THE LATIN SERVICE. 469
themselves. All your plea ariseth from the practice of some who, through ignorance or negligence, provided not for the good and ne- cessity of the churches of Christ, when, through the changes and confusions that happened in the world, the Greek and Latin tongues ceased to be vulgar; which how many thousand years ago it was, you may calculate at your next leisure. This is that which in them we blame, and in you much more, because you will follow them after you have been so frequently admonished of your miscarriage there- in; for you add to your sin by making that which was neglect in them wilful choice in you, commanding that not to be done which they only omitted to do.
But you will not leave this matter. You told us in your " Fiat " that " neither jMoses, nor any after him, did take care to have the Scripture turned into Syriac." I desired to know why they should, seeing Hebrew was their vulgar tongue, and the Syriac unknown unto them; which I proved from the saying of the princes of Hezekiah, when they desired Rabshakeh to " speak unto them in Syriac, which they understood, and not in the Jews' language in the hearing of the people," to affright and trouble them. This I did for your satisfac- tion, the thing itself being absolutely out of question, and not in the least needing any proof amongst those who understand any tiling of this business. But you yet attempt to revive your first mistake, and to say somewhat unto the instance whereby it was rectified; but with your usual success. Will you, therefore, be pleased to hear yourself talk, you know not what, in this matter once more ? Thus, then, you proceed : — " Sir, you are mistaken ; for the tongue the princes persuaded Rabshakeh to speak was the Assyrian, his own language, — which was learned by the gentry in Palestine, as we in England leam the French, — which, although by abbreviation it be called Syriac, yet it differed as much from the Jews' language which was spoken by Christ and his apostles (whereof " Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is a joart), and was ever since that time called Syrian or Syriac, as French differs from English. And if you would read attentively, you may suspect, by the very words of the text, that the Jews' language even then was not the Hebrew: for it had been a shorter and plainer expression, and more answerable to their custom so to call it, if it had been so, than, by a paraphrase, to name it ' The Jews' language;' which if then it was called Syrian, as afterward it was, then had the princes reason to call it rather the Jews' language than Syrian, be- cause that and the Ass3T:ian differed more in nature than appella- tion, though some difference doubtless there was in the very word and name, although translators have not heeded to deliver it. Shib- bolet and Sibbolet may differ more in signification than sound; nor is British and brutish so near in nature as they are in name. And
470 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
who knows not tliat Syria and Assyria were several kingdoms, as likewise were the languages?"
I had much ado at first to understand what it is that you would have in this discourse; and no wonder, for I am sure you do not understand yourself. And I am persuaded that if you knew how many prodigies you have poured out in these few lines, you would be amazed at the l^roduct of your own imagination. For, — 1. You yet again suppose Syriac to have been the vulgar language of the Jews in the days of Hezekiah, a thing that never fell upon the fancy of any man before you, being contrary to express Scripture in the testimony before re- cited, and all the monuments of those days, wherein the sermons of the prophets unto the people are recorded in the purest Hebrew; neither had the people as yet been carried captive out of their own land, or been mixed with strangers, so as to have lost their language, as you imagine, unless you think that indeed the Hebrew was never their vulgar tongue. 2. You suppose the Syrian and Assyrian at that time to have been different languages, whereof those who under- stood the one understood not the other, when they were but one and the same, called ''^~^. f^^, " The tongue of Aram;" neither was there ever any other difference between the language of the Assyrians or Chaldeans, and that which was afterward peculiarly called Syriac, but in some few words and various terminations: and how far this differed from the Jews' language you have an instance in the names given by Jacob and Laban to the same heap of mtness, Gen xxxi. 47, the one calling it 1I?^a, " Galeed," the other, «nnnty nr^ " Jggar- sahadutha;" neither was it at all understood by the common j^eople of the Jews, Jer. v. 15. 8. You suppose that in the language wherein Kabshakeh and the princes conferred, their Syriac was an abbrevia- tion of Assyriac, because in sound it was so near the other that they would have him speak in ; so that the Jews, speaking Syriac, when the princes desired Rabshakeh to speak Syriac, they meant another language, as much differing from that as French from English. But you are in the dark, and know not how you wander up and down to no purpose. There is nothing of the words that you pretend to be an abbreviation the one of the other in the text ; nor is there any such relation between them as you imagine, that they should be near in sound, though not in nature. Eliakim entreats Rabshakeh that he would speak nvpnx^ " Aramith, Aramice;" that is, as the Greeks and Latins express that people and language " Syriace," in Syriac, — that he would speak the language of Aram ; which language was spoken also by "^^^i}, the king and people of Assyria. And truly ^1^,, "Aram, "is no abbreviation of 11^5?, " Ashur," as I suppose. 4. You talk of the length of that expression, " In the Jews' lan- guage," when there is nothing in the text but ^''l^'"'^, " Jehudith, Ju-