414 M E M O I R S ^/'/^i? 
the intercalation of P^/'TZ/^ry 29, and thenceforth go on witk 
the Gregorian account, the laft of which leap-years would be 
1744.J bur if we begin, as is fuggefted, at the year 1700, the 
laft of thefe eleven years muft be 1740, not 17445 this is the 
fame expedient that was, during the civil wars, iuggefted at 
Oxford in thd year 1545 5 viz. that from thence forward, we 
fhould omit 10 fuch intercalations 5 againft which there feems 
to the Dr. to be this great objet^ion 5 viz. in the time of yulius 
and yduguftiiS Ccejcir, there was a year, which was called ^nnus 
Confufionis^ and which happened upon the fettling, unfcttling 
and refettling the Julian year; and the like happened in the 
year 1582, when pope Gregory did at once ftrike out 10 days 
of that year ; but would this advice take place, we would 
now inflead of one Annus Confufionis^ have a confufion for 44 
years together, wherein we fliouid neither agree with the old 
nor with the new account 5 but be fometimes 10 days, fome- 
times nine, fometimes eight, ^c. later than the one, and fooner 
than the other account ^ and a foreigner would not be able to 
judge of an Engiip date, without knowing in which of thefe 
years we vary ic, nine, or eight, ^c. days from either of thefe ac- 
counts, and this for 44 years ; which feems to the Dr. a much 
greater confufion, than if, as in 1582, we (hould once for all 
call out II days, but he does not think it advifeable to do 
either. 
If it be thought neceflary to re6lify the feat of Bafier^ 
that may eafily be done, without altering the civil year 5 for 
if in the rule for £^y?er, inftead of faying next after the one and 
twentieth of Marcb^ you fay next after the vernal equinox, the 
work is done, and we might be excufed the trouble of pafchal 
tables, and the intricate perplexities of the Gregorian epafls 5 
for then every almanac would inform, when it is the equinox, 
and when full moon for the prefent year, without dilturbing 
the civil account 5 and this pope Gregory might have done as 
well, without diflurbing the accounts o{ Chriftendom-., but if he 
muft needs dillurb the civil year, he fhould have re£lified it, 
not to the time of the Nicene council, but to that of the birth 
of Chrift : And it is mofl certain, that at our Saviour's birth; 
the vernal equinox was not on the 21ft 6f March, as the new 
account fuppofes, but nearer to the 25th. 
ARe^ 
