ADDENDA.

PAGE 216, Line 22. Infert this Paragragð.

But tho' 7th Kalend fhould be before 6th Kalend, it does not therefore follow that Biffextus fhould be before Primo-Sextus. When we write 7 Kalend, 6 Kalend, we do not mean the 7th Kalends, and 6th Kalends, but the 7th Day before the Kalends of March, the 6th Day before the Kalends of March. And this is natural and agreeable to the true Order of Things. For the 7th Day before the Kalends of March, muft in real Series of Time be paft and gone, before the 6th can poffibly be come. But, if we fuppofe a Dies Biffextus before the Kalends, while there hath not yet been a Dies Primo-Sextus, this is quite contrary to Nature, and the Order of Time. It is to fay a Thing may be twice before it hath been once. When I fay the Computation of the Kalends is retrogradous, I only mean that the Figures denoting the Days before the Kalends are fet in a retrogradous Or der, but ftill in fuch an Order as is agreeable to the true courfe of Time. Bis dicitur fexto Kalend, fays Clavius. Sure we must first fay, or write fimply fexto Kalend on the 24th Day, be fore we can fay, or write Biffextus Kalend on the 25. And Biffextus is but another Name for the Intercalary Day.

Am forry to have any Difference with the Learned Mr. Wheatly; but fince in fome Points I cannot think as he does, I fhall in as few Words as I can, offer my Reasons to the contrary.

I have afferted that all proper Feafts were of old efteemed to begin at Vefpers, or fix a Clock in the preceding Evening. And this is fo cer tain, that no one does, or can deny it. I have obferved that on this foot it might justly be faid in the Eve to the Purification, Chrift was this Day prefented in the Temple. Mr. Wheatly excepts against this, becaufe this Collect is now commonly ufed before fix a Clock on the Eve to the Purification. And he adds, bis Judgment is, that the Day, meaning the Holy-Day, does not now begin at Vefpers. Therefore the Queftion between us, is fimply this, Whether very ancient Forms of Prayer made many hnndred Years before the Refor mation, (fuch is the Collect for the Purificati on) may best be interpreted by the Notions and Practices of the Men of this Age, or of thofe who lived when thofe Forms were compos'd.

I agree with Mr. Wheatly, that St. Matthias is to be kept on February 24. on Leap-Years, as well as others. But I have affirmed the 25th to be the Biffextile or Intercalary-Day: because there cannot be a fecond Sixth, before there hath been a firft Sixth. I have been told that the two fix Kalends are to be reckon'd backwards. But the old Computifts reckon'd the

25th Day to be the latter of the two Sixths, according to the known Verfe, Pofteriore die celebrantur Fefta Matthie: and yet they reckon'd by the Kalends, not by our English Account. The foregoing Verfe fhews this, viz. Biffextum fexta Martis tenuere Kalenda. But farther, in Cowel's Interpreter, at the Word Biffext.we have a Statute, 21 Henry III cited in these Words, The Day encreafing in the Leap-Year, and the Day going next before, fhall be accounted but one Day. The two Days to be accounted but one, are on all Hands agreed to be the 24th and 25th. Therefore, by this Statute the 25th is the Encreafing, or Intercalary Day. But the Revifors of the Common-Prayer-Book in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, made the 23d and 24th, the two Days to be accounted one. How does that appear? Why, because they appointed the fame Pfalms, and Leffons for both Days. I anfwer, fo did our first Reformers in King Edward's Reign, appoint the fame Pfalms and Leffons for the 25th and the 26th Day. Both thefe Rubricks are now expunged, but the Statute remains in full Force. And while they stood in the Book, they proved nothing as to the Point in hand. To argue from either of these Rubricks against the Statute, is to argue from what is obfcure, and utterly uncertain, against what is plain and evident. I am not concerned to affert that the old Heathen Romans did fo reckon. That I leave in medio.

Mr. Wheatly would have February 29th, to be now with us the Intercalary Day, and therefore expungeth the 2d 4, and 2d 6 Kalend Atanding against February 25. on the Leap-Year,

and

and will put Letter C with Prid. Kalend, both to February 28th and 29th. By this means we fhall have a Biffextile Year without Bifextile Kalend. And instead thereof we fhall have a Bif. Prid. Kalend. I need fay no more.

Tho' St. Matthias's Day be placed at Feb. 25th in two Editions of the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, viz. in the Years 1585, and 1601, and perhaps in others not yet difcovered; and in five or fix Editions between her Reign, and the great Rebellion, fo that I had fome grounds for what I had faid on this Point; yet I acknowledge I was too haftily led into an Opinion, that it was fo fix'd by Authority. The worthy Mr. Wheatly, who informed me of the Book of 1585, aut circiter, that places St. Matthias on the 25th, and of feveral other Books of King James's and King Charles's Reign, which do the fame, hath with all obferved, that the proper Leffons for St. Matthias's Day do even in thefe Books ftand against February 24. And I find his Obfervation holds in all the Books which I have feen. Therefore I thank Mr. Wheatly, and other Friends, for convincing me that this was only an Erratum of the Prefs.

As for ipfo facto Cenfures, Mr. Wheatly will inform the Reader in an Affument of his own, relating to these Matters, (which with my free Confent he inferts into this Book,) how near he comes to me in this Point, yet he still infifts, that "a Man cannot be treated as Excommu"nicate, before he is actually convicted, and

declared to be Excommunicate." But Lyndwood informs us, that the Doctrine of the Cano

nifts was directly contrary to this, (De Sentent. Excom. c. præterea. v. cum Excommunicatis, pag. 352.) If the Excommunication be wholly bidden, fo that it cannot be proved, as becaufe one Man only knows it, (whereas the Law requires two Witneffes to every Fact,) then be ought to avoid the Party in private, tho' not in publick. But if the Excommunication be publick, because the Man bath been publickly denounced, or judicially convicted, or is fo Excommunicated, that he may be convicted, (there being two, or more Witneffes to the Fact,) then every one that knows it, ought to avoid him...... And obferve, that a Man is faid to know another to be Excommunicated, when he fees him frike a Clerk in a Cafe forbidden by Law; or to do any thing, by which Excommunication is incurred, ipfo facto. Now if a Man is to be a voided as already Excommunicated, who may be convicted of the Fact, whereby he incurred that Cenfure, tho' the Offender was not yet actually convicted; nay, if the one only Man, who knew the Fact, was to avoid him in pri vate, tho' he was uncapable of being convicted for want of fufficient Evidence, then I think it indifputably clear, that he, who had committed a Fact, by which fuch Excommunication was incurr'd, was not only Excommunicate, but treated as Excommunicate before he was convicted. By inevitable Confequence, if a Curate and his Parishioners did know any Perfon to abfent himself from Church, and go to Schifmatical Meetings, they were to treat him as Excommunicate, both living and dying, upon Suppofition, that ipfe facto Excommunica