C 355 3 
E^tfier^ inftead of faying next after the One ani Twentieth 
of March , you fay , next after the Vernal Equinox . the 
work is done. ( And we might be excufed the trouble 
of Pafchal Tahles ^ and the intricate Perplexities of the 
Gregorian Epacfs. ) For thea every Almanack will tell 
you, Ffhen it is Equinox ^ and when it is F(4l£ Moon^ 
for the pre fen t year 5 (without difturbiog the Civil 
Account;. ) And this Vofe Gregory might as weli have 
done, without troubling the Account of Chriftendomo 
But, if he would needs difturb the Ciml Year ^ He 
fliould have redified it (not to the time of th^Nicene 
Council^ but ) to the time of our saviours Birth. For 
our Epocha is not from the Nicene Council^ but from, the 
Birth of Chrifi. We do not fay. Anno Niuni ConcUii • 
hut Anno Domini. And moft certain it is, that, at our 
Saviour^s Birth^ the Vernal Equinox , was not on the 
Dne and Twentieth of March , ( as this New Account 
would fuppofe, ) but nearer to the Five and T wentleth. 
It is alledged as an Argument, why Ngw to change, 
becaufe the difference, which this Year is but Ten Days^ 
will next Year be Eleven Days. 
But, My Lord, we muft be very weak Difputants, to 
be caught by fuch a Fallacy, ( which is barely begging 
the Queftion. ) The Point in Queftion, is not why Nowi^ 
but ivhy at all. It is not We that have departed from 
them, but They from Us. The JWm/? Year was their 
Year, as well as Ours, till the year 15 82* when a 
Fancy took Pope Gregory to Exchange a Better year 
for a Worfe, and difturb the Chriftian World. And 
then the Argument (if it fignifie any thing) ftands 
thus ; The farther they he gone afiray • the more 
reajon there is that we fhoi^ld follow thern^ I fliould rather 
argue , The more Reafon there is why They (henld return' 
(to that from whence they w^ent aftray,^ we are as 
we were , (and as They were till that time, ) And the 
■ iGgg ^ reafoci 
