A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

But you will not leave this matter; you told us in your Fiat, that neither Moses, 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 satisfaction, the thing its self being absolutely out of question, and not in the least needing any proof amongst those who understand any thing 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 your self talk you know not what in this matter once more? Thus then you proceed, Sir you are mistaken, for the longue the Princes persuaded Rabshakeh to speak was the Assyrian, his own language which was learned by the Gentry in Palestine, as we in England learn the French; which although by abbreviation it be called ⟨p. 547⟩Syriac, yet is differed as much from the Jews Language which was spoken by Christ and his Apostles (whereof Eli Eli lama Sabacthani is a part) and was over 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, then by a paraphrase to name it the Jews Language: which if then it was called Syrian, as afterwards it was, then had the Princes reason to call it rather the Jews Language then Syrian, because that and the Assyrian differed more in nature then appellation; though some difference doubtless there was in the very word and name, although Translators have not heeded to deliver it. Shibbolet and Sibbolet may differ more in signification then sound: nor is British and brutish so near in nature as they are in name. And who knows not that Syria and Assyria were several Kingdoms, as likewise were the Languages?

But you will not leave this matter; you told us in your Fiat, that neither Moses, nor any after him did take care to have the Scripture turned into Syriack. I desired to know why they should, seeing Hebrew was their vulgar tongue, and the Syriak unknown unto them, which I proved from the saying of the Princes of Hezekiah, when they desired Rabshakeh to speak unto them in Syriak 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 satisfaction, the thing its self being absolutely out of question, and not in the least needing any proof amongst those who understand any thing 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 your self talk you know not what in this matter once more? Thus then you proceed, Sir you are mistaken, for the longue the Princes perswaded Rabshakeh to speak was the Assyrian, his own language which was learned by the Gentry in Palestine, as we in England learn the French; which although by abbreviation it be called