A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .5. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .5. Diuision.

In deed we find, that where as holy Ephrem Deacon of the Church of Edessa, wrote many things in the Syriacal tongue,¹ he was of so worthy fame and renown, that (as S. Hierome witnesseth) his writings were rehearsed in certain Churches openly, Post lectionem Scripturarū. after the Scriptures had been read: whereof it appeareth to Erasmus, that nothing was wont then to be read in the Churches, beside the writings of the Apostles, or at least of such men, as were of Apostolic authority. But by this place of S. Hierome, it seemeth not, that Ephrems works were used as a part of the Common Service: but rather as Homilies, or exhortations to he read after the Service, which consisted in manner wholly of the Scriptures. And whether they were turned into Greek, or no, so soon, it is uncertain.

In deed wee finde, that where as holy Ephrem Deacon of the Churche of Edessa, wrote many thinges in the Syriacal tongue,¹ he was of so worthy fame and renome, that (as S. Hierome witnesseth) his writinges were rehearsed in certaine Churches openly, Post lectionem Scripturarū. after the Scriptures had beene reade: whereof it appeareth to Erasmus, that nothing was wonte then to be reade in the Churches, biside the writinges of the Apostles, or at least of suche men, as were of Apostolike authoritie. But by this place of S. Hierome, it seemeth not, that Ephrems woorkes were vsed as a parte of the Common Seruice: but rather as Homilies, or exhortations to he reade after the Seruice, whiche consisted in manner wholy of the Scriptures. And whether they were tourned into Greeke, or no, so soone, it is vncertaine.

1. 1Lib. De Scriptorib. Ecclesiast.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding, contrary to the order of Rhetoric, would confute our side, before he confirm his own. But I marvel much, to what end he should thus allege Ephrem, onlesse it be to heap matter against him self. For will he thus frame his reason, Ephrem wrote sundry things in his own mother tongue: Ergo, The people had their Service in a strange tongue? Will he have this to be allowed, and go for an argument? If there were nothing ⟨p. 157⟩else▪ here to be gathered, yet hath he touched two things expressly against him self. The one is, that nothing was then read in the Church, saving only the Scriptures, or other matters of Apostolic authority: which thing is also straitly commanded by the Council of Carthage.¹ Yet M. Harding in his Church, even in the Public Service, readeth Lessons, and Legends of childi she Fables.

M. Hardinge, contrary to the ordre of Rhetorique, woulde confute our side, before he confirme his owne. But I maruel muche, to what ende he should thus allege Ephrem, onlesse it be to heape mater against him selfe. For wil he thus frame his reason, Ephrem wrote sundry thinges in his owne mother tongue: Ergo, The people had their Seruice in a strange tongue? Wil he haue this to be allowed, and goe for an argument? If there were nothing ⟨p. 157⟩els▪ here to be geathered, yet hath he touched twoo thinges expressely against him selfe. The one is, that nothinge was then redde in the Church, sauinge onely the Scriptures, or other maters of Apostolique authoritie: whiche thinge is also straitely commaunded by the Councel of Carthage.¹ Yet M. Hardinge in his Churche, euen in the Publique Seruice, readeth Lessons, and Legendes of childi she Fables.

1. 1Concil. Cartha. 3. Can. 47.

The other is, that Ephrems Homilies were pronounced unto the people in the Vulgar tongue: yet M. Harding him self pronounceth Gospels, Epistles, and Homilies, and all what so ever, unto the people in a strange tongue.

The other is, that Ephrems Homili•s were pronounced vnto the people in the Uulgare tongue: yet M. Hardinge him selfe pronounceth Gospels, Epistles, and Homilies, and al what so euer, vnto the people in a straunge tongue.

But to avoid this inconvenience, he saith▪ The Homilies were no part of the Service. First how is he sure of that? Certainly, the Latin Homilies be read in the Matins, and accounted part of the Romish Service. Again, what necessary Sequel is this: The people understood Ephrems Homilies: Ergo, his Homilies were no part of the Service? Or what leadeth him to think, It was profitable for the people to hear and understand Ephrem, and yet was not profitable for them, to hear & understand Peter, Paul, or Christ? To be short, be confesseth, that Ephrems writings were exhortations to the Greek people: and yet doubteth, whether they were translated into the Greek, or no: and so he endeth in uncertainty, and concludeth nothing.

But to avoide this inconuenience, he saithe▪ The Homilies were no parte of the Seruice. First how is he sure of that? Certainely, the Latine Homilies be redde in the Matins, and accompted parte of the Romishe Seruice. Againe, what necessary Sequele is this: The people vnderstoode Ephrems Homilies: Ergo, his Homilies were no parte of the Seruice? Or what leadeth him to thinke, It was profitable for the people to heare and vnderstande Ephrem, and yet was not profitablé for them, to heare & vnderstande Peter, Paule, or Christe? To be shorte, be confesseth, that Ephrems writinges were exhortations to the Gréeke people: and yet doubteth, whether they were translated into the Gréeke, or no: and so he endeth in vncertaintie, and concludeth nothing.

Now let us see, whether the same Ephrem will conclude any thing of our side. First, Theodoretus¹ saith, He was utterly ignorant of the Greek tongue. Which thing is also confirmed by M. Hardinges own Amphilochius.² For in the conference that was between him and Basil, he saith, He spake by an Interpreter, as being not able to speak Greek himself. Yet was the same Ephrem a Minister in the Church, being as S. Hierome saith, a Deacon, and as some others write, the Archdeacon of the Church of Edessa. Now let M. Harding show us, in what other tongue he could minister the Ecclesiastical service, but in his own.

Now let vs sée, whether the same Ephrem wil conclude any thinge of our side. First, Theodoretus¹ saithe, He was vtterly ignorant of the Greeke tongue. Whiche thinge is also confirmed by M. Hardinges owne Amphilochius.² For in the conference that was bitwéene him and Basil, he saithe, He spake by an Interpreter, as beinge not hable to speake Greeke himselfe. Yet was the same Ephrem a Minister in the Churche, beinge as S. Hierome saithe, a Deacon, and as some others write, the Archedeacon of the Churche of Edessa. Now let M. Hardinge shew vs, in what other tongue he coulde minister the Ecclesiastical ser•ice, but in his owne.

1. 1Theodoret. lib. 4. Ca. 29.
2. 2Amphilochius. Hierom. D• Ecclesiast. Scriptor.

If he think, this conjecture to be weak, let him understand further, that as Theodoretus¹ reporteth, the same Ephrem made Hymns, and Psalms in the Syrian tongue: and that the same were song at the solemn Feasts of Martyrs: and that,² as Sozomenus saith plainly, the same Hymns, and Psalms were song in the Churches of Syria.

If he thinke, this coniecture to be weake, let him vnderstande further, that as Theodoretus¹ reporteth, the same Ephrem made Hymnes, and Psalmes in the Syrian tongue: and that the same were songe at the solemne Feastes of Martyrs: and that,² as Sozomenus saithe plainely, the same Hymnes, and Psalmes were songe in the Churches of Syria.

1. 1Theodoret. li. 4. Ca. 29.
2. 2[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.

M. Harding. The .6. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .6. Diuision.

Neither S. Hieromes Translation of the Scriptures into the Dalmatical tongue (if any such was by him made at all) proveth that the Service was then in that Vulgar tongue. That labour may be thought, to have served to an other purpose. But of the Translation of the Scriptures into Vulgar tongues, I shall speak hereafter, when I shall come to that peculiar Article. Verily the handling of this present, and of that, hath most things common to both. Thus that the people of any Country,¹ had the Church Service in their Vulgar and common tongue, beside the Greek, and the Latin tongue, we leave as a matter stoutly affirmed by M. Ivel, but faintly proved: yea nothing at all proved.

Neither S. Hieromes Translation of the Scriptures into the Dalmatical tongue (if any such was by him made at al) prooueth that the Seruice was then in that Vulgare tongue. That labour may be thought, to haue serued to an other purpose. But of the Translation of the Scriptures into Vulgare tongues, I shal speake hereafter, when I shal come to that peculiar Article. Verely the handelinge of this present, and of that, hath moste thinges common to bothe. Thus that the people of any Countrie,¹ had the Churche Seruice in their Vulgare and common tongue, biside the Greeke, and the Latine tongue, wee leaue as a mater stoutely affirmed by M. Iuel, but fain•ly prooued: yea nothinge at al prooued.

1. 1See the .15. Division of this ArticleSee the .15. Diuision of this Article

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding seemeth to doubt, whether S. Hierome translated the Scriptures in to the Sclavon tongue, or no. Yet Stanis•aus Hosius,¹ one of the greatest of that side, maketh it very certain, and putteth it quite out of doubt. His words be plain, In Dalmaticam linguā Sacros Libros Hieronymum vertisse, constar. It is certainly known, that S. Hierome translated the Scriptures into the Sclavon tongue.

M. Hardinge séemeth to doubte, whether S. Hierome translated the Scriptures in to the Sclauon tongue, or no. Yet Stanis•aus Hosius,¹ one of the greatest of that side, maketh it very certaine, and putteth it quite out of doubte. His woordes be plaine, In Dalmaticam linguā Sacros Libros Hieronymum vertisse, cōstar. It is certainely knowen, that S. Hierome translated the Scriptures into the Sclauon tongue.

1. 1Hosius de Sacr• vernaculè legendo.