An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

That which Master Rainolds hitherto hath said, as though it were greatly to purpose,¹ and worthy to be remembered, he gathereth now into certain conclusions, ⟨p. 271⟩and as the smith, he beateth still upon the same anvil. I have already answered enough to the whole: If any thing further be offered in this repetition, it shall be hand led. First it is neither Judaical, nor injurious to the Church, to think more reverently of the Hebrew fountains, then the latin translation, as hath been showed. Yea absurd and unlearned is it to prefer the translation before the text, upon certain (I know not what) blind surmises. Secondly, if the heresy of the Arians corrupted the Latin Bibles, as you imagine, whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Jerome, how came it to pass, that the Greek translation of the seventy, and the Greek of the new testament, was not by that means much more corrupted, for so much as that heresy prevailed much more in the Greek then in the latin Churches? why notwithstanding this heresy, do the fathers appeal to the Greek fountains of the new testament, & by them amend their translations? The Arians would have corrupted the spring rather, then a stream: and Saint Jerome had more cause in respect of them to suspect the Greek, then the ⟨p. 272⟩latin. Whereby it is plain that your guess of the latin translations, being troubled and corrupted by the Arians, is vain, and nothing but a guess at all adventure. That you say the Canon of the scripture in those days, was not by general authority confirmed and received, though it be great untruth, yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter, I will not stand upon it.

That which Master Rainolds hetherto hath saide, as though it were greatly to purpose,¹ and worthie to be remembred, he gathereth now into certaine conclusions, ⟨p. 271⟩and as the smith, he beateth stil vpon the same anuill. I haue alreadie answered enoughe to the wholl: If any thing further be offered in this repetition, it shal be hand led. First it is neither Iudaical, nor iniurious to the Church, to thinke more reuerentlie of the Hebrew fountaines, then the latine translation, as hath beene shewed. Yea absurde and vnlearned is it to preferre the translation before the text, vpon certaine (I know not what) blinde surmises. Secondlie, if the heresie of the Arrians corrupted the Latine Bibles, as you imagine, whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Ierome, how came it to passe, that the Greeke translation of the seuentie, and the Greeke of the new testament, was not by that meanes much more corrupted, for so much as that heresie preuailed much more in the Greeke then in the latine Churches? why notwithstanding this heresie, doe the fathers appeale to the Greeke fountaines of the new testamēt, & by them amend their translations? The Arrians would haue corrupted the spring rather, then a streame: and Saint Ierome had more cause in respect of them to suspecte the Greeke, then the