4i6 M E M O 1 R S of the 
the reformation from the time of our Saviour had been much 
better j but lince the fathers of the council of Nice thought it 
better to look forwards than to look backwards 5 and to have a 
greater care of avoiding diftra^lions in the church, about the 
celebration of Eafter for the future, than to remedy paft 
errors 5 Mr. Greaves is of opinion we fhould do well, with the 
«hurch of Rome, to follow their example : And whereas fome 
have thought of a more exacl calculation than this emendation, 
introduced by pope Gregory the XIII. which they ground 
upon the late aftronomical obfervations of the learned 'Tycho 
^rahe-^ yet fince che difference is not fo great, as to make any 
fenfible error in many ages, and fince that error may be eafily 
correded by the omiflion of an intercalary day, he does not 
think it proper, for fo fmall a nicety, to make a new diifention 
in the church 5 much lefs is he of their opinion, who think that 
this correction of the year is therefore to be rejedled, becaule 
it comes recommended by the church of Roviie 5 which is all 
one as refufing to take fome wholefome potion, becaufc it is 
prelcribed by a phyfician, whofe manners we do not approve 
of 5 and thus far Mr. Greaves, agrees with Mr. IJee : But he 
cannot fubfcribe to his opinion, that this reformation ihould be 
made by ^he fubflra6tion of 10 days out of one year alone, for 
tho' he grants, that this were a quick cure of a lingering difeafe, 
yet it is againft all rules of art in curing one malady to make 
ten ; for t1ie defalcation of ten days in one year muft create 
endlefs difturbance in the commonwealth in all contradls, 
where neceflarily a-ccrtain time is defined : And therefore 
when Julius Ctefar the di<5lator corrected the Roman year by 
the help of the mathematician Sofigines, after this manner, that 
i% by fubftrafting offo many days 5 that year, in which that 
deduction was made was called by the OLnnents Annus Coiifufion is ^ 
by reafon of the great confufion and inconveniencies, which 
thereby happened; and Mr. Greaves doubts nor, but that the year 
1582, in which the defalcation often days was made by the bull 
orediftof pope Gregory, might alfo be juftly (tiled Annus Con- 
fufioiiis 3 fo that fuch examples as thefe are not to be imitated ; 
and therefore Mr. Greaves recommends that method which 
waslongfince propofcd by feveral able mathematicians to pope 
Gregory^ upon the firft notice of his purpofe of corredling the 
calendar ♦ viz. that for 40 years time there fliould be no bif- 
fexrile or intercalary, or as we call them, leap-years, inferred 
in the calendar; by which means it is moft evident, that 10 
days 
