on a Barn in Kent, &c..

was his comment " Where inflead of 4 we have the fame figure reverfed ; but either of them doth equally agree to what was the old fhape of this figure X. And the difference of it from what we now ufe, doth rather confirm the antiquity than give us any caufe to doubt of its being genuine. And this infcriptioa being but feven years later than that on the mantle tree (at Helmdon), they do mutually confirm each other." But befides that there does not ap- pear to be any refemblance between the 4 proper or reverfed, and X, the then exigence of any fuch date added to the infcription, is> queftionable. In the fame page of his Additions and Emendations Dr.Wallis has cited a book printed at Hamburgh in 16*14, to mew that a mixture of Latin numerals and Arabic figures cannot feem ftrange.. But the firfl book that was printed would not be admiffible evi- dence in this cafe, without authenticating the date of the MS. from which it was printed, and this the doclor had allowed, as will ap- pear from the annexed extracts, whilft he was remarking on a MS.. of Boethius, and on an ancient MS. treatife of ecclefiaftical compu- tation []. [] Treatife of Algebra, p. 9. " I know that in the editions which we now have of Boetius, Bede, and other ancient authors, thefe figures are now frequently ufed: but I do not believe they were found in the ancient manufcript copies from whence thefe printed copies were taken ; but, in thofe, all their numbers were exprefled by the Latin numeral letters (and in divers ancient manufcripts I have fo feen it), and therefore I do not bring thofe as an argument of their antiquity, nor do I believe they were in ufe (in thefe weftern parts) when thefe authors were firft written." I findi thefe figures alfo ufed in an ancient treatife of ecclefiaftical computation, in verfe, called. Mafle Computi, of which I have feen divers copies in MS. and I think it is alfo printed, which he fays was written in 1200. But though we may from hence gather the age of this work to have been about the year 1200, yet I confefs it doth not from hence follow certainly that they were then in ufe ; however, we now find them in fome of" thofe copies which we have, for it is poflible that in the firft original, the numbers hcrar