Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1862-06-11
date in his Old Style table, which are G.

date in his Old Style table, which are G.
F.; it being leap year. Now count IL
| letters, Zone for each day ) in alphabetical
order, beginning after G, thus A, Il, c,
D, Z, F, G, A, B, c, y, which is IL The
two la st will be the Dcminical letters il
the New Style, but they must have their
order inverted, thus: d, c.; which agrees
with his New Style table And in this
way you may find how many days the
Styles differ in any date subsequent to
the year b. c. 700 Before that you have
to add to the Netc to find the Old, or sub
tract from the Old to find the New. But
all this trouble might be obviated by a
glance at my tables which have prepared
for that purpose. These ars the tables
that Mr. Thurman has been inquiring
after
Had there hare bean no time prior to
the Nicene council, when the Styles were
even, there would have been, according
to Fergus n S own showing, q difference
of 33 days at that time. But according
to his own tables there was difference Of
| but days in the first century A. D.
would therefore ask MIR Thurman, (and
any one is at ibsrty to answer, when did
that difference commence at creation, or
at B. C. 100, or at what time
And again: To what number Of days
had that difference amounted when the
Nicere council rectifed the calendar" to
33, or only to s.? Or for what purpose
was it rectifed? q suppose Mr.. Thur
man cannot answer these questions, as he
council ever did rectify the calendar)
But | will proceed If the difference
in the Styles was in the first century,
aud increased three days in every four
centuries, would il not be a. the time of
the Council of Nice Try counting the
alphabet again, and see Ferguson's old
Style table gives G for the Dominica let
ter of A. ID. 325, while his New Style ia
bic gives D for the same date Now,
begin after {, thus: d, f, f, G, A, b, c,
| d, which count s; the difference then
betwixs the Styles. But one who is not
skilled in these matters might say, that
we should have stopped at the first D,
making the count but one; but we must
recollect that the calendar had not then
been rectifed and whereas the count in
tho preceding century was l. it should be
| inclusive. But IN the next century, after
the calendar had been reetified, whe1. we
count from d (of 425) to f Of the same
date in the other style, that counts but
one, there being then a difference of but
one betwixt the Styles.
Now, to sum the whole matter up, Fer
| guson's calculation of the anticipation of
the equinoxes would have been right, so
far as know, had he have commenced
his calculations at the right time But
5afys a shs t d 81 Rf6e Il days and that
for which reason there should have been
| a subtraction Of for that difference, as
| well as for the difference which accu-
mulated from the setting of the calendar
TO 1906, making in all, subtraction of 10
| days from his a, leaving 25, instead of
33 days for the difference in the STYLES
when traced back to creation, as l said
before. Fergusons error was not in his
| figures, but in his overlooking the days
of anticipation which had accrued at the
time the council, according to his own
words, rectiisd the calendar" and that
anticipation was the only cause Of their
rectifying it
Whoever denies this theory Of mine,
that is, that there was a difference Of s
days, and days only, in the Styles, at the
time of the Nicene council, must admit
that there was difference Of 33 DAYS at
that time. Ferguson only allowing sup
preston, Gas he terms it, of IL nominal
days in 5763 years, in which time he saws
the equinoxes had anticipated Al days
And l cannot help thinking that whoever
chooses that side, chooses the harder one
| Now if Mr.. Thurman can discorer" to
me wherein l have made such a large
mistake will be much obliged to him
JOHN MATTHEW'S.
| BAsoo, Illinois, April 10th, 1862