When I read this I cannot but be astonished at the Doctor’s confidence, and applaud him who said, ἀμάθεια θάρσὸς φέρει. That the Doctor should never hear that ϛιγμὴ signifies _a mark with a hot iron_, is a manifest argument of his ignorance. But, that he should advise Mr. Hobbes not to believe his own readings, or any man’s else that should tell him it did signify any such thing, is a piece of notorious impudence. That ϛιγμὴ _signifies a distinctive point in writing made with a pen or quill_, (is a pen one thing and a quill another to write with?) nobody denies. But, it must be withal acknowledged it signifies many things else. I know the Doctor is a _good historian_, else he should not presume to object the want of history to another; let him tell us how long ago it is since men have made use of pens or quills in writing; for, if that invention be of no long standing, this signification must also be such, and so it could not be that from any allusion thereunto the mathematicians used it for a point. Another thing I would fain know of this great historian, how long ago ϛίζω and διαϛίζω began to signify _interpungo_? For, if the mathematics were studied before the mystery of printing was found out, (as shall be proved whenever it shall please the Doctor, out of his no reading, to maintain the contrary), then the _mathematical_ use thereof should have been named before the _grammatical_. And, if this word be translatitious, and that sciences were the effect of long contemplation, the names used wherein are borrowed from talk, Mr. Hobbes did well to say, that στιγμὴ precedaneously to that _indivisible_ signification which it afterwards had, did signify a _visible mark_ made by a hot iron, or the like. And, in this procedure, he did no more than any man would have done, who considers that all our knowledge proceeds from our senses; as also that words do, _primarily_, signify things obvious to _sense_, and only _secondarily_, such as men call _incorporeal_. This leads me to a further consideration of this word. Hesychius, (of whom it is said that he is _Legendus non tanquam Lexicographus, sed tanquam justus author_), interprets στιγμὴ, νυγμή, which is a point of a greater or lesser size, made with any thing. So ϛίζω signifies to prick or mark with anything in any manner, and hath no impropriated signification in itself, but according to the writer that useth it. Thus, in a _grammarian_ ϛίζω signifies to _distinguish_, by _pointing_ often; sometimes, even in them, it is the same with ὀβελίζω; sometimes it signifies to set a mark that something is wanting in that place, which marks were called ϛιγμαί. In matters of policy, ϛίζω signifies to _disallow_, because they used to put a ϛιγμὴ (not ϛίγμα) before his name who was either disapproved or to be mulcted. In punishment it signifies to _mark_ or _brand_, whereof I cannot at present remember any other ways than that of an _hot iron_, which is most usual in authors, because