most practised by the ancients. But, that the mark which the _Turks_ and others do imprint without burning may be said ϛίζεσθαι, I do not doubt, no more than that Herodian did to give that term to the ancient Britons, of whom he says, τὰ σώματα ἐϛίζοντο γραφαῖς ποικίλαις, καὶ ζώων παντοδαπῶν εἰκόσι. Thus, horses that were branded with κάππα and σαν (κοππἀτιαι and σαμφοραι) were said ϛίζεσθαι. Thus, in its origin, ϛιγμὴ doth signify a _brand or mark with an hot iron_, or the like; and that must be the proper signification of στιγμὴ, which is proper to ϛίζω, none but such as Dr. Wallis can doubt. In its _descendants_ it is no less evident, for, from στιγμὴ comes _stigmosus_, which signifies to be branded; _Vitelliana cicatrice stigmosus_, not _stigmatosus_. So Pliny in his Epistles, as Robert Stephen cites it. And στιγματιας (the derivative of στιγμὴ, which signifies any mark, as well as a brand, even such as remain after stripes, being black and blue), was a nickname imposed upon the grammarian Nicanor, ὅτι περὶ στιγμῶν ἐπολυλόγησε. And, though we had not any examples of στῖγμὴ being used in this sense, yet, from thence, for any man to argue against it, (but he who knows no more than Stephen tells him) is madness, unless he will deny that any word hath lost its right signification, and is used only, by the authors we have, although neither the Doctor nor I have read all them, in its analogical signification. I have always been of opinion, that στιγμὴ signified a _single point_, big or little, it matters not; and στίγμα, a _composure of many_; as γραμμὴ signifies a _line_, and γράμμα a _letter_, made of several lines. For στίγμα signified the _owl_, the _sæmæna_, the letter K, yea, _whole words, lines, epigrams_ engraven in men’s faces; and στιγμὴ, I doubt not, had signified _a single point_, had such been used, and so it became translatitiously used by grammarians and mathematicians. I could give grounds for this conjecture, and not be so impertinent as the Doctor in his sermon, where he told men that σοφός was not in Homer; that from ἄφρων came _ebrius_; that _sobrietas_ was not bad Latin, and that _sobrius_ was once, as I remember, in Tully. Is this to speak suitably to the oracles of God, or rather to lash out into idle words? Hath the Doctor any ground to think these are not impertinences? Or, are we, poor mortals, accountable for such _idle_ words as fall from us in private discourses, whilst these ambassadors from heaven _droll_ in the pulpit without any danger of an after-reckoning?