible Hea∣ven, which I say is only imaginary. And this Coe∣lum stellatum in Aristotle's time was accounted the Primum Mobile that did not recede from West to East. And therefore the Zodiack of the Coelum Stel∣latum then and this imaginary Zodiack was all one, that is, there was no Zodiack conceiv'd, but this of the Coelum stellatum. And consequently the supposed Astrological Influences were necessarily at∣tributed to the Signs of the Zodiack of this Coe∣lum stellatum. And indeed from whence should they be conceived to come, but from this visible Heaven?

But by reason of the Anticipation of the Aequi∣noxes, a Phaenomenon, whose cause is to be resolved into the motion of the Earth, the unskilful in Phi∣losophy rashly collected these two things. 1. That there was a motion of the Coelum stellatum from West to East. 2. And then a Primum Mobile that had only a diurnal motion, not any from West to East, in which a fixt Zodiack was, wherein the course of

the Sun observed his Cardinal points, and did not anticipate. And this is the Astrologers Zodiack divided into Triplicities or Trigons, the main Basis of their Art for Houses and Triplicities, which if it had any truth in it when they used the real Signs of the Zodiack of the Coelum stellatum, must now ne∣cessarily be judged vain and ridiculous. For now for Example, the Fiery Trigon is not the real Aries, Leo, Sagittarius in the Coelum stellatum, DEF, but the imaginary one ♈, ♌, ♐, in the Figure above de∣scribed, and so of the rest. Whence it is plain, that when Dr. Dariot and Sir Christopher attribute such virtues to such a Triplicity, they miss almost a whole Sign in their account, pitching upon AD for DG, and so of the rest, if you respect the Coelum stellatum, and so they put one Triplicity for another, the Watery Trigon for the Fiery, and suppose Aries the Horoscop. when 'tis Pisces. And if you respect a Heaven distinct from the Coelum stellatum, which was forged upon the ignorance of the true cause of the Anticipation of the Aequinoxes, they do yet toto coelo errare, that fictitious Heaven being a mere mi∣stake as all Philosophers now of any note are well assured of. And therefore I think any understand∣ing man may well smile at these sweet conceits of Dr. Dariot and Sir Christopher, touching the use and observation of the Heavenly Trigons in Physick and Husbandry.

That there is no such Zodiack in Heaven, or if you will no Heaven for such a Zodiack, &c. Ans. This is a very confident one, says he, (p. 75.) all Astro∣nomers agreeing to the contrary that there is such an one, &c. Repl. I speak of that Zodiack which Clavius and other Ptolemaick Astronomers call Zo∣diacus

Fixus, and conceive to be in the Primum Mo∣bile, and whose Signs do not recede from West to East, as those of the Coelum stellatum are said to do. And I beseech J. B. to tell me if all Astronomers agree that there is such an one. No Copernican can without a contradiction to his profession admit of such a Zodiack. But this Zodiack is the subject of these four famous Triplicities of Astrologers. Which therefore for all the pudder J. B. makes (p. 75, 76.) are plainly deprehended to be a mere figment, a con∣ceit at least worth a smiling at, if not laughing out∣right. If J. B. had but read the first rudiments of Astronomy in Johannes de Sacro Bosco, he might easily understand the strength of my Argument, but he seems to study Astrology in an implicit Faith, and to be either of a slow Saturnine Perception, or else an exercised Shuffler off of such reasons as him∣self cannot but be convinced of, that they are unan∣swerable.

Sect. II. Guiding themselves by the conceit of the Benignity and Malignity of the Aspects, &c. Ans. Thus strangely, says J. B. (p. 79.) abounds the Doctor in his own sense, concluding all the utmost of our reasonings not to extend one tittle farther than just as he imagines, &c. Repl. That these Aspects, their Benignity and Malignity, are the grounds of conferring such Houses upon such Planets, is manifest both out of Dariot and out of Origanus. For after the Astrologers had assigned Leo for the House of the Sun, and Cancer for the House of the Moon ( undoubtedly for the reasons I have alledged in this Section) and they looking upon these two Luminaries as the Parents of Generation and Friends to Nature, Saturn being a malign Planet,

they gave him two Houses in a malign Aspect to the Houses of the Moon and of the Sun, namely they assign∣ed to him Capricorn and Aquarius. But Jupiter who is a benign Planet, has Sagittarius and Pisces for his Houses, because they behold the Lyon and Crabb with a benign Aspect, namely, with Trine. But Mars being a malign Planet, Aries and Scorpio are his Houses, because they behold Cancer and Leo with a malign Aspect, viz. that of a Quartile. But of this I having spoken so fully upon Sect. 7. I need give no further intimations here, saving only to remind the Reader, that I having above made it good against J. B. that Aspects are a mere phancy, it plainly fol∣lows, that the assignment of Houses to the Planets, upon that ground, must be a mere phancy also.

Nothing but Intersections of the imaginary Circles of the course of the Moon and the Ecliptick, &c. Here J. B. (p. 79.) instead of [Intersections of ima∣ginary Circles] puts [imaginary Circles] and is so fond himself, or would make me so fond as to call the Caput, and Cauda Draconis, imaginary Circles, whenas they are the same with the Nodi, which are points rather than Circles. They are the Intersecti∣ons, or as it were points of the Intersections of two imaginary Circles. Such a nullity are they of them∣selves, and yet forsooth they must have their Exal∣tation. For which empty conceit he brings only the bare pretence of a sound Argument, that is Expe∣rience. Which is impossible to discover to be from the Caput Draconis it self, suppose in Gemini, if the Moon be not near that Node, or to conceive the Node it self, which is a mere imaginary thing, and only a phancying that in that place the Moon has or will cut the Ecliptick, to have any effect, unless she

be a cutting it, and then it is the Moon not the No∣dus that gives the effect, if there be any. And let J. B. if he can, produce any Astrological authentick Record where it has been discovered that the mere Nodes themselves, or Caput and Cauda Draconis, have had their distinct effect and did not stand for Cyphers.

That each Trigon might have its two Consuls, and Mars not rule solitarily in his watery one, &c. Ans. This is like a man, says J. B. (p. 81.) that would con∣fute the Doctrine of the Antipodes by crying [Pish] Repl. As if there were no force of Argument in this passage, because J. B. is either so blind as that he cannot see it, or so perverse that he will not see it. For whereas it is a Maxime in Philosophy, That Na∣ture is neither wanting in necessaries, nor affects su∣perfluities, surely if this business of Trigons and Tri∣gonocratores were a real thing in Nature and not a mere phancy of Astrologers, she would not have been so superfluous as to have furnisht three of the Trigons with two Lords apiece, or so defective as to afford but one to the fourth. For if one will serve one Tri∣gon, it is superfluous to have two, and if two be re∣quisite, 'tis a defect to have but one.

The Prerogative of the Horecratores is destroyed by that first general Argument, &c. Ans. When the Doctor is at a full point, says he (p. 81.) as his Ha, ha, will extend no further, then flies he to the main shift that there is no Zodiack, &c. And a lit∣tle after, Yet for certain there is an Heaven as no body can deny. Repl. It is to me a wonder, that J. B. should have so little skill in the first Rudiments of his own professed Art, which supposes a Heaven distinct from the Starry Heaven, which I say is a

fictitious Heaven, and the Zodiack fictitious in it; or yet so little Conscience, that understanding this, and that I oppose this fictitious Heaven only, which has a Zodiack that is said not to have a motion from West to East, as the Starry Heaven's Zodiack is said to have, he should play the buffoon for almost two pages together to prove there is a real Heaven, and that it is divisible into parts, and that these parts are real, which neither I nor any one else will deny, but the weakness of his cause puts him upon such sorry and sordid tricks.

But being conscious to himself of his inability of answering my confutation of the rest of the essential Dignities as well as the former, he shuffles all off (p. 82.) with saying, the Doctor goes madly on in a kind of Enthusiastick humour, that the Heaven is nothing, and the parts of Heaven is nothing, whereby I would destroy the rest of the Essential Dignities. Repl. But that that Heaven on which these Essential Dignities are founded, is nothing, I have noted a∣bove, that the best Philosophers are now agreed upon it, and that the Zodiacus fixus, distinct from the Zodiack of the Starry Heaven, is a figment forged in the dark shop of the gross ignorance of the true System of the World. And I would have J. B. seri∣ously to consider that truth I hinted, That in Ari∣stotles time there was only one Zodiack, which was that of the Starry Heaven, whose real Signs gave names to that fictitious one that Astrologers now build their Houses upon, and that therefore that ancient and venerable divine science of Astrology, which J. B. would have as old as Adam or Seth, di∣vided the Starry Heavens Zodiack into twelve Hou∣ses, and supposed the peculiar virtue of each House

placed there in each Sign of the Starry Heaven. From whence it will follow, that our modern Astro∣logers building their Houses on that Zodiacus im∣mobilis, or fixus, and the Zodiacus mobilis of the starry Heaven having receded since those older times, at least two whole Signs from West to East, (and the antique Astrology conveighed out of the Memoirs of Adam when he was in Innocency, being the most holy, sacred, certain, and authentick Astro∣logy) I say it will follow that our modern Astrolo∣gers, and J. B. good man amongst the rest, do err no less than two whole Signs in all their Astrologi∣cal Calculations. This is a morsel that I leave to J. B. to chamble in his mouth to see how he relishes it, or to swallow it down as a Pill to purge out the Astrological humour, if it may happily cure his sick mind and rid him of this malady.

Sect. 12. For beyond the Sun the Planet is at the farthest distance it can be from us, &c. Ans. The di∣stance of situation, sayes he (p. 84.) can no ways impede the force of the Planets operation, as is ap∣parently seen by the Moon, which never receives more light and force of Solar virtue than when she is far∣thest from him. Repl. Sith all created Beings are of a finite virtue, it is impossible but that the Spheres of their operation must be finite, and there∣fore according as they are more and more distant from the object, their virtue be less and less. Again, he contradicts his own self and the vote of Astrolo∣gers, as I have noted above. For p. 21. he writes thus: All Astrologers do hold the Moon to be the nearest to us, and nimblest plying about us above all other Planets, and therefore to have more powerful effects upon us than any other Planet. Which yet is a

perfect contradiction to what he says p. 48. viz. The Doctor it seems is yet to learn how the Heavenly Bodies are neither helped by proximity, nor hindred by longinquity in the exercise of their powers, &c. Thus vacillant and contradictious to himself is J.B. but the Astrologers are on my side, as appears by the former citation, and if that will not suffice, I will also add the particular authority of Origanus, who De Effectibus Part. 3. Cap. 1. writes thus, Omnes Planetae juxta Excentrici & Epicycli Apogeum mino∣rem efficaciam habent & Aerem minus movent. In opposito autem Augis robustiores sunt, Aerem{que} va∣lidius turbant. Omne enim Agens naturale tanto va∣lidius agit quanto proximius est passo. Which is point-blank against J. B.

But his Instance of the Moons having most light at the greatest distance from the Sun, heals his cre∣dit again. And of this Example he is so fond that he could not stay but brought it in in another place as well as here, viz. p. 49. where he says, I either had forgotten or did not know, that the further the Moon is from the Sun, the greater is the light she receives from him, and the nearer she is to him she receives still less and less. But this shows J. B. his gross igno∣rance in Opticks, as I have noted above. Nor did I forget but ever knew to the contrary, even from my youth, when I wrote my Philosophical Poems, namely, That the Moon the nearer she is the Sun the more light she receives, as I have expressed it in my Psy∣chathanasia, Book 1. Cant. 2. Stanz. 7.

Nor being hid after my monthly wane, Long keppen back from your expecting sight, Dull damps and darkness do my beauty stain; When none I shew, then have I the most light:

Nearer to Phoebus more I am bedight With his fair rays. And better to confute All vain suspicion of my worser plight, Mark aye my Face after my close salute With that sharp-witted God seem I not more acute?

Wherefore it is as clear as the Sun, that J. B. has said nothing to the purpose hitherto in his answer to my confutation of this first Accidental Dignity called Cazimi.

Besides, how can their virtue pass the body of the Sun, &c. Ans. The Sun is a thin and pure body as the Air, &c. Repl. But it is an hot consuming body being as it were a boiling fire, as they that have made the most accurate observations of him have described him, and the Maculae are his scum. How can then the Influential vapours of a Planet pierce his body, and not be spent and lost?

Or the bearing of the Vortex against the Planet, &c. Ans. He says, the Planets in Conjunction do comply and not at all clash Influences. Repl. I had thought that that had been a peculiar humour of Mercury to be so sociable and compliable with that Planet he is conjoined. But besides this, Though the bearing of the Vortex against us is no such mat∣ter, yet it bearing against the Planet, and transfu∣sing a Celestial stream of most subtile matter against it, carries away the Planets Influence from us, as a contrary wind does odours and sounds.

If Cazimi on this side the Sun be good, why should not beyond the Sun be bad? Ans. Because, says he, Cazimi works a perfect compliance betwixt the Sun and the Planets in Cazimi. Repl. Learn∣edly spoken! It is so, because it is so. A body is

white by whiteness, black by blackness, Hoosibus and Shoosibus, as Sir Kenhelm Digby pleasantly ap∣plies that Country story. But I leave J. B. to exco∣gitate a better answer to this present difficulty. The subtile matter flowing from the Sun, and driving the Effluvia of the Planet in Cazimi on this side of the Sun upon us, if this be good how can Cazimi be∣yond the Sun be good, the stream of the subtile mat∣ter from the Sun driving the effluvia from us? That is the point, consider it at leisure.

How much more are the spots of the Sun that are far greater, &c. Ans. Here J. B. gives us a tast of his education and elegancy of wit. Does not every Scullion-Girl, says he (p. 85.) know the difference betwixt a blemish and a beauty-spot, though both at once on the same face? Repl. I confess I never con∣verse with Scullion Girls to know the extent of their capacity and judgment; if J. B. does, I envy him not that piece of curiosity of knowledge. That and Astrology together may strike far to the making up a compleat Gentleman. But now as to the fitness of the comparison, I would know of J. B. touching the Macula Solaris, and the Planet in Disco Solis, sup∣pose Venus or Mercury, which is the Blemish and which the Beauty-spot, or what he means by a Beauty-spot, an artificial black patch, or some Naevus in Venere; let him consult with his Sibyl in the Kitchen to be able to give a right answer to these Queries, and then I shall give him a more full reply. But he stills holds on, which I did not observe, and makes his Sibyl of the Kitchen wiser and wiser; adding, Or between a mere dead Patch and an operative Plaister: what a discerning Girl is this! But to avoid ambages I shall ask J. B. himself which is the

dead patch and which the operative Plaister. And methinks I hear him promptly answer, the dead Patch are the Maculae Solares, and the operative Plaister the Bodies of Mercury and Venus in Cazimi on this side the Sun. How well the Bodies of Mer∣cury and Venus, which are as round as any mustard Ball, and God knows how many thousand miles di∣stant from the face of the Sun, resemble a flat spread plaister applied immediately to the face of any Male or Female, I dare refer to his stale Girl, or Sibyl of the Kitchen. But as for the Philosophy of his An∣swer, that the Maculae Solares are dead Patches, it is an unskilful supposition of his, and contradictious to his own profession, that allows a Soul or Plastick Spirit of the World, which implies, that all the mat∣ter of the Vniverse is enlivened, and those spots as∣suredly as much as either Venus or Mercury (which are no more alive than our Earth) and therefore as fit for Astrological Influence as either Mercury or Venus. But for such a Caput mortuum as some Chy∣mists phancy, there is none such in Rerum Natura, unless it be the heads of those that are devoid of wit and judgment.

That Cazimi should be five Fortitudes, and yet Combustion which is to be but a little distance from the Sun, should be five Debilities, &c. To shuttle off this invincible Argument he abounds with simili∣tudes, as if he were unacquainted with that trite Aphorism, Similia non probant. But that I may not be tedious, I will bring only one of them into view, there being the same reason of the rest. And indeed it is a sweet one and remarkable one. Behold, sayes he (p. 86.) but the Rosy bush, how it is set with now a sweet Rose, and next an offensive Prickle, and

then a Rose again. Repl. And even so there must be three Fairy Circles about the Sun, one of Forti∣tudes, the next of Debilities, and the third of For∣titudes again. For the Earth moving about the Sun there is neccessity of whole Circles of this difference to go about the Sun to salve the supposed Astrologi∣cal Phenomenon. Nay moreover there must be twice three such Circles; the one three for Mercury, the other for Venus, and thrice three such for the superior Planets, yet all this will not do. For the Circles of the Planets are the same in Cazimi as out of it, and if in Cazimi by reason of the Circle there all to be∣strewed with Roses, it have five Fortitudes, it be∣ing still as much as ever it was in the same Circle, removed from Cazimi, it must have five Fortitudes still. So that J. B. his Rosy comparison withers to nothing: To let pass here his contradiction to himself, who in his Hagiastrologia, plainly affirms the Hea∣ven to be a most simple and clear body like to refined Crystal▪ which is inconsistent with this Heteroge∣neity, which to stop a gap he has introduced in this place. And lastly, how Homogeneal the Celestial matter is, the Cartesian Philosophy does well set out to them that have a capacity to understand it.

That Saturn, Iupiter and Mars from their Con∣junction with the Sun to their Opposition, &c. Ans. Here he bewrays more of his old ignorance. Says he (p. 86.) As if the Fortitudes of Planets stood in the nearness of their distance, &c. Repl. But that it is none of my ignorance but his that he does not think as I do, I have sufficiently prov'd above, and therefore need say nothing further here.

Station should rather seal on the effect of the Pla∣net more sure. Ans. Experience, says he (p. 87.)

and reason joined together do evidence the con∣trary, namely, that a Stationary Planet is standed in the Influence of his virtues as well as of his body during that Station. This is his Answer entire. Repl. But as for reason he brings none unless he thinks that a reason, That because the Influence is then standed as he calls it, it is called the Station of the Planet from thence. When as by the consent of all Astronomers a Planet is said to be Stationary, because he seems to stand still as to any motion from West to East. And as for experience, as I said above, let him bring any authentick Astrological Record whence it does appear that a Planet for being Stationary was clogged with two Debilities. And the truth is, the Annual Motion, as I may so call it, of the Planets, especially the superiour, is so slow, and their Diurnal in comparison so exceeding swift, that it is incredible that the modifications of their Annual Motion by Station, Direction, or Retrogra∣dation, should signifie any thing.

Is neither Stationary nor Retrograde truly but in appearance, &c. Ans. It is not so, says he (p. 87.) For although the Planet of it self make no returns, but is always moving directly on, yet going round his Circle after he has past his utmost distance, as we stand, he really returns upon us in his perambulation, and the time between this going on and return is unto us a real Station, his motion looking upon us for some days altogether from the same point. This is his entire Answer in his own words where∣by he would prove that there is a real Retro∣gradation and Station in the Planets, which is his first Answer. But he has another which I will give you also in his own words: But however, says he,

were the Retrogradation and Station no more but in a mere appearance, yet it does not follow but the De∣bilities arising from that appearance, shall be real and not imaginary. Repl. But as touching the first, I dare say he had no distinct notion of what he ut∣ter'd, though he give his suffrage for Copernicus, Ha∣giastrolog. p. 83. and if he ever knew, had forgot the nature of the Station and Retrogradation of the Planets, This Answer of his being incumbred with such gross absurdities and harsh repugnancies to these Astronomical Phaenomena. For by this account which is taken from the circular perambulation of the Planet it self in its own course secundum ordi∣nem Signorum, which may by Analogy be called the Annus of that Planet, or Annual course thereof; Ju∣piter suppose shall make but two Stations and one Re∣trogradation in the space of twelve years, when as he makes twelve Retrogradations in that time; and Saturn who in thirty years makes about thirty Re∣trogradations, and sixty Stations, shall make but two Stations and one Retrogradation in that time. Which gross ignorance of J. B. makes me suspect that he bore himself merely upon his faculty of sordid and foul language when he adventured to publish this pretended Answer to my Confutation of the vain Art of Astrology.

And to do the man all right that may be, as being something conscious to himself of his own confused ignorance in the present point, not knowing whether his first Answer was sense or non-sense, he offers at a second, wherein he sayes, were the Station and Retrogradation no more but in mere appearance, yet it does not follow but the Debilities arising from that appearance shall be real and not imaginary.

Repl. But I beseech you, Mr. J. B. how do you prove that there do arise any such Debilities from that ap∣pearance? If there were any such Debilities arising, it would follow they were real not imaginary. But how can any thing real arise from what is mere ap∣pearance, unless it be that the subject it acts upon be a perceptive subject, and the action or impress upon it quatenus perceptivè: as the mere appearance of truth in the Divine or Sacred Science of Astrology, so deemed by J. B. has had a real effect of intoxi∣cating all his faculties both moral and intellectual, whereof this present Book of his is an ample testi∣mony. But that Station or Retrogradation of Planets that is in mere appearance or imaginary should have any real effect upon the Nativity of Infants, who have no imagination thereof, is as perfect a contra∣diction, as if one should say there is an effect with∣out any cause. But J. B. it seems is so taken up with his Divine Science of Astrology derived to us from the sacred Memoirs of Adam in Paradise, that it has drown'd in him all the sense and memory of the in∣dubitable principles of Logick and Philosophy.

That Sextile and Trine should be good, and yet Quartile which is betwixt both be stark naught. Ans. Do but observe him, sayes he (p. 88) A Quartile can∣not be stark naught, because betwixt a Sextile and a Trine. His slovenly comparison I will omit, as being as well nasty as superstuous, because the force of his reason is as entirely couched in his following com∣parison, where he says, Nor can that Creature be an Ass which stands betwixt two men. As if he should say, That Quartile Aspect betwixt two good Aspects, Sextile and Trine, may as well be bad as an Ass be an irrational Creature placed betwixt two men, who

are rational ones. Repl. But this is a reason only to impose upon Asses. For the Ass here is specifically distinct from the two men, nor can their site de∣stroy this specification. But the degrees in Heaven being homogeneal, that sixty of them should be good, and an hundred and twenty good, but ninety which takes up all the same sixty, and also thirty of the whole hundred and twenty, should be naught, is such a repugnancy, that it can fit the head of no Animal but that of J. B's naming, placed betwixt two men.

But he has a more seemingly material Answer (p. 89.) That Astrologers do not account the Quar∣tile Aspect stark naught. For first they hold it better than Opposition, and the Quartile Aspects of the Fortunes in some senses are good. Repl. If they don't account it stark naught, how comes it to pass that in the Table of Aspects it has no better credit than that of Opposition? For first they divide the Aspects of Planets into good, as Sextile and Trine; and evil, as Quartile and Opposition: And of these latter Aspects it is expresly said, that Quartile and Opposition in good Planets is not evil, as Quartile or Opposition in Jupiter and Venus, which Jupiter and Venus are the two Fortunes. But Quartile and Opposition in evil Planets is evil, as Quartile or Opposition in Saturn and Mars. And Quartile and Opposition of good with evil is evil, as Quartile and Opposition of Jupiter with Mars. And so Quartile and Opposition go hand in hand in pro∣perty through the whole Table of Aspects. But it is no where said, that Quartile Aspect of the Fortunes is in some senses good, much less very good; whence it is apparent, that if Opposition be stark naught,

Quartile is very little better. See G. C. his Mathe∣matical Physick, p. 153.

That Quartile should be better than Trine as be∣ing further from Opposition. There is a most fulsome, slovenly Answer to this passage, as stinking and noi∣some as one I omitted before, which no ingenuous pen would deign to transcribe or Answer, and it is the less requisite to do it, it being a like Argument with that of the Ass betwixt two men, as weak, and more rude and sordid than it. These are the odoriferous Flosculi of his Saturnine Rhetorick, as if he had been Nursed in an House of Office, as well as disciplined under the old Girl, his discerning Sibyl of the Kitchen. For shame Mr. J. B. why would you write such a Book, and profess your self in the mean time a Minister of Gods word, and a Prote∣stant of the Church of England, as if you intended a slur and disgrace to our Church and Function? Both which are very sacred and honourable, and not to be exposed by such lewd doings to the scorn of their Enemies.

The Planets thus Aspected are in better capacity, both of them to strike with more direct rays on the Earth than if they were in a Trine Aspect. Ans. But the Aspect of Opposition, says he, (p. 88.) strikes better and with more direct rays, and therefore by the same Rule should be best of all. Repl. What an impertinent Answer is this of J. B. to this passage? In the Aspect of Opposition indeed the Planets seem more directly (as being Diametrically opposite) to ray one against another, but they do not jointly to one point on the Earth, suppose where the Foetus is, ray more directly. J. B. his Answers are such, as if he did either not understand, or not care what he

said as to reason; as if railing and rude language were the only Province he had undertaken.

Sect. 13. And the erecting a Scheme so many ways, and that with like success, is an evidence that the success is not upon art but fortuitous. Ans But why names he not these many ways, says he (p. 89.) For either these many ways are all the same in effect, and then the Doctors consequence is false; or else they are not the same in effect, and then the Doctors Allegation is utterly untrue. Repl. This is an An∣swer indeed that seems to have some smartness in it, as a Nettle, if you touch it gingerly, but press it boldly and you feel nothing. To the former there∣fore, I reply that I have reckoned up those several ways, Ch. 15. Sect 6. adding at the end, that there are so many ways of building Houses or Castles in the Air. To the latter, I say, they are the same as to any certainty of effect. There is never a Barrel better Herring of them, as the Proverb hath it: All alike fond and frustraneous. sometimes hitting, some∣times missing. For why did they invent this va∣riety, but that the foregoing structure was vacillant and lubricous? And thus one being supposed as good as another, my consequence will come in, that the success when it hits right is not from Art, but for∣tuitous.

The Configuration also of the Houses, and those Septennial Chronocratores or Alfridarii, do inti∣mate, that the whole business is but a Figment going upon that false Hypothesis of Ptolemy, &c. Ans. This is an horrible falshood, says he (p. 89.) For our Configuration of the Houses depends no more upon that of Ptolemy than it does upon that Hypothesis of Copernicus. Repl. What a marvellous Antagonist

have I got, that huffs, and sputters, and cocks his Beaver, as the invincible Champion of the Astrolo∣gers, and understands neither the Hypothesis of Pto∣lemy nor Copernicus? It is the Zodiacus fixus which the Ptolemaick Hypothesis necessarily implies, that is the ground, which all your Astrological Houses are built upon, as I observed above more than once. And it is undeniably true, though this bold Champion for Astrology calls it an horrible falshood. But I commend his modesty or discretion rather, that he will make but one grand vapour at once, when as I intimated also, that the Alfridarii have their Septennial Dominion according to the order of the Planets in the Ptolemaick Hypothesis, and Ch. 15. Sect. 6. that the Consignificators of the Houses observe the same Order. But an Answer to these things he discreetly declines to make his single bravado more passable.

For either the Earth is pervious to all the raies of the Planets and Stars, &c. Ans. The Earth is pervi∣ous, saith he (p. 90.) to all the rays of the Planets and Stars, as well beneath as above the Horizon. And yet does it not follow that all Nativities are alike. For is it not plain, that all kinds of Plants are pervious to the virtues and Influences of the same Earth, and yet how far off are they from being all alike, or from bringing forth leaves and flowers alike? Repl. No considerate Philosopher will admit any other Influence of the Earth but the Particles thereof which constitute several consistencies and juyces, and the Plants are concerned only in those juyces or moistures that are next them, nor in any more Particles of them that are fitted for their pores. Wherein the mystery of placing of Plants near

one another consists, namely, when their construction of parts is such, that they do not suck away, to speak in the vulgar language, the same Particles of juice, and so do not beguile one another. But the Astrolo∣gical Influence of the Stars is a thing so subtile and penetrating, that it stands not upon pores, but passes peremptorily through all the Earth from one side to another. So that J.B. his comparison falls wonder∣ously short in the present case.

That a Star or Planet that is vertical is most effica∣cious. Ans. As to matters of honour, sayes he, a Star is most efficacious when vertical, but as to mat∣ter of Life and Nature, he is most efficacious when he ascends. Repl. This is a mere put off, For both Origanus and Cardan in Origanus absolutely declare thus. Stellae supra verticem alicujus Regionis vel Civitatis, quae inde verticales dicuntur, maximae effi∣caciae sunt; quae autem remotae sunt, tanto minus pos∣sunt quanto plus à vertice removentur. De Effectibus Part. 3. Cap. 2. Here is no restriction to Honour, but it is spoke absolutely and at large. And if for Ho∣nour why not for other things as the Nature of the Planet is? Direct and perpendicular Raies being ac∣knowledged by all to be most effectual. But if the Earth be perfectly pervious to the rays, then our other Argument holds good against the Astrolo∣gers.

Sect. 14. Even then (viz. in the Womb) is the Child as much exposed to them as when it is newly born. Ans. In his Answer to this J. B. does so faul∣ter and fumble. (p. 91.) that I profess I can hardly make sense of it. But the main is couched in the close, That as soon as the Child draws breath of its own, the former imployment of the Heavens upon it

being ended, a new begins, and so the imployment of the Stars upon the Child begins immediately as it draws its breath. Repl. When as the Influence of the Stars freely penetrate the thick crusts of the Earth from side to side as freely as if there were no∣thing to resist; how is it possible the Stars not act∣ing voluntarily but necessarily, as all natural Agents do, but that they should continue the same Influence in the Womb and out of the Womb, the respects of the Childs being in or out of the Womb, signifying nothing as to the Stars, and therefore the time of his Nativity as little?

For first they must know the exact Longitude of the place, &c. Ans. The exact Longitude, says he (p. 96.) matters us not, therefore that's false. Repl. Very pertly and assuredly answered. But those that have been more accurately studied in this pretended Science, I am sure I have heard complain of this very defect. And it stands to all reason it should be considered. For there are the same hours from twelve a Clock numerable from the Meridians of all the degrees of Longitude, and therefore the true Lon∣gitude of a place is also to be known for the right adjusting of the site of Heaven and Earth one to another at the Nativity. But what a bold assured thing is Ignorance!

For he is born by degrees, &c. Ans. But the Child, says he (p. 92.) does not draw its breath by de∣grees, nor is the navil-string cut off from the Womb by degrees. Repl. But I demand of J. B. whether the Child begin to breath first, or has his Navil-string cut first, concerning which there is a great deal of circumstances and curiosity, and sometimes longer, and sometimes sooner done. And whether

to the first breathing of Christ, or the cutting of his Navil-string he refers that minute of the time of Christs Nativity in his Christologia.

Sect. 15. Which takes away all certainty of com∣putation, per Accidentia nati. Though we should al∣low a particular Influence of the Stars in mens Na∣tivities, so that they incline them to this or that, yet by reason of mans Free Will there could be no finding of the time of the Nativity, per Accidentia nati. This I contend for. Nor can J. B. for his life elude the force of the Argument, he asserting as he would seem to do (p. 93.) That Sapiens dominabitur Astris, How much more then shall a serious and sin∣cere Christian? And whereas himself acknowledges that the Free Will of man, according as he is good or bad, may retardate or accelerate the effect of the Influence of the Stars, though not wholly take it away, how is it possible to come to the true time of the Na∣tivity by the Accidentia Nati? But J. B. writes as if he were asleep and not minded what he said, else his pen could not pass such gross contradictions. And it is but said by him not prov'd, That the Stars will necessarily have their effect, though slower in time and less violent in good men that make use of their Free Will, and resist the power of the Stars. For what does J. B. think of Socrates, who by his Temperance as A. Gellius writes, liv'd all the days of his life inoffensâ valetudine? And in that great devastating pestilence in the Peloponnesian War, he in Athens where it raged most, by his course of li∣ving kept his health of body, nor was obnoxious to that common contagion of stronger force certainly than any Influence of the Stars can be deemed to be.

And if Socrates liv'd so much above the power of the Stars, what shall we think of the Prophets and Apostles? what of Christ himself? who was not only able to resist the power of the Stars, which J.B. allows every wise man able to do, but was carried in all his actions of concern by the immediate inspira∣tion of the Holy Spirit. And yet (than which no∣thing can be more prophane and ridiculous) J. B. in his Christologia pretends per Accidentia Nati, to come to the very Minute of our Saviours Nativity. But such delirances as these they are justly permitted to fall into, who mock at the study of the Revela∣tion of Saint John the Divine, and so highly mag∣nify this vain imposturous Art of Astrology for a most sacred and Divine Science.

I might add in this place, that not only the Free Will of the Party, whose Nativity is considered, breaks this pretence of Calculating per Accidentia Nati, but the Free Wills also of all those that he has to do with, nay the Free Wills of them that have been before him, his Ancestors, the Lawgivers of the place or Country, &c. But it would be an endless Argument to enter upon, and enough has been hinted already to satisfie the unprejudiced.

Sect. 16. Is this Circuit of the Nativity Scheme any where but in their own brain? Ans. And against Profection, says he (p. 95.) he falls foul, saying, Is it any where but in their own brain? but produces nothing of absurdity against it, and therefore needs no answer to it. Repl. How heedless and oscitant is J. B. here, that neither feels nor perceives what is even put into his mouth! What greater Argument can there be against Profection Annual having any Influence upon men and their Nativities, than in

that it is only in the brains of the Astrologer, and therefore can work no change in Nature? And that it is only in the brains of the Astrologer, the very description of it in Origanus and others plainly im∣plies. For the very words of Origanus are, Tales significatorum in consequentia Progressiones quibus, singulis annis singula Signa conficere cogitantur, Pro∣fectiones Annuae appellantur. And a little before, Nam loca Zodiaci quae vel ipsa significatum aliquod habent vel Aphetas & Significatores alios cujuscun{que} Nominis & Muneris continent, fixa perpetuò non ma∣nent, sicut in primo hominis exortu disposita esse de∣prehenduntur, sed cum suis Aphetis & Significatori∣bus subinde aequabiliter progredi secundum seriem signorum cogitantur, &c. And indeed they can be only imagined to do so. For, that slow-paced Saturn should go thirty degrees in a Year in consequentia (much less the Horoscope and Medium Coeli when they are Loca Hylegialia, as they call them, which are conceived to be in Zodiaco fixo, and therefore can make no progress at all, secundum seriem Signo∣rum, they being parts of those immoveable signs) is I think an absurdity with a Witness, and implies no less than a gross contradiction, you imagining the same thing to move slower and faster, or to move and not to move at the same time.

Or that another Planet coming to the trace there∣of should exult in the scent, &c. Here J. B. for at least two pages together puts himself upon the pin of extravagant mirth and buffoonry, which is as grace∣ful a spectacle in this grave Minister of Gods Word, as the Dancing of a Cow or a Camel. But to pass by all that Horse-play, let us see what reason he offers. Ans. If an Hare, says he (p. 96.) or a Fox, or a Man

with Shooes on, does leave such a scent in every step he treads, that a Dog coming after some hours will discern every place as the foot went in the wide Field, although Horses, Hogs, or other Men have crossed the way; how much more shall the Stars be able, &c. Repl. I understand you Mr. J. B. very well what you would be at, but withal that it is no∣thing at all to the purpose. For when Hogs, or Hor∣ses, or men pass that way in the Field, their feet do not fall in exactly with the feet of the Hare or the man, whose scent is searcht after, but the Planets or Stars come into the same place, by reason of the diffusive subtility of their Raies or Influence, reach every atome of those parts of the Heaven which you suppose perfumed before. Which perfume neither can rationally be supposed to continue till the other come, especially such slow-footed Planets as Saturn and Jupiter, nor indeed in such liquid subtile mat∣ter as the Heavens are, to continue any considerable time at all, if there were any such Influence: but as the Sun so long as he shines into the Air makes it Light some, but at his removal the Air is as it was be∣fore: such in all likelihood are the Influential Raies of the Stars and Planets. In short their Influence if any is so subtile that nothing keeps it out, when it does come, and the Aethereal matter is so fine, fiery and consuming, that no Influential Effluvia trans∣mitted into it can be retain'd, but vanish as per∣fumes, when the odoriferous body is removed in the Free Air. Wherefore gross ignorance in Philosophy and in the nature of the Heavenly matter, is the Mother of J. B. his beloved Art of Astro∣logy.

Nor will his instance of the Weapon-salve prove

any salve for this sore (p. 97.) For both the Wea∣pon salve and the Weapon are bodies of a due con∣sistency, the Weapon to imbibe the spirits of the body wounded, and the Weapon-salve to lodge such sana∣tive virtues as are proper in such Cases of wounding. But the effect is not by a Transit of the Weapon-salve over the Weapon, (which will do the wounded party no more good than if a Crow flew over his head) but by a corporeal and tactual application of the Wea∣pon-salve to the Weapon. And yet he would have me admire with himself how strangely that salve in its Transit only over the place of that Weapon where the Nativity of the wound was made, does cause some not able change upon the wound that was then born. 'Tis pretty, and pity, that in so amiable a phansie the Analogy will not hold. Nor do I think that J.B. knew distinctly, or ever thought on it, which were the Termini Homologi in the comparison. But if he will examine the business he will find what he would have been at, is this, That as the Weapon-salve is to the Weapon, so is the Planet in its Transitus by the Cuspes of the Houses, and the rest of the chief places of the Nativity, to the said Cuspes or places of the Nativity, wherein it seems some special vir∣tue was lodged of Starry or Heavenly Influence at the Nativity, by that Nativity-Configuration of the Heavens and Heavenly Bodies at that time.

Now I appeal to J.B. how like the fluid material Heaven which I have described above, is to a Wea∣pon of steel, which made the wound, and the tran∣scent Planet at such a distance to the close corporeally applied Weapon-salve. Nay indeed how much the Cuspes of the Houses which are so many Nothings phansied in an imaginary Heaven and Zodiack, are

like to one of the most firm Bodies we find upon Earth. So that this comparison stands upon feet so rotten or disproportionated, that I will leave it to fall of its own accord. His pretence to experience is a thread-bare shuffle, and liable to so many excep∣tions that he can never make any thing of it, and there will be occasion of examining it in the next Chapter if he will venture there upon the Pikes.

Which is a demonstration that the Promissor is ima∣ginary space or nothing, &c. Ans. There is, says he (p. 98.) a certain and real space measured out in∣to degrees and minutes between the Significator and Promissor. Repl. But what is this to the Promissor himself, who being supposed immoveable, which the real matter of the Heavens is not, I say, is imagi∣nary space or nothing?

It is plain how this Planet (viz. the Significator) never gets to that part of the celestial matter in which the Promissor was at the Nativity, &c. Ans. I won∣der, says he (p. 98.) whether the Doctor knows his own meaning, &c. Repl. And I wonder that so acute a man, and so well exercised in the Phanta∣stries of Astrology, does not easily guess at it at first sight. To shew how desperate the cause of the Astro∣logers is in this point of Direction, I put the case of the Significator's being a Planet, and the Promissor, we supposing in the same superficies with him, we cannot allow to be the body of another Planet, but its Influence levening or tincturing at such a distance the celestial matter. As for better understanding the business, Let Mars be the Significator (for all the Planets may be so according to both Origanus and Ranzovius) and Jupiter the Promissor, to which Mars is directed in Trine Aspect. The Influence of Jupiter

lodged in the celestial matter at this distance from Mars, but in his way is the Promissor, but both Mars and this Influence of Jupiter being carried along in the celestial matter as Corks in water, the Significator here will never overtake the Promissor. But that Mars may overtake Jupiter by way of Tran∣sit, or give him a go-by, he being six times more swift in his course, who can be ignorant of that? Observe the definition of a Promissor, as Ranzovius has de∣fined. He says it is, Planetae vel corpus vel radius, &c. ad quem cùm Significator pervenerit, Significa∣tio effectum suum editura creditur. Which is also the sense of other Astrologers.

But though they phrase it as if the Significator were to come corporally to the very Promissor, to challenge and receive his promise, yet J. B. does not interpret it so grosly (as neither do the Persians some passages of the Alchoran) but glosses thus on it (p. 100.) It is, sayes he, as much as to say, the Virtue of the Significator being at a distance, at the Nativity, from the Promissor, will be a certain number of years and days according to the Rules of Art in Direction, ere it comes to maturity. Repl. As if the Promissor stood only for an Index of time but promised nothing concerning the thing it self. Which is point-blank against the Rudiments of Astrology. What Astrolo∣ger will ever say, that the Horoscope for example directed in Trine Aspect to Venus as Promissor, the same thing is promised as when it is directed in Trine Aspect to Mars? But while J. B. despoils the Promissor of all office but the indication of time, he yields the cause to me, and makes it all one as if it were empty space or nothing. And withal insinuates a very considerable notion to the sagacious. That

these Aspects are so sacred with the Astrologers, merely that they may hence take occasion or find a pretence to foretel the time of the Accidents of hu∣mane life, as the Physicians do the time of the Pa∣roxysms of the Disease by the Aspects of the Moon, the phantastry of which conceits I have above suffi∣ciently laid open.

And that this numbring of years by Direction when the feat will come to pass, is a mere arbitrari∣ous phansie, does further appear, whenas all the Pla∣nets may be Significators, yet their courses are ex∣treamly different in swiftness, the Moon's being about 360. times swifter than that of Saturn, and yet the Moon directed in Trine Aspect to Saturn, there are promised such things to the Infant as cannot ea∣sily belong to him till he be thirty or forty years old. Which is a plain intimation that this pretence of prognosticating the fate of the Infant by Direction, is a mere phansy, as I have, though briefly, yet clearly proved against J. B. all the Rudiments of Astrology to be. And whether he will acknowledge my just triumph hitherto or no, it is all one to me. There's no unprejudiced Reader but certainly will. The main subterfuge behind is their pretence of E∣vents answering to their Art. Which if he speak any thing material to, we shall have occasion to consi∣der it upon the next Chapter.

Notes

• ‖

  See Book 3. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. Also Im∣mortal. Book 3. Chap. 19. Sect. 4, 5, 6.
• ‖

  See Sect. 4.
• See Sir Christopher Heydon his defence of judicial A∣strology, c. 7. p. 186.
• ‖

  See Sect. 7.
• ‖

  See Sect. 7.
• ‖

  See Chap. 15. Sect. 5.
• ‖

  See Sect. 7.
• ‖

  See Chap. 15. Sect. 6.
• ‖

  See Sect. 10.
• See Origan. Par. 2. Cap. 13.