THE LATIN SERVICE. 471
daice," tliat is, " In Hebrew/' 5. Some difference you suppose there was between the Assyrian and Syrian in " sound and name, though translators have not heeded to deliver it," when there was no agree- ment at all between them; but you say there was "more m nature," when there was none at all. ''1>"1^. H^?, " Lashon Arami, the tongue of Aram," Avas the language of Assyria, Ashur being but a colony of Aram. 6. So you think that Shibboleth and Sibboleth may differ more in " signi- fication than sound." But, pray, wdiat do you think is the significa- tion of ^?2p^ as the Ephraimites pronounced ^P^C^? Just as much as a word falsely pronounced signifieth, and no more, — that is, of itself just nothing at all; for ^?^9, " Sibboleth," is no Hebrew word, but merely ^^3*^, " Shibboleth," falsely pronounced. 7. You imagine that the language spoken by Christ and his apostles was the same that was spoken in the days of Hezekiah ; and this you would prove, from those words, " Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," to be that which is now commonly called Sjnriac, and fancy an Assyrian tongue, as much dif- fering from it as French differs from Enghsh : which manifests your skill in the oriental languages ; for want whereof I do not blame you, for what is that to me? But I cannot take it well that you should choose me out to trouble me with talking about that which you do not understand ; for here you give us two languages, the Syriac and Ass}T:iac, which names in the original differed but little in sound, but the languages themselves did as much in nature as French and English. And the Syriac, you tell us, was that which is now so pe- culiarly called ; but what the Assyriac was you tell us not, but only that when the princes persuade Rabshakeh to speak ^T'P'J^^., " Aramith," they intended an Assyrian language that was not Syrian. The boys that grind colours in our grammar schools laugh at these " mormoes." 8. Neither do you know well what you say when you affirm that the language of Christ and his apostles was the same that was ever since called the Syriac ; for the very instance you give manifests it to have been a different dialect from it, — the words, as recorded by the evan- gelists, being absolutely the same neither with the Hebrew, nor Tar- gum, nor Syriac translation of the Old Testament; that wherein we have the translation of the Scripture, and which prevailed in the eastern church, being a peculiar Antiochian dialect of the old Ara- mean tongue. And that whole language called the Syiiac peculiarly now, and whereof there were various dialects of old, seems to have had its beginning after the Jews' return from their captivity, being but a degenerate mixture of the Hebrew and Chaldee; whereinto, also, after the prevalency of the Macedonian empire, many Greek words were admitted, and some Latin ones also afterward. 9. You advantage not yourself by affimiing that Assyria and Syria were several kingdoms; for, as Strabo will inforai you, they were both
472 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
originally called SjTfian, and, indeed, were one and the same until the more eastern provinces about Babylon obtaining their peculiar deno- minations, that part of Asia which contains Comagena, Phoenicia, Palestina, and Coelo-syria became to be especially called Syria. Ori- ginally they were all Aramites, as every one knows that can but read the Scripture in its original language.
And now I suppose you may see how little you have advantaged yourself or your cause by this maze of mistakes and contradictions ; for no error can be so thick covered with others but that it will rain through. The Jews you suppose to have lost their own language in the days of Hezekiah, and to have spoken Syriac ; the Syrian and Assyrian to have been languages as far distant as French and English ; that when the princes entreated Kabshakeh to speak the Syrian lan- guage, ^''P~t^, they intended not the Syrian language, which was in- deed the Jews', but the Assyrian, quite differing from it; and so, when they desired him not to speak ^"'I'l'T!, but JT'P"}^, you suppose them to have desired him not to speak in the Jews' language, but to speak in the Jews' language, which you say was the Syriac. And sundry other no less unhappy absurdities have you amassed together.
But you will retrieve us out of this labyiinth by a story of what a Greek bishop did and said at Paris in the presence of Dr Cousins, now bishop of Durham; how he refused the articles of the English church, and did all things according to the Roman mode ; asserting the use of liturgies in the vulgar Greek. Unto which I shall say no more but that it was at Paris, and not at Durham.
"Grseculus esuriens, in coelum jusseris, ibit." — Juv. iii. 78.
I have myself known some eminent members of that church in England, two especially, — one many years ago, called. Conopius, who, if I mistake not, upon his return obtained the honour of a patri- archate, being sent hither by the then patriarch of Constantinople ; the other not many years ago, called Anastatius Comnenus, archi- mandrite, as his testimonials bespake him, of a monastery on mount Sinai. Both these, I am sure, made it their business to inveigh against your church and practices, having the arguments of Nilus against your supremacy at their fingers' ends. And if the Greek church and you are so well agreed as you pretend, why do you cen- sure them as heretics and schismatics, and receive only some few of them who are runagates from their own tents ? What may those whom you proclaim to be your enemies expect from you, when you deal thus severely with those whom you give out to be your friends? But as for this matter of the Scripture, and prayers in an unknown tongue, they transgress not with so high a hand as you do, the old Greek being not so absolutely remote from the present vulgar as