252 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [aNNO 1705. 



calendar, often happens on March 21; and in that case the Sunday following 

 is always Easter-day by the table and practice; whereas it must be a month 

 after by the rule, unless we understand these words, [next after March 2 1 ] as 

 I explain them. And this will be the case next year (1706); nor does the 

 proof of this point need the supposition of the foregoing, (though that may 

 now be fairly supposed, as being already proved) for, count the full moon how 

 you will, March 22 can never be Easter-day by the rule, unless March '^1 may 

 be the paschal full moon by the same; and yet March 22 is Easter-day by the 

 paschal full moon by the table and practice, as often as the golden number is 

 16, and the dominical letter d. 



I am aware that this 2d observation may seem forced and unnatural; and 

 that perhaps might induce some to count the 15th day of the moon for the full 

 in the rule; and Mr. Thornton, Philos. Trans. 2y7, to substitute March 20, 

 in Leap-years, for March 21 ; neither of which Hypotheses, however, do any 

 service, all things considered. The former indeed would vacate my second 

 observation, March 21 never being the 15th day of the moon by the church 

 calendar; but then it would make the rule notoriously irreconcilable with the 

 table and practice, as has been already seen. And as to Mr. Thornton's Hy- 

 pothesis, 1, The only colour for it (viz. that at the time of the council of Nice 

 the vernal equinox was March 20 in Leap-years, and not March 21, as in 

 common years) is, for any thing that I know, more likely to be false than true, 

 and does by no means follow from the intercalation. 2. If this pretence were 

 true, it was probably too great a nicety to have been regarded by the church. 

 3. This hypothesis forces more the words of the rule than mine. And lastly, 

 if it were admitted, it would solve the difficulty only in Leap-years, and my 

 second observation would still remain necessary, because the case happens as 

 well in Common as in Leap-years ; whereof we have an example in the next 

 year (1706). Nor will my second observation be much questioned by such as 

 know and consider the inclusive way of reckoning used by the Romans, and 

 from them derived to all the Latin churches, and particularly that of England; 

 for it is as proper to say, next after March 21, with the meaning I contend 

 for, as to say, tertio (ante) calendas, nonas, vel idus, in the sense of the 

 Roman calendar; or as to say (as our church does a little after this rule for 

 Easter) that Ascension-day is 40 days after Easter, intending Easter-day itself 

 to be one of those 40. And it is observable in this very rule, that after it had 

 been said, that Easter-day is always the first Sunday after the full moon, &c. it is 

 added, that if the full moon falls on a Sunday, Easter-day is the Sunday after ; 

 which had been a gross tautology, if by the first Sunday after the full moon, 

 might not be understood the day of the full moon itself, when happening to be 



