have thought likely to have wrought on any man.) And indeed so he doth also in plain terms concerning the latter, de Syxed: l. 1. c. 3. fateor me nondum illud aut eâ de re quicquam alibi legisse,p. 41. he never read that or any thing of that matter any where else. To which I adde, that if the place in Schickard be examined, it will acknowledge it to be a singular conceipt and invention of his, and nothing else. In his 5t. Chap. de Reg. Iud. he hath these words, ad diffe∣rentiam Samaritanorum addiderunt baptismum quendam de quo Raf. Alphes Tom. 2. p. 26. & ipse Talmud Mass. Jefamos fol. 47. citing the words at large in Hebrew. But in those words, though they are by Schickard applied indefinitely, as if they were the testification of the whole foregoing proposition, yet the reader shall find no syllable to that purpose of differencing from Samari∣tanes, more then from all other men, but onely that when a prose∣lyte is received he must be circumcised, and then when he is cured, they shall baptize him in the presence of two wise men, saying, Behold he is as an Israelite in all things, or if she be a woman, the women lead her to the waters &c. A plain testimony (to the sense of those which we formerly produced) of baptizing both Jews and proselytes (for else how could the pro∣selyte, upon receiving this, be said to be a Israelite in all things?) but no least intimation, that this was designed to distinguish them from Samaritanes peculiarly, but as that which was alwayes customarie among the Jews, at their entring into Covenant with God.And then the premises being so groundlesse and frivolous, I shall not sure be concerned in any conclusion that Mr. T. shall inferre from them, which it seems, is to be this, that notwithstan∣ding the Doctor's supposition that the whole fabrick of baptisme is discernible to be built on that basis, the customary practice among the Jews, yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recitall of passages out of Iewish writers. But Mr. T. would be much put to it, to shew in what mode and figure it is, that this conclusion is drawn out of these premisses: Certainly none that my Logick hath afforded me, for that hath no engine first to draw many out of two; nor 2. to inferre that those 0