It is safe to say that no considerable argument has ever been successfully raised against the claims of Astrology to a place among the sciences. No valid reason can be given for disputing its principles, and its facts have never been overset. It is true that Pico della Mirandola, called Flagellum Astrologiæ because of his avowed hatred of the subject, attempted to expel it from among the Latins and was an ardent pamphleteer in the cause of its suppression. But he justified its claims and practically unsaid all that he had written by dying at the time predicted by the astrologers. Dr. John Butler, Chaplain to James Duke of Ormonde, had a mind to inveigh against its teachings, which by some misconception he fancied to be pagan and subversive of Christianity. He studied the subject the more effectively to assail the assertions of the astrologers, and ended his campaign by writing a book in support of its teachings. It is a book rather well known to students of the subject and can be seen at the British Museum. But perhaps the most sounding rebuke that was ever given to such as foolishly repudiate the whole thing without taking the trouble to examine its principles and methods, was given by Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. Halley of comet fame when he ventured to dispute the subject with the great philosopher. The latter heard him to a finish and then quietly remarked: “I have studied the subject, Mr. Halley, you have not.” I do not know what was Halley’s perspective and therefore I cannot say in what regard he held the author of the _Principia_, but personally I would rather be swallowed by an earthquake than have such a rebuke from the same source. There was always that about Newton which inspired confidence in his utterances, for a more fearless and at the same time humble-minded investigator of Nature never breathed God’s air. He spoke of what he knew. In the presentation of astrological evidence we are not called upon to display the _modus operandi_ of planetary action in human life. We can observe facts without references to their causes. We may legitimately theorize as to the means whereby a universe is brought into existence, but none can say why. One is relieved of the necessity from the fact that he is not the Creator of it. But there are many suggestions afforded by modern scientific discoveries which lead us to the idea that planetary influence, apart from the attraction of gravitation, may be due to the functions of subtle states of matter such as we posit as properties of spatial ether. And since we know nothing of force apart from matter it is reasonable to presume that whatever forces are at play in the cosmos have their appropriate material vehicles. Spectrum analysis does not lead us to suppose that there is any material difference in the chemical constituents of the various bodies of the system, and what you find in the planets you find also in the Sun.