Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Days from the other; whereas before 1700, it was only ten before ours.

According to the old Roman Calculation, the 25th was looked upon as the Intercalary Day, and from thence the Leap-Year was called Bilfextile, viz. because there were two Days cal led the fixth Day of the Kalends of March, the 24th was Sextus Calendarum, the 25th Bif fextus. Some have fuppofed, that therefore every Leap-Year, the Feast of St. Matthias, who was, as it were, intercalated among the Apoftles, is to be obferved on the old Intercalary Day, viz. the 25th. Some Almanack-makers do fo place it: But I remember that Archbifhop Sancroft publifh'd his Refcript againft them for this Practice, A. D. 1683, declaring that the Feast of St. Matthias was always to be kept on the 24th, and Micrologus de Ecclefiafticis obfervationibus c. 47. (a Book written in the 11th Century) directs this Feaft to be kept on the 24th Day on the Leap-Year. The Learned Author of a finall Tract, Entituled, The true Time of keeping St. Matthias's Day, attempts to prove, that according to the old Computus it fhould on fuch Years be kept on the 25th; but in an Appendix confeffes that our Rule has fixed it to be conftantly obferved on the 24th. And indeed Archbishop Sancroft was the Perfon, who was moft capable of deciding this Queftion, for he was principally concerned in regulating the Calendar in Convocation, A. D. 166. Durandus intimates, that it was indifferent whether it were kept on the 24th or 25th in the Leap-Year. Rationale L. 8. c. 3. fect. 17.

In

In the Year 1719 was published at Oxford, a very ingenious Treatife, written by the late Memorable Dr. Wallis, concerning St. Matthias-Day; by which we have confiderable Light given us into the Ecclefiaftical Computus. He has, beyond all doubt, proved that the Church Account of Time is, and ever was, made in the Western Church by the Kalends, Nones, and Ides; not by the vulgar numbring of the Days of the Month, 1, 2, 3, &c. and that the Feaft of St. Matthias had for many Ages paft, before the Reformation, been kept (in the LeapYear) on the 25th of Febr. (according to the vulgar Account.) I have an Almanack in a printed Portiforium fecundum ufum Sarum, which confirms the Doctor's Notion. For in a Rubric at 5 Kal. Martii, or February 25. it fays, Si Biffextus fuerit, quartâ die a Cathedra Sti. Petri (that is, 8 Kal. Mart. or Febr. 22.) Inclufive fiat Feftum Sti. Matthiæ, & F.Litera bis numeretur. Yet I cannot but wonder that the Doctor fhould affirm the 24th to be the Intercalary, or Infitious Day on the Leap-Year, as he does, pag. 6, 8, 14. Nay, he fays, pag. 5. and elfewhere, that the faid Intercalary Day, is between the 6th and 7th Kal. of March. He certainly meant between the 6th and 5th: The 24th is always the 6th Kal. on Leap-Year as well as others, the 25th is the 5th Kal. on the common Year, the Biffextus on the Leap-Year, and therefore most affuredly the Intercalary Day. The Letter F is to be repeated, not by putting it first to the 23d, and then again to the 24th, but by putting it firft to the 24th, then to the 25th, and the 6th Kal. goes along

with the Letter F. It is abfurd to fuppofe, that the first 6 Kal, which is Febr. 24th fhould be Biffextus, and the 25th fimply Sextus. Primo-Sextus muft of neceffity precede Biffextus. And Biffextus is but another Word for the Intercalary Day. The Mistake feems to have arifen from the Doctor's forgetting that the Computation of the Kalends is retrogradous. I mean, forgetting it at the precife Minute that he mention'd the 6th and 7th. If he had indeed believed that it was between thofe Days, and had not a failure in Memory, he would have faid the 7th and 6th, becaufe here the 7th is before the 6th. And the happieft Memories, with the greatest Knowledge, cannot fecure Men against fuch Laples. The Doctor's own Author, Clavius, with whofe Citation he ends his Book, corrects him in this Point. His Words are, In anno Biffextili Feftum Sti. Matthiæ celebratur 25 Februarii, 8 bis dicitur fexto Kalendas, id eft, Die 24, & Die

25.

Yet the Reformers in Q. Elizabeth's Time, feem to have thought the 24th the Intercalary Day. For they give this Direction, "When "the Years of our Lord may be divided into "four even Parts, then the Sunday Letter leap"eth; and that Year the Pfalms and Leffons "which ferve for the 23 Day of February 1hall "be read again the Day following, except it "be Sunday, which hath proper Leffons.

See

the Order how the rest of Holy Scripture is ap pointod to be read in Q. Elizabeth's CommonPrayer-Book. This Miftake was probably feen by our Reviewers at the Reforation, therefore

they

they ftruck it out. But it is obfervable that the Obfervation of St. Matthias's Day was not fix'd, as at prefent, to the 24th of Feb. by the Kalendars of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. There fore not only Dr. Wallis (pag. 7.) but the laft Writer on this Subject (pag. 251.) is mistaken, when they fay, That St. Matthias's Day was always the 24th. So is the latter, when he fays, the Dominical Letter is not chang'd till

Feb.

29, and that the Dominical Letter for the 28th, is repeated on the 29th, contrary to the known ftated Rule. Upon the whole, I fee no Argument to prove that it was not the Intenti. on of the Reviewers of the Liturgy, to depart in this Point from the old Computus. But rather am inclin'd to fuppofe, that as St. Matthias's Day from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign to the Rebellion, had been variously af figned, viz. fometimes on the 24th, fometimes on the 25th, fo for the future it fhou'd be always on the 24th, as it was in the XIth Century, according to Micrologus: And that this was the Defign of the Reviewers. Therefore I fhou'd think I had reafon to adhere to the Emendation made by my venerable Patron, Archbishop Sancroft, in this Point, had not Dr. Wallis affur'd us, that the Archbishop, by the Difcourfe of him felf, and others on this Subject, was fatisfy'd "it was his Miftake; and that if he had con tinu'd Archbishop, and in good Circumftances, 'till another Leap-Year, he would have revers'd his former Order, and directed the Almanacks 'to be printed as formerly."

[blocks in formation]

Many have wifhed that our Computation were rectify'd, and several Ingenious Men have propofed their feveral Methods of doing it. Some would have the Year reduced to the fame ftate it was in at the time of Julius Cæfar. Others would ftop at the Birth of Chrift, and others are for looking back no farther than the Time of the Council of Nice; and fo conforming our Stile to that of the generality of our Neighbours; as the Proteftant States of Germany did at the turn of the laft Century; but yet in fuch a manner, that they fhew'd they judged for themselves, and did not blindly fol low the Infallible Guide at Rome: Their Conclufions were not altogether the fame with thofe of Pope Gregory, and the Mediums they used were very different, and yet their Account in the main will agree with the Gregorian; only if the Pafchal Full Moon happen on a Saturday, the Gregorian Kalendar makes the next Sunday Eafter, the Germans the Sunday fe’night,

It is on all hands allowed, That our Pafchal Calculations need a Review. "Tis commonly faid, that fome Years we obferve two Eafters: as for Inftance; in the Year beginning Ladyday 1705, and ending 1706, we had an Eafter Apr. 8. and another Mar. 24. but then the following Year, viz. between Lady day 1706, and Lady-day 1707, there was no Eafter kept: But on the other fide, if we reckon our Year from one Vernal Equinox to another, which is certainly the most Natural Computation, then even, according to our prefent Account, we have one Eafter in every Year, and no more. Dr. Wallis has propofed a fhort and plain Rule

for

« PreviousContinue »