Rectification of this Nativity and the Reasons for his Death for all People that have the Ascendent to the body of Mars do not dye but God willing I will do it in another place before I end this Treatise Pope Julius the Second dictus Savonensis is said by Cardan to be born May 22. 1445. but Junctinus Gauricus and Garcaeus say he was born the 22 day of June the same Year Cardan makes him Scorpio the others Libra ascending Johannes Frederick the Third Duke of Saxony was born says Junctinus the 16th day of January 1538. but Garcaeus tells us he was born the 15th day in the same Year so uncertain and useless are these Nativities Cardan and Gauricus say that Henry the Second King of France was born the last day of March at 5 in the Morning 1519. and give him Aries ascending Garcaeus makes him to be born at 7 that Morning and gives him Gemini ascending And to pin the Basket and make it more doubtful Junctine tells us that he was born just a year before in 1518. What use can there be of such Nativities where they are not sure of them to the Year Morinus in his Astrologia Gallica pag. 612. hath given us the Nativity of Cardinal Richlieu and tells us he was born September the 9th S. N. at 34 min. past 9 in the Morning in the Year 1585. he makes the Sun 16 degrees in Virgo and the last degree of Libra ascending My Friend J. Gad. he comes and shews his Parts in printing of it again and he tells us he was born Septemb. the 9th at 26 min. after 11 before Noon and makes the Sun 26 degrees in Virgo and 27 degrees of Scorpio ascending so that here are 10 days motion difference between Morinus's Sun and Gadbury's Sun and so in the Moon likewise A man would think his pious Soul should have been better acquainted at that time with the New Stile and the Roman Kalender than to make this horrid blunder Thus you may see how these Errors are obtruded upon us and how easily we swallow a Lye when it comes from one that can give it a Reputation What Morinus wrought of this Nativity I believe may be true but that of my Friend John is a Nativity cut out at a venture and how many have been cheated with it by believing they had that Cardinal's Nativity true from Gadbury we shall never know Likewise the present French King's was printed by Morinus in which he made 15 degrees of Scorpio to ascend Gadbury after him prints it and makes 22 of Scorpio ascending Another after him relying upon his Authority printed it again and revived Gadbury's Error about 20 years afterward and so they err one after another Nay since this Adriano the Mathematician at Paris says he was born about 8 hours before the time Morinus gives The one says at Four in the Morning and the other at Eleven and a quarter near Noon But for this see my Opus Reformatum pag. 122. Henry the Sixth King of England says Gadbury was born on the 6th of December half an hour past one after Noon but at four of the Clock after Noon says Stow in his Annals We are told by Cardan that Henry the Eighth King of England was born June the 28th at 10 hor. 40 min. mane 1491. and from him or Junctine Gadbury and Heminga have taken that they have printed which are all the same But if you have recourse to Stow he tells us that he was born on the 22d day of June eodem Anno and yet after all Gauricus says he was born on the 29th at 9 manè and makes him Leo ascending all the rest Virgo Now pray consider how we shall reconcile all these different Accounts it seems to me a little hard to be done and also ridiculous to bring these doubtful Nativities to prove Astrology which Gad. hath done for and Heminga against it Nor are we in less confusion about the Nativity of Queen Mary than we were in her Father's before-going Mr. Lilly in his Prophetical Merlin from whom Gadbury took-his in his Collection tells us she was born the 18th day of February Anno 1516. at almost Six of the Clock in the Morning But Stow says she was born on the Eleventh day of that Month and Isaackson says the Year before Anno 1515. And Heminga who brings this Nativity to refute Astrology says she was born on the 8th of September in the Year 1515. Now suppose some Foreigner should meet with all these various Accounts of this Queen's Birth Can you imagine which he would pitch upon or do you think he would bestow a minute of labour upon any of them I cannot tell what such a man might do but I am sure I will never take a minutes labour either to rectify it or endeavour so to do As to the Birth of Queen Elizabeth Mr. Lilly had no better Authority for it than what he confesseth he had from the Florentine Author Junctinus and though they do not differ so much in this of her as they do in that of her Father and Sâ—ster yet their difference in the time is such that it cannot be allowed to be an Exact Scheme and fit to be depended on within a quarter of an hour My Friend John says she was born September the 7th ho. 2. min. 26. P. M. 1533. Junctine and from him Mr. Lilly says she was born that Day at ho. 3. min. 39. P. M. But Heminga says she was born that Day at 36 minutes past four in the Afternoon one makes her Sagitary ascending the other Capricorn and the third Aquary and yet all three bring it to prove some things that they aim at and perhaps all false Gadbury he proves her Imprisonment Coronation and Death as plain as the Sun on the Meridian of which more anon Mr. Lily brings it to prove its agrement with the Conjunctions and that the Figure was agreeable to her Affairs but Heminga as indeed Malice will catch at any thing brings a false Nativity made by himself or somebody for him to prove Astrology useless and vain And do you not think that this man was wisely employ'd in the mean time and after these various Opinions Stow differs from them all and says she was born half an hour past three which comes pretty near that of Mr. Lilly's It is generally allowed by all that I have conversed with that Charles the First King of England was born on the 19th day of November 1600. S. V. And yet Andrew Argol however he came by it hath printed it in his de Diebus Criticis pag. 182. and tells us he was born on the 10th of November New Stile differing from the true time 20 days as appears also by the Sun's place for in Argol's Scheme the Sun is in 18 degrees of Scorpio and the day he was born the Sun was in 8 degrees of Sagitary so that it cannot be a mistake of the Printer but a notorious Error in the Author or
some occasion to do the like by him when time shall be no more in his account As to the Nativities I will not print them all but give you some of the most remarkable ones and make Remarks from them on those I shall mention to illustrate the Doctrine and Method that I intend to pursue therein and my reason for so doing is because the Book it self is not so scarce to be had but I believe in the hands of most Professors or may be had if they think it is worth their while and charge to purchase it And so I come to the matter it self without detaining you longer in this Introduction As to the Nativity of the World I think it is not worth mine nor any other man's time to consider it and the rather because the Learned Sir Thomas Brown doth conclude it was not made in any one Quarter of the Year but in all four And though Firmicus hath taken notice of this nicety yet I am no more satisfied that he knew the Birth of the World than I am of Morinus's knowing the Birth of our Saviour and though I should allow his Curiosity in knowing something of it I am sure it would puzzle a good Artist to correct it notwithstanding the World hath Accidents sufficient but if this should be allowed too they have no measure of time nor did they ever yet agree under what Pole of Position the Figure ought to be erected With this we may very reasonably join the Nativities of Nero and Alexander the Great the last of which we are told had Saturn Lord of his Ascendent in pitted and azimene Degrees which made him wry-necked then by the same Rule the Moon Lady of the Ascendent at the Creation ought to have had some such effect also of Deformity to bestow either on the World in general or on its Inhabitants in particular because she was also in a dark degree that is three of Tauâ—us as they have made her As to Nero's Nativity they may have some pretence of exactness more than in Alexander's because our History is more certain since our Saviour than before but for the reason of his Death which was the Moon to the Body of Mars that I am sure is false because the Opposition of Jupiter is in the next degree after it and the Body of Venus four degrees from that therefore they must find out some new Cause for his Death And as to Aleaxnder's Birth I must beg their excuse if I cannot believe a word of it But when the Chronologers have certainly fixt the Year of our Saviour's Birth I will tell them more of my mind Alstedius and Helvicus say he was boâ—n Aâ—â—â— Mundi 3947 or 3948 they cannot well tell which Isaaâ—kâ—â—n says He was born in the end of 3947. and yet afteward he tell as he was born in 3950. and after all these a private Gentleman a Friend of mine doth affirm and maintain he waâ— born Anno Mundi 4000. and of the same Opinion is John Swâ—â— and in this Confusion I will leave them but when they are agreed bring me Alexander's Nativity and I will give you my Opinion on the Position till then I think this and a great â—any more serve only to waste Paper and spend time to no purpose King Henry the Sixth of England was born says our Author at half an hour past one after noon But Stow in his Annals says he was born at four hours P. M. the same Day and indeed this is most likely to be true because then the Moon will be in the Twelfth in Taurus in Opposition to Mars in Virgo in the Sixth from fixed Signs which I think naturally shews his long Imprisonment and then the Sun and Mercury will be in Opposition to his Horoscope which are likely Arguments of his Unsuccessfulness both in War and Peace nay in every thing But as to Mr. Gad.'s Figure pray what reason have we to believe that he was murdered on the Ascendent to the Square of Saturn when he had escaped the Ascendent to the body of the Moon among the Pleiades and at the same time to the Opposition of Mars and to make it the more dangerous the Moon Lady of the Fourth After this twenty Years he passed the Ascendent to the Opposition of the Sun and Mercury out of the Eighth and never stirred for it till the Ascendent to the Square of Saturn came followed with Jupiter's Sextile a very likely Story but besides the Ascendent was not Hileg but the Moon and she must be directed for Death and you see she had passed this fatal Square of Saturn and did nothing in order to kill This is a miserable sort of Astrology if well considered Now if you please to take Stow's Time of 4 h. P. M. or at 3 h. 52 m. P. M. you will have the Sun Hileg directed to the Zodiacal Parallel of Mars and to the Mundane Square of Saturn and with these the Midheaven to the Opposition and Ascendent to the Square of Saturn likewise but I leave the Particulars to those that love to spend time about uncertain Nativities and satisfy my self that this is false in its Correction as well as doubtful and uncertain in the Time Henry the Eighth King of England is brought by Mr. Gadbury to prove the truth of Astrology and this I find he hath taken from Cardan who hath it among his Hundred Genâ—ures who makes it to be on the 28th of June before Noon only a degree differing in the Ascendent Now if you please to have recourse to Gauâ—icus he tells you he was born the 29th day of June Hemminga and Junctine agree with Cardan exactly from whom I suppose they took it But if you look into Stow he tells us he was born June the 22d which is a horrid mistake in one of them for the difference is here six Days and I believe you will imagine that may make some difference in any Nativity I shall say but little in general to this Nativity only the Direction he says he died on is false for that could not kill because the Sun is Giver of Life in the Tenth House and besides it came up Sixteen years before he says it did and if the Scheme he gives should be true I am sure he did not dye on the Ascendent to the Square of Saturn but it serves for them that know no better Edward the Sixth King of England is allowed by all to be born or cut out of his Mothers Womb on the 12th of October at two Manè and our Author here makes it 9 minutes sooner which Alteration must be allowed to any man if his Rules agree in every thing else That he died on the Ascendent to the Body of Saturn is by all Professors and Pretenders believed this seems to me more strange than all the rest how they can reconcile this to their own Reason if they believe their own Rules for in the common way the Trine of Jupiter comes just
a grand Abuse in him that gave it him for a true one But besides If this were not sufficient here are more Mistakes We in England say he was born at 9 or 10 at Night Argol at 4 or 5 in the Morning we say he was born at Dumferling in Scotland whose Pole is 56. he saith he was born under the Pole 52. which looks a little odd how a man of his publick Correspondence abroad should be thus abused in his Intelligence and that one of his Learning and Repute should be guilty of such Errors some of which I am sure are his own Now let us turn the Tables and suppose we lived in Italy and those remote Parts do you think we should not rely on Argol's Authority as undoubtedly many do there to this day being a Man of Learning a Knight of St. Mark and Professor of the Mathematicks in the University of Padua and certainly conclude this to be a true Nativity beyond all question because it came from him that Mankind reveres for his Learning and so have handed it from one to another at its first being publick as a Curiosity and Rarity and without doubt among all Foreigners that meet with his Book it is still lookt on as a true Nativity without contradiction Again Have not we just reason to suspect many Nativities that we have from abroad to be false by the same Rule For if a Prince's Nativity so publickly known at that Time in England should be thus mistaken why may not many of the Popes and other great men born of obscure Pareâ—ts and raised by their own Merit have their Births as falsly transmitted to us as this of Charles 1. was to them for we may suppose the time of their Births was not enquired after till they grew eminent and made some Figure in the World Nay perhaps till they were dead and therefore how is it possible that we or any else can depend on many of these Nativities to be true I mean those given by our Authors many of which are so doubtful that they differ sometimes a Day in others a Month and in many of them a whole Year and more as you have already largely heard I will trouble you but with one Observation more of this kind and that is in the Birth of Charles II. who as long as he lived was believed to be born as the Bishop's Diary informed us at half an Hour past 12 of the Clock May 29th 1630. But since he is dead they are confounded because they can give no Astrological Account of his Death that is rational and likely to be believed by their own Party Some indeed will tell you He dyed on the Ascendent to the Body of Saturn but most of them are ashamed to mention it now because they had for several Years together told the World That the Horosco ad Conjunctionem Saturni gave him that Bloody Flux and Surfeit by eating of Peaches in August 1676. The truth is He was born after 12 of the Clock about 25 minutes and by a Figure set to that Time a Friend of mine did predict his Death two or three Years before he dyed and of this I am certain And yet in the Year 1687. an Ingenious and Learned Italian by Name Antonius Franciscus de Bonattis at Padua printed this Prince's Nativity again and that most notoriously false for after all his Labour and Pains he corrects it as he says to June 9th S. N. 35. minutes past 10 in the Morning as you may see in his Universa Astrosopbia Naturalis pag. 116. And to shew you that this is not done by Accident he hath made the Sun and Moon one Days Motion more than we do and therefore intended it for the 30th of May O. S. and yet he was born the Day before on the 29th So that this Man must be false beyond all Contradiction And yet to add to the Error he hath made it two Hours false in Time of the Day for he makes him to be born an Hour and an Half before Noon when indeed he was born half an Hour after it And this Nativity thus falsly printed he brings to prove his Rules of Astrology True that were New and Different from all others except his Master Confalonerius who I judge was the Inventor of that Method by them two used And do you think he did not take a hopeful Course to bring a false Nativity to contend with the Adversaries about the Truth of a Science in question I confess J. Gadbury in the Year 1659. printed this King's Nativity and made it after Ten Mane as this Man doth but then he did not err in the Day as our Author beforementioned hath done and yet no more serviceable than that done by the Italian which serves only to misguide the Students in each Country and of no use at all in any thing relating to that Prince Astrologically but as for that Printed by my Friend John he I am sure will disown it and tell you if asked it is two Hours false and that he was a very Novice in Astrology when he did it And yet when we consider things nearer home it may seem less wonderful how or why these Foreigners should be thus abused with false Informations from England when our own Authors abuse us too even about things of History For Example in the Birth of the late K. J. Baker's Chronicle Whitlock's Memoirs and England's Remembrancer all tell us he was born the 13th of October which is most notoriously false for he was born October 14th of a Monday 1633. and yet I have seen one or two Medals made at his Birth that said He was born the 15th of October Thus the Italians and other remote Countries are abused with false Nativities from England and I suppose you will not doubt but that all the Students in Astrology in Padua and the Countries thereabouts will contend warmly for the Truth of this Nativity of Charles II. relying on this Authority of their Countryman and Author and depending also on his Skill and Intelligence as sometimes we do here in England about the Truth of False Nativities from beyond Sea For Example Charles Gustavus King of Sweden Mr. J. Gad's old Lowsy Hermit Gregory Lopâ—z Michael Nostradamus with many others and sometimes about our own Countrymen's promoted by the Ignorant and believed by the Unskilful Among that number reckon Sir Frech Holles Sir Matthew Hales William Laud with many more too tedious to name Hence I do conclude That all Nativities left to Posterity and brought to prove the Art true ought to be nearly exact And so I come to examine those Three Principal Authors I mentioned and promised in my Opus Reformatum pag. 140 and I will begin first with Morinus and those Nativities Printed in his Astrologia Gallicâ— and brought to prove the Truth of Astrology and his Method I cannot call them Principles that he had learned and espoused Defectio Geniturarum The Second PART In which is