and more accurate computation, Ireland was unconscious of the change, and continued in the old way. They also followed the rule that when the fourteenth moon fell on a Sunday, Easter might be kept on that day, whereas the Romans, following the Nicene canon, held that it should not be kept until the Sunday following. The matter involved no doctrine, except indirectly the authority of Rome; but as it led to the keeping of the great Christian feast at different times—the two computations sometimes differing by nearly a month—it was a diversity of use that was very apparent, and prevented union in worship more than other differences of much greater importance would have done.
When the matter came to be argued there was an astonishing amount of ignorance or dishonesty displayed. For example, the Roman missionaries charged the Irish with the quartadeciman heresy, This was either a mistake or a misrepresentation. The quartadeciman controversy was, it is true, about the time when the feast of Easter ought to be held, but it had no concern as to the particular cycle which should be employed. The Romans also boldly claimed the authority of Saint Peter for the cycle first put forward by Victorius in the year 463. The Irish, on their part, claimed the authority of Saint John for the cycle of Anatolius. In this they probably were partly right. It is very likely that this was the cycle actually used by Saint John; but the subject is one on which we have little authentic information.
It may seem strange to us that a question like this, which after all was astronomical rather than theological, could have been regarded as of such immense importance. But when we remember how often some outward act, indifferent in itself, may
