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

The reason is, §1first the diverse significations of every word almost, which may seem perhaps to some simple body to make for their translation against the Hebrew. Whereunto I answer, first that although the Hebrew were so uncertain in respect of the manifold and diverse significations of words, as they would have it, yet were there no cause why the latin translation should more be allowed for the undoubted word of God, then the Greek or any other in the world. They are all no better then translations; and what warrant is there for one more then an other, but only in commendation of greater sincerity, and that in respect of faithfully expressing the Hebrew? Secondly this variety of significations is not lately begun, but was always from the beginning: which notwithstanding the Hebrews ⟨p. 358⟩could speak, and write their minds as plainly and certainly, as any other people: and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language many hundred years before any part of them was translated into Latin. So that this reason maketh them now no less able to bind heretics, then they have evermore been from the beginning. And what tongue (I pray you) were the scriptures written in, which the Apostle exhorteth Timothy to read, that he might stop the mouths of heretics, and which he saith are profitable to convince the Adversaries, but in the Hebrew and Greek? your latin translator was then unborn, when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to bind and confute all heretics. Your example out of the Psalm 55. ver. 21. showeth a plain corruption in your translation. For that Hebrew word with these letters and pricks cannot signify to reward, as your translation hath, but upon those that have peace with him, as our translations for the most have according to the Hebrew.

The reason is, §1first the diuerse significations of euerie worde almoste, which may seeme perhapes to some simple bodie to make for their translation against the Hebrew. Whereunto I answere, first that although the Hebrew were so vncertaine in respect of the manifold and diuerse significations of wordes, as they would haue it, yet were there noe cause whie the latine translation should more be allowed for the vndoubted word of God, then the Greek or any other in the world. They are all noe better then translations; and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother, but onelie in commendation of greater sinceritie, and that in respecte of faithfully expressing the Hebrew? Secondlie this variety of significations is not latelie begonne, but was alwaies from the beginning: which notwithstanding the Hebrewes