SOME Further Remarks Upon Mr. GADBURY's DEFENCE of scorpion, By way of addition, to a just Reward for unreasonable service.  
WHEREIN Not only Mr. Gadbury's Pretensions to Astrology are dissipated; but even his Title to Learning and right Reason( which by virtue of his Horoscope he challenges) is shaken.  
By the Man in the Moon.  Bilem saepe jocum vestri movere tumultus. 
Printed in the Year MDCLXXVI.   

To the Worshipful Mr. JOHN GADBURY, Quondam tailor in Ordinary to Mr. William lily; now Extraordinary Physician to Her Majesty, and a Secretis to the Peerless Dulcinea, otherwise called the Gardiner's Daughter.  
IT was well observed by one( a Philosopher no doubt, and I am very sorry I have not a Greek Apothegm to express it by, for the honour of you my learned Patron) that when a Dog, though of never so great valour and courage, happens by the chance of War to be worried, every whiffling Cur, that before durst scarcely lift his leg before him to piss, will be sure to have a snap at him. But still would I have you comfort yourself with your own doctrine.  
But Rats in Science, least things ever choose  
To nibble at; that's the base Vermins use.  
And though your Enemies rejoice, and scorpion be found to be a very lewd Sign, yet keep as long as you can on this side Hell( as 'tis canted) and exercise neither Knife, Halter, nor Pill. The Lady Dulcinea is still in effe, young & kind, and there may come a time, when you may have 45. l. for your five sheets again, be but humble and faithful, and leave off this habit of writing scurrilous nonsense, and I dare engage, you shall conciliate the favour of all Mankind, as much as of  
Your Servant, The Man in the Moon.   

TO THE READER.  
Gentlemen,  
AS many of you as have red, the Just Reward for unreasonable Service, will conclude that my Attempt is but Actum agere; and I do but dance after the Pipe of the Author of those smart Annotations: I confess he hath displayed the most principal absurdities of our Blundering Astrologer, yet are there some Material ones, which he hath omitted, which you will find in the following Pages. I must aclowledge too, had not that Gentleman written, you had never seen any production of this nature of mine: For till I by accident saw his reflections, I had never heard John Gadbury's defence of scorpion( whence you may conclude that I lived in a Garret too) but observing so much Salt in them, and the great advantage which he had over his Antagonist, I imagined that John Gadbury's Book could not but be very pleasant; so that presently I procured it, and having perused it, being a little idly disposed, resolved to divert myself and you, with what had not been already observed; and if you compare this with the first Annotations, you will find, that I am no Plagiary; And though you find, the Man in the Moon in the Title-page, yet am I neither Animal Cornutum, nor so lunatic as a Scorpionist, that( like a Moon-shiny night) barks at his own shadow.  
Fare-well.   

HAd Mr. Gadbury's Annotator designed to have dealt impartially, and( as he pretends) like an unbiased Person, he would never so severely have examined the extravagancies of a Man, so long time reputed non compos mentis; nor ought he to have taken notice of his inconsistencies and contradictions, in a Book that was scribbled in a delirious fit; but have cited his opinion of the influence of the Stars, before they had so unhappily exerted it upon his brain, i.e. e. before he was quiter infatuated, and turned Mad-man: for in his Preface to his Coll. Gen.( particularly that Part that is borrowed from Sir Chr. Heydon nomine suppresso) he tells us, That the Stars do so strongly incline, that the effects of Nature are commonly seen beyond the force of education. Nay, within these seven years it pleased God to honour the Stars with such Energy( which I conceive consists not with gently inclining) that among five thousand Nativities, he can with confidence assert, they have never been found to fail, see Prognost. for 1669. Might not the Title of Silly Sophister have been as justly attributed to him by his Annotator, for excluding the Heirs of Hell from being any part of Gods Creation, because they have no pretence to Heaven, as for endeavouring to prove by a Negative? With what face can J. G. object to Mr. L. his stigmatizing scorpion, when in the gross he so irreverently transfers the particulars of the change on samson? But to come more closely, Really, Gentlemen, I must tell ye, if ye did believe Mr. lily in his black charge to be true, you ought to anticipate his malice; take courage and become your own Butchers, for certainly Persons of his character, as he saith ye all are for being born under scorpion, can but faintly hope for any share in Heaven at last, and then to what purpose should we, that are born under so dismal an Ascendant, covet to live? senseless Sot! but argued like the Author.  
Might not our Annotator have observed( had he been unbiased) that these words do most apparently convict our Astrologer, either of heresy, or folly and stupidity? I confess I am willing to put the safest construction upon it, and for once admit it to proceed out of his abundant simplicity, and only tell him that he argues like a most egregious Ass: For if he believes a future punishment, and by the misfortune of his Horoscope is incapacitated for pretending any share in Heaven, it is stupendious folly to accelerate those inexpressible torments that afflict the damned, by cutting his own throat.  
Plato( as quoted by Plutarch) maketh Providence superior to Necessity or Destiny; Mr. L. if he allow Providence at all, placeth it below them. But why should J. G. transfer this confounded non-sense upon Mr. L. when it had its conception of his own Addle-pate? For I would fain be satisfied, how Providence can be imagined by any rational Man, if there be a necessity in the disposition of human affairs? though I doubt not, but our Author can reconcile Fate and Providence as easily, as the hooks and eyes of a svit.  
Mr. L. must pardon me, I cannot help it, &c. This is the mighty Advocate for free-will, he that would exclude all coercion upon the mind of Man, cannot now help his differing in opinion from Mr. L. and how should a Man, in whom nonsense and repugnancies are inherent, avoid contradicting himself, and writing like an Ass?  
I cannot but commend his prudence( or rather subtlety, for you know his Horoscope) in waving those disputes, which God knows he is no more able to manage or determine than his quondam Goose notions, which at second or third hand he hath gleaned up, and here shuffling in by the head and shoulders, by his hints would be thought a Philosopher. I cannot but laugh at his Epithet of prodigious for scorpion, there being such a prodigy of Astrology, and an olio of Saints spawned under it, for you may observe, good Reader, Scorpionists spawn apace. I would desire our Author to tell me by what figure of nonsense he terms that immortality, which is no longer lived than the carkess.  
Mr. L.( it seems) in his almanac for 1673. hath a little severely reflected upon scorpion, and Persons born under it: Gadbury in recapitulating the affront, doth not only exert his resentment, but very wittily( as he thinks) upbraids him with tautology; But would not a wise Man have taken care, that he had been secure before he had recriminated? But to prove this Coxcomb's pretence by right of birth equivalent to Mr. Lilly's, pray red in the very page. where he makes this observation, and you shall find, This Mundane frame or fabric is of so excellent a texture and composure, and is so choice and exquisite a piece of clock-work, so glorious and orderly as well in each particular, as in its general motion, that should the least pin or particle thereof be wanting or amiss, or indeed in any other nature or temper, shape or condition, or in any other order than it is, the whole World would run to ruin or destruction. If ever such an hideous piece of bombast( for bombast, if for once you will admit a clench, hath formerly been as essential to his profession as filching) was red before in a Fellow, that pretended to reprove tautology in another, I will be bound to red the nonsense of this Author as long as I live, and I think my life would then be as uncomfortable as a Scorpionists, were Mr. Lilly's charge true.  
As it is our Author's endeavour in all his writings, to illustrate and adorn( as he thinks) his discourses with hard words, so hath he no small affectation to lard them with Greek and Latin Verses: His skill in the Greek is unquestionably as eminent as Sir Hudibras's, and for Latin he hath as much I dare swear as the goose that preserved the Capitol; for an instance take these two( Verses I cannot call them) as they lie p. 5.  
Cunctis inest canibus pro consuetudine natum,  
Ut latrave magis quam feritare solent.  
Here hath our Author outdone the Proverb, killed three Birds with one ston, given us a specimen of his skill in the Latin, of his poetic vein, and lastly girded his Antagonist; but would any but our egregiously stupid Fop, have thus shamefully betrayed his own ignorance? Can he think Men such Sots, as to believe that he who would expose such stuff to the public, could have any understanding( as he pretends) in the learned Languages? Seneca, I remember, hath an expression that runs thus: Quibusdam canibus sic innatum est, ut non pro feritate said pro consuetudine latrent. But because I am sensible he is ignorant enough, not to apprehended the absurdities of his own without some intimation, I will desire him to scan the first line, then construe it and tell of what use natum is, and where he meets with the Verb feritare, except in his own barbarous Poetry? Yet to convince you further of his skill in the Latin, hath he not in his Doctr. not. pag. 137. put Woman in breeches, and made her of the masculine gender, moriturus ante natum? what think you of applicat. ad □ ☿ Dominus nonae? hath not he( to prove his acquaintance with the Poets) discovered Seneca to be but a plagiary, and stolen that Chorus Fatis agimur? &c. which we find in his Oedipus, from Claudian; as very gravely he cites him for the Author of it, in his Title-page to the Nativity of King Charles Astrologically handled. His Annotator has( I think) sufficiently lashed him for his challenge, to produce one Author that hath stigmatized scorpion. But, saith John, if such Authors there be, they and Mr. lily stand in eminent need of Heaven's Amnestia. But, Friend John, have the Heavens a greater respect for scorpion, than any other Sign of the zodiac? Or may you alone securely cast what imputations you please upon the Celestial Bodies? For if I mistake not, you charge the Planets ill dignified,( Vide Doctr. not. pag. 67, 68, &c.) as scandalously as Mr. L. doth scorpion.  
Your Annotator hath very justly acquitted Mr. L. from your scandal, of believing the Stars to be essentially evil, and impellent causes: But how you will purge yourself, I cannot conceive; for by as much as may be collected from expression, I am satisfied that you did believe them to be cogent( however you have now changed that note) when you wrote these words: If Venus be found in Libra or Taurus, whatsoever the nativity be, the Native shall affect lewd Women, and he shall be a Fornicator. Doctr. Nat. pag. 80.  
And what construction will the subsequent words admit: And I am persuaded; that whoever have ♂ and ♀ in their nativities( as of necessity all Persons have) will be more or less( according to their dignities therein) concerned in the question: that is, they will by an innate Impulse, do that which is much worse, Vide Doct. Nat. p. 130. And now whether these words do not imply a coercion, contrary to the doctrine which he here maintains, I appeal to any Scorpionist in Europe. But whether by much worse he means fornication, or Istud quod digitis Gadbury perdis homo est, I cannot determine, but it may be both.  
Now for the particular branches of the charge, and the first that occurs is falsity, and( quoth John) That is the counterfeit of verity according to the etymon, such an one as breaks open Letters, &c. if it be wickedness to conceal the fault of that which a man selleth, surely open, public and professed falsehood is wickedness with a witness. Besides the nonsense and tautology here, you may observe that according to the etymon( as he absurdly calls it) falsity is the counterfeit of verity, i.e. e. either it hath some resemblance to verity; That essentially there is between them, is obvious: and taken in the other sense, it is a flat repugnance to open public, &c. So that you see here is nonsense with a witness; thus doth this stupid disputant blunder in his first particular.  
Secondly, Arrogance, and there he tells us out of Solomon: There is more hopes of a fool, than of one that is wise in his own conceit, and subjoins that 'tis the greatest enemy to prudence that can be. From whence I collect that this J. Gadbury is like to be a fool to the end of the play: For, saith Solomon, There is no hope of him. But this learned Author can't be content to quote a Wise Man, but he must make him break poor Priscian's head.  
Thirdly, Ambition is the mother of Superstition; and yet( quoth he) vain glory( which with him idem sonat) ends in lewdness, so that to be ambitious is to live viciously: How these cohere I apprehended not, nor it may be the only wise and learned J. Gadbury.  
Fourthly, Ingratitude, and of this was never any Scorpionist guilty; I only desire him to reflect upon himself, and what excuse he can frame, let him know according to his own maxim, Knavery in one person, is no excuse for ingratitude in another.  
Fifthly, Boasting, which is a 'vice( saith John) opposed to valour; which by his favour is no consequent, there being so frequent examples of their compatibility. It is wonderful to him, how boasting falls to the share of a Scorpionist, since scorpion is the House of Mars, and Mars the author of true courage; and this you have in general, be Mars well or ill dignified: So that a prattler( which is consisting enough with boasting) without modesty or honesty, a Broacher of quarrels, a Thief, a perjured or turbulent Fellow, a Promoter of mischiefs, a rash inhuman treacherous Fellow, a mere Incendiary, one that neither Years God, neither cares for honouring or revering Man,( which is his own character of Mars ill dignified) and such a Mars as himself was born under, may have as just a pretence to true valour as any, and if so, I see no reason for the exclusion of the Boaster.  
Sixthly, Lying; and here Mr. lily hath hit it: and John, notwithstanding all the Authors which so learnedly thou enumeratest, thou wilt never be able to acquit thyself from this stigma; for certainly thou( if any Man) art according to thy own pretty Phrase, the very Coloquintida of conversation. A Thief( saith John) is better than a liar. We have indeed a Proverb that saith, He that will lie will steal; and no man doubts, but he that will steal will lie: That John will steal, I can prove by his plagiarism; that he will lie, by his words.  
I could not choose but laugh, when I saw lechery in the seventh place, and John Gadbury at the beginning; but his learned Annotator( though no Church-warden) hath brought home the brat to his door again, though like an unnatural Father he had renounced it, and exposed it to the mercy of the Parish. Yet ought the Annotator not to have been so severe, but to have considered that besides the provocations of the flesh, there was a mighty sympathy in their Nativities; and that though the Stars are no impellent causes, yet sometimes they incline very strongly. In the mean time let Mr. G. tell me, whether in all his Astrological reading he never met an Author that( speaking of a Scorpionist) saith, Erit talis qui semper advenereos coitus oculorum cupiditate cogatur? And doth he not remember that his Friend Firmicus tells him, that Lollianus his own Patron, Ob crimen adulterii in exilium datus est? yet this Lollianus was a Scorpionist too.  
Eightly, Perjury; I cannot blame Mr. Gadbury for being a little on the huff in this paragraph; yet to qualify him a little, let him remember his peremptory character of Mars ill dignified; but what then? I can take a box on the ear with less regret from myself, than from the best Astrologer in Europe.  
Ninthly and lastly, comes Revenge; and he assures us that Mr. L. hath tried, Whether the Scorpionists are Pigeon-liver'd, or have any such commodity as revenge; and that he hath rendered Heaven( for I suppose he means no more by that enthusiastical tautology, of the most holy Seat of the most holy and tremend God, the habitation of the blessed Angels, the resting place of the Faithful, the Church of the Elect) a place of horror and blackness, a desert of destruction, a Source, a Sink, a Seed-plot of all terrene unhappiness. Now how prettily these fulsome Metaphors cohere, let any Man of sense judge; but it was the zeal, the abundant zeal of our intoxitated Author, that belched out this absurd bombast.  
I concur with him, that it is very rare to find a Fool born under scorpion; yet I neither speak treason, nor contradict myself, if I affirm I know several Cockscombs, and particularly one egregious Fop, by name John Gadbury.  
Again( quoth John) If scorpion were a Sign so bad, &c. how comes it to pass that neither the learned Cardan, nor the ingenious Morinus say not one word thereof? Although the Annotator had not the happiness to recollect Cardan's and Morine's testimonies( for who can retain every expression in so many hundred Pages?) yet will it be no affront to him, to observe the transcendent impudence and ignorance of this pretending Astrologian? This is the Man that would be thought to have red Cardan and Morine so accurately, that no expression hath escaped him, or else he saucily concludes all Men as ignorant as himself; and because he never red them( at least to no purpose, never understood them) no Man hath. But to demonstrate his ignorance to his indelible shane, let him red carded. Aph. 55. Segm. 2. and he shall find, that Compositos & pulchros Aries facit, Scorpius mendaces, and there I think is one word for him. Again Aph. 166. Segm. 5. Aquea signa faciunt proditores atque in his Scorpius excellit, there is another. I will not insist upon Aph. 140. Segm. 2. Mercurius maxim hebetatur in signis humidis, said in Scorpione facit maleficum. Nor had I cared if he had omitted Scorpius solicitudinem animi( intellige denotat) & deceptionem, because Morine comes to my assistance, pag. 462. Astr. gull. Quibus ascendit scorpion hi sicut timidiores, prudentiores, ad dissimulandum aptiores, & clam insidias iram suam explevit ultionibus. Here is hypocrisy, treachery, revenge and anger; and what will an angry, treacherous hypocrite, that studies revenge, boggle at or not attempt? But Morine hath not yet done, for p. 504. disputing, whether the Celestial Bodies are only universal causes, he hath these words: At prout effectui, hoc est, homini vel equo genito particulares confert qualitates, qu as nec homo, nec equus conferunt quod nempe sint a propria signi influentia, ut maligni mores a Scorpione in ascendent. For the true understanding the question debated by Morine, let Cap. 6, lib. 21. be consulted; what I have here transcribed, is sufficient to demonstrate Mr. G. an huffing ignorant pretender. He can't be to seek in the signification of maligni est, as his Annotator wittily observes, he knows most words in Rider & Thomas too: Yet believing, he may be as perfect in them as in Morine and Cardan, I would advice him to betake himself to one of them; and I am confident, he will find no one word that doth more significantly express, or fully comprehend the whole charge, drawn up by Mr. L. against scorpion, than maligni doth.  
But how could Mr. G. were he not a Scorpionist, upbraid Mother Shipton, & the Sybils? with what face can he so wittily( as he thinks) joke upon him, as if he could produce none but Astrologers of his own begetting, to testify to his charge?  
holy, an eminent Arabian Astrologer, is pleased to term scorpion an humble and depressed Sign. How Mr. holy, an humble and depressed Sign, and yet guilty of perjury, lying? &c. Yes, Mr. G. he is pleased to do so, and at the same time he terms it deceptor too; but like a true Scorpionist you take occasion to leave out that. But, upon these words of holy, he endeavours to prove ♏ an obedient Sign, and obedience a passive quality; and then brings in Johannes Angelus and Firmicus, to testify that it denotes the Native to be iracundos & agiles; but how humilitas and iracundia do consist, I do not conceive.  
Our Author need not to have taken such pains, to have enumerated such an heap of Aphorisms, to prove the influence of ♂( as we know it) destructive and pernicious. Nor do I conceive that, because ♂ is a Planet of a malevolent influence, ♏ is an innocent Sign; and that because those Authors, which he cites, do condemn ♂ his heats, they therefore acquit ♏ from all intemperance. Nor do I care whether ♏, as the House of ♂ or from any innate vicious quality, does inflict such vices into the Native; yet we know aliud efficit ♂ in ♈, aliud in ♏. But let it suffice, that for any thing alleged by our Friend John, Scorpionists may be as profligate rascals, as for John's, and the sake of some others, we have reason to suspect they are. But for the operation of the Signs, either dependenter a Plaueta, or per se, Vide Morinam c. 4. l. 20.  
Guido Bonatus( it seems) had observed Scorpionists( as I have) to be very great liars; and therefore says, that a Person born under ♏ shall be one In cujus ore vix aut nunquam invenietur veritas. But, saith Mr. G. he can be no more true in this than he that said, In his hast all men were liars; which is a modest way of giving King David the lie: But Guido contradicts himself, and therefore no way serviceable to Mr. L. saith Mr. G. but if Guido's repugnancies do invalidate his authority, than I do pronounce this whole Book of Mr. G. in defence of ♏ ipso facto null and voided, being repleat with nothing but flat contradictions, as I think his Annotator hath proved to his indelible shane.  
I cannot but laugh at that high-strained piece of experimental Philosophy( as 'tis phrased) so much applauded by John, viz. Campanella's putting himself into a distorted posture, when he was writing to a crooked Cardinal: he ought to have put on his Robes too, and in every thing else as near as he could have personated one of that function, and then I believe his fancy might have operated as effectually, as if he had written in his natural posture. I am resolved, if ever I should have occasion to make use of Mr. G. I will( as near as I can) put myself into the shape of a Hog, and represent Epicuri degrege Porcum; nay, I will imagine scorpion to be my Ascendant, and then assume my pen, and try to meet his humour in the thing I writ about.  
In the mean time, I am glad there is so compendious a method discovered, for the reconcilement of differences: Put yourselves into the frame of your Adversary, sand him a Letter; and, quoth John, there is a Period of the contention.  
Our accurate Astrologer( like an insensible Blunderer) is again at Mr. L. for contradicting himself, but it is endless harping upon that string: Only let me ask him, what he will prove by producing his twenty genitures? for when all comes to all, he tells you he will prove; but, what? go look, and prudently he evades that; for I see nothing he is like to prove, but himself an Ass.  
He is not only offended at Mr. L. for bringing in the Natives of ♏; but all Persons that inhabited that part of the Earth, to whom ♏ ascended at the Suns entrance into ♈. Yet you shall hear this perfidious Scorpionist himself speak upon the very same occasion. If ♏ be a Sign of falsity, as Hermes in the 9th. Aph. of his Cent. affirms it to be, then we may be glad, it is so nearly of the Horoscope at the time of this vernal ingress, &c. a little after; this part of it is the decanate of ♀, & habet significationem ebrietatis bellorum & fornicationis, to all which kinds of evils and debauchery men will much incline, &c.[ See his judgement upon the year 1669.] With what brow then can this fulsome Astrologer call Mr. L. Impostor, and transfer all those Epithets upon him, which scorpion doth so naturally challenge for its Natives? But, I think, I may as justly( without any violation of truth or breach of good manners) pronounce this J. G. an illiterate trifling scribbler, and a bungling Astrologian: the first I have already proved, and the last too in part; but more fully to confirm both, I will examine his twenty examples, at least what hath been by his learned Annotator omitted: And the first that occurs is King Ed. 3. of England; and it is pity we have him not under the title of Monarch of Great britain, as( like an Owl) he gives us H. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, in his Coll. of Genit. But what will he prove by his Nativity? Why, that he was a valiant Prince. Who denies it? But will he prove that Mrs. Alice Pierce and he, were no more contemporaries than Dido & Aeneas? Or can he justify the Execution of the Earl of Kent? But perhaps our Author may reply, the first of these was occasioned by the ☌ of ♂ and ♀. But what then? All things are subordinate to the Horoscope. Were that then a sign of that virtue and ꝯtinence, which he would have us believe, it might have overborne that single testimony. Seeing therefore the matter of fact is true, it must be attributed to his Horoscope, according to our Author, who( like a wise Astrologer, but more zealous Scorpionist) tells us, that there is nothing in this Nativity, but the Horoscope to recommend it to the World: For, saith he, ♂ Lord of the Ascendant therein combust, in ☍ to ♃ and ☌ with ♀ Lady of the 7th. But did ever any Fellow argue thus against himself? For what could be desired greater for a Prince, whose design and glory it was to be victorious, than to have the Lord of the Ascendant strong therein, disposing of his Enemies( as ♂ doth of ♀) in ☌ with the Lord of the M. C.? and he must give me leave to tell him, that it is the opinion of some more learned than himself, that an ☍ of ♃ and ♂ makes men successful in War: and of this( were it necessary) I could produce many instances. But if the grandeur of this Native be, to be attributed solely to his Horoscope; why is not that of every Scorpionist? or why is not every Scorpionist as eminent( quoad capax, as Astrologers cant) as this Native, and as worthy.  
The elector of Saxony is( by the Annotator) very pertinently charged with ingratitude, and consequently with the whole indictment; for ingratum si dixeris omnia dixeris: Yet this elector was a freeholder of Reason as well as of his Electourship, and though there was an Antipathy betwixt the Emperour's Nativity and his, yet his reason( one would have thought might have exterminated his vices. But( saith he) their ambition and particular designs might differ: observe this conjuring disputant! he undertakes to acquit all Scorpionists from the black charge of Mr. L. and here makes no more, but point blank confounds his design, confutes himself, and very wisely charges this Prince( brought by him to give a testimony against Mr. L.) with ambition a particular branch of the Charge.  
I shall observe nothing in the 6th example, but Mr. Gadbury's Epiphonema, viz. Kings and Princes are Mr. Lilly's tennis balls as well as the Stars, and must be tossed and struck up and down as he is pleased, to bandy them with his black and envious racket. Here's a Metaphorical piece of nonsense for you, and is scarcely so good as if he had said, I am a wooden Astrologer made of flesh and bone, and so speak nonsense very elegantly with my pen.  
I have too great a veneration for the Royal Family to make any ill reflections( were I able) upon the seventh example; yet can I not omit Mr. Gadbury's praevarication, for first he publishes this Lady's Nativity( in that Book where he pretends to exhibit all the genitures of the most illustrious Branches of that Family) and makes ♏ 22. ascend. Afterwards in his Coll. Gen. he is ashamed of that Horoscope, and therefore recants, and tells us that the proceeding was erroneous, and that sine dubio, that which he there presents us with, is the true one; and in that he places ♎ 27. ascending, and very pertinently gives the Ascendant ad □ ♂ for the small Pox, of which she expired. Here again like a false and subtle Scorpionist, he would persuade us that ♏ 1, 52. did ascend; But what credit is to be given to a Fellow that shall print a Nativity three times variously, especially when it may rationally be presumed, that this alteration is only to accommodate it to his idle purpose? but admitting this to be true, I demand what the Ascendant ad □ ♂ gave her about 23? I hope a Direction, which he makes fatal if ♎ ascend, shall not pass without effect when ♏ is in the Horoscope: But finding this inconsistency in him, this example can prevail nothing with the Reader to reconcile him to ♏, when there is greater probability that ♎ was Horoscopical.  
I do not conceive that this row of Cardinals, which this Trifler produces, do at all contribute to the redemption of his own or Scorpio's credit: For first, he borrows them all from the most uncorrected collection( abate but his own) of one of the most negligent Authors( J. G. always excepted) that ever wrote: But then admitting the figures to be true, what he can collect from the words of Argol. I apprehended not, he having only pretended to give an account of critical dayes, it being eccentric from his purpose to mention any thing of their merits. But Mr. Gadbury esteems it no small indication of the desert of the first and second Cardinal, whose Nativities he produces, that they had the favour of so great a Man as Pope Clement the Eighth, Who know well enough how to make choice of Ministers for the Churches Peace and happiness, saith our Author. Yet you shall hear his opinion of this very Pope, in his Observations upon his Nativity in his Collect. Gen. pag. 79. If this be this Pope's true Nativity( as Argol avers) it seems to me that he attained the Papal dignity more by Policy than desert, and was made the Head of the Church more for necessity than for any Religion. So that what instruments a Pope that had neither desert nor Religion, was like to make choice of, let any Man judge.  
The tenth, is a Cardinal with a long name, that flourished under Pope Paul the Fifth, and received according to his worth and merit favours from him: So that you see scorpion, or Persons born under it, are not so notoriously wicked, &c. You may observe that Mr. Gadbury in all these examples, makes them to have attained their preferments by their merits. But hear him in his calculation of his own Nativity, in his Doctr. Nat. Seriously protesting that the great reason, why he hath no more honour and preferment( and what could a nitty Astrologer expect or deserve?) according to the best of his judgement is, because he hath always detested and hated the art of flattery and dissimulation, the ONELY Stairs by which ALL Persons ascend to honour and preferment. So that according to the best of his judgement, All these Persons whom he so descants, attained their preferments by no other means but flattery and dissimulation: Thus doth Jack Gadbury saucily contradict the Astrologer, and makes no more of proving him an Ass, than if he still lived by the Goose.  
In the Nativity of Dr. Gell I shall only observe the position of ♄ in ♌ in the 9th: and quote that Aphorism, which he accommodates to Pope Clement the eight, ♄ in the ninth House ill dignified, denotes an hypocrite or dissembler: makes him heretical and guilty of great errors in matters of Faith and Religion What can be from hence concluded, but Mr. Gadbury is an hare-brained, hot-headed Astrologian, giving his judgement as the toy takes him, or prejudice or favour sway him, and not from any sober and regulated principles of Art.  
Regiomontanus is the twelfth, and seeing Mr. Gadbury hath taken occasion to dignify him with the titles of learned, judicious, and ingenious, and with Origanus style him Matheseos ocellus, hear Cardan of him: Monteregius multa sibi ex aliorum laboribus ascripserit, Tabulae Directionum magna ex parte sunt ipsius Joannis de Bianchinus Ital. extant apud me locupletiores, illas Monteregium vidisse constat cum de aspectibus loquitur, epitoma est Mediolanensis cujusdam antequam etiam Purbachius Monteregii magister nasceretur, liber de triangulis Sphaericis inventio tota est Hebri Hispani: Ephemerides inventae sunt antequam nasceretur, habui enim Ephemeridem anni 1412. So that you see Cardan hath almost put out this Mathematical eye, and Regiomontanus being thus furtivis nudatus coloribus, appears like a true Scorpionist. For, saith Mr. Gadbury, It is as horrid a crime to steal the labours of the dead, as to rob the houses of the living.  
For the account we have of Ramzovius, we are chiefly obliged to his own self, and a few parasitical Poetasters: But from his writing I do pronounce him a vain-glorious Ass, and a boasting Astrologer. As any Man will be convinced, that will view his Tractatus Astrologicus, & de Annis Climacterieis, at the end of both, which Books you may find not only a medley of other mens Sycophantry, subjoined purely for ostentation, but his own vain account of his extraction; which is a thing so childish and ridiculous that a Wise man would blushy at it. However, boasting is a branch of Mr. Lilly's charge, under which this Person comes, so that this nativity is impertinent as any of the other, and proves nothing in defence of ♏.  
Then for Angelus Politianus( whose Nativity follows) he did onely( as your Annotator, Mr. Gadbury, observes) say that he never spent his time worse than when he red the Bible, but that reading Saint Hierom's translation, it had made him forget to writ good Latin; but in defence of his poisoning himself, it may be alleged that the poor Churchman had got a pocky Ozoena, the shane of which driven him him to despair, so that he not only dyed, but had lived like a true Scorpionist. But let me not forget his pride and vanity, which was so eminent that having a contemptible name of which he was ashamed, he changed it from Johannes Bassus to Johannes Angelus Politianus; and this was a blessed example( was it not?) to vindicate a Celestial Horoscope?  
And certainly when Mr. Gadbury recommended this blessed Church-man's Nativity for the glory of ♏, he was not ware how he betrayed his own ignorance; for before his Works printed at Basil 1553. you may find this Character of him: Erat distortis saepe moribus, ubi fancy nequaquam ingenua & liberali, ab enormi praesertim naso subluscoque oculo per absurdu, ingenio astuto, aculeato occulreque livido, cum aliena semper invideret.  
The next is Argol's celebrated Friend, whom Argol gives a very kind Character. Yes, and so he does ♏ too, Ptol. Parv. pag. 95. Scorpius facit bellicosos immanes, improbos, fallaces, seditiosos, malorum morum.  
Sir John Gheik is the next, and as our Author supposes, Neither Mr. L. nor any of his Tribe, will presume or esteem it a crime in him to have been Secretary of State. No not they, I dare engage, had not you very uncivilly laid Flattery and dissimulation to his charge, the ONLY stairs by which ALL Persons ascend to honour and preferment.  
I have nothing to say against Doctor Fisk, only Mr. Gadbury was his Pupil; and as he himself observes, Qualis Dominus talis Servis, Like Master like Man.  
Last of all comes our Author; and to his Nativity I shall onely accommodate an Aphorism of his own( and you know as himself observes all aphorisms are indubitably true) as it is to be found in his Century at the end of his Coll. Gen. Aph. 87. ♂ in ☍ to the Ascendent, and ♄ in the same Aspect to the ☉, makes an absolute Knave or Treacher. But replies John, ♄ is in □ to my ☉ if in any Aspect at all; for ☉ is separated nine deg. from him, and ♂ is out of Orbs. But let me ask him one question, why may not I allow as large Orbs as he? For he imputes a kind of necessity to the influence of the ☍ of ♂ and ♀ in Ssorza's Nativity; who are as far asunder as ♂ from his Horoscope; and though a □ be not so bad as an ☍, yet it is next and immediate after it. It may be as you say, that you never took the turn about Oaths of the times, yet you pretended to print Nativities which the Law makes treason to calculate: but who were you, John, that should have Oaths imposed you? Alas! who could have found out a rhyming Fellow, that( as your Annotator observes) fat cross-legged all day up in the Garret? But, saith John, I am a very surly Fellow sometimes, therefore provoke me not too far; Howbeit at this time I will RULE my Stars, and FOLLOW Jupiter's gentle influence. Is not this a pleasant Rhetorical coxcomb? Is is not a cunning way of ruling the Stars, by submitting to their influences? Why could he not with the Poet have said: I'll follow Fate, which doth too fast pursue. But it is impossible for our Author not to writ nonsense, as it was in the dayes of yore, to patch a svit without his Goose.  
I have now almost run through this mighty Book, nothing remaining but a Postscript, an Advertisement, and his almanac rhymes in defence of ♏. In his Postscript; I cannot but laugh at his Posthum'd legacy, which he shall leave the Sons of Art. I doubt his Printer is mistaken, and it should have been imposthum'd, like Cleavland's Imposthum'd bubble of a wave, and it may be as much in it. But to leave trifling, saith John, let us come to his bounce nonsense in rhyme, and when I red his Poetry I do not admire at our Proverb: as bad a rhymer as an almanac maker: The gingles foisted, the wearish stuff, and contemptible fancy, are enough to make a man renounce rhyme eternally. Yet is not this troublesone Fellow ashamed, to reprint these rhymes again in this Pamphlet, as a Corollary to his defence? In his February's Observations you find these words: 
The parts of Heaven, are like to Heaven alone,  
As Heaven to God, that made it, who's but one.   
Which is as much as to say, the parts of Heaven, viz. the Signs, &c. and God Almighty, are very much alike.  
And how poor scorpion being apart, should be  
Thus subject to surquedrious raillery,  
As to be styled bad, the whole being good,  
Is not by me nor thousands understood.  
Though it be not understood by thee, nor thousands as dull as thyself( if so many there be) yet John I would have you know, that Men of stronger intellects do comprehend it; and they will tell you, that those parts of Heaven, that are observed to be of evil influence in respect of us( though in respect of themselves and us, they are essentially good) are very properly termed bad, in contradistinction to those that are kind and propitious: Thus is ♏ as properly stilled false, and treacherous, and ♄ and ♂ infortunes, as Hemlock, &c. poisonous and destructive. For God saw all that he had made, and it was good.— But surquedrious!  
The Goblia makes me start,  
I'th' name of Rabbi Abraham, what art?  
Syriack, or arabic, or welsh, what skilt?  
Some Conjurer translate.  
For I declare I ken it not, but leave it for a pure piece of nonsense to the Author, to ●●e what Rider and Thomas say to it.  
Scorpio's a sign of brisk activity;  
And Men, born under the same, so be.— it.  
Here our Poet thought he was praying for ●he destruction of his Enemies; but for the ●ime's sake was forced to leave out, It, and ●o to make it cry clink, wrote false Grammar.  
Must action then be branded? whist my pen,  
We'l all be guided by dull sottish men.  
I wish with all my heart, thy pen would once be so dull, or thou so sottish as to be whist, we should have the less noise with nonsense and tautology by far.  
What Sign in all the twelve, yieldeth a man  
More good, more just, more learned than scorpion?  
These run, methinks, like his Epiphonema to his wit-ensuring Verses, to Phantast●●al Heydon upon his Temple of wisdom. Viz.  
This I'll presage, your Book of wisdom is  
A Guide, that leads to Nature's mysteries.  
Now this was like the Conjurer of Brickcourt, and certainly Poet thou wentest to the devil for this prediction; for did ever Man but thou undertake to presage a thing that is.  
Now for a piece of our Poets Religion, viz. A Trinity in unity; but Pictoribus atqu poets.  
Under blessed scorpion happily was born,  
Our English Trismegist, the learned Brown.  
And why( thou Goose-cap) Trismegist O yes, he is the greatest Physician, the greatest Philosopher, and the greatest what? Not Priest I hope: no, it shall be Scorpionist; much to the Doctor's reputation. But ●nder favour, doth not the Physician come under the notion of a Philosopher? so that for ought I can see, the Doctor must be content, and hereafter writ but Bismegist. But you shall hear the compliment, our Poet passes upon this learned Person in another place, occasionally speaking of him he tells( Doctr. of not. p. 130.) That although he wished we might precreat like trees, yet shortly after( though he is mistaken, for it was almost, or full seven years after) not being able to contain, he was so wrought upon by the power of Venus, that he was forced to betake to a comfortable importance. So that you see Mr. Gadbury making lechery the sole motive( or rather incentive) that this Gentleman had to mary, brings him under one branch of Mr. Lilly's black charge before he is ware.  
But I am( and I believe, the Reader too) tired with the nonsense and contradictions of this Author, but had they not been displayed, he would have been so insolent and intolerable in his boasts, that he would not only have again confuted himself, but have been troublesone to his neighbours, and have made such a noise and bluster about that part of Mankind, that cannot with judgement distinguish, and would have concluded that he had really obtained that victory, of which he will find he hath hitherto but dreamed.  
FINIS.