Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.

The Protestants confession.

WE are agreed concerning the new testamēt, that all the books therof as they stand are to be receiued of all for Scripture: for as for those forged Gospels of Thomas, S. Andrew, of Nicodemus and the like, though the Church were troubled with them in times past, yet their memory being now worne out, there is no question of thē. Concerning the bookes on both sides acknowledged, if some one man seeme to doubt of some one part, as Luther doth of the Epistle of Iames and Iude, it ought no more to preiudice vs, then Catetanus opinion doth hurt them who called more bookes in question then Luther did, as the Epistle of Iames, of Iude, the second of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the last Chapter of Marke.

We differ not then in the new Testament, vnlesse it be concerning the au∣thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which ouer aduersaries stoutly affirme to be S. Pauls, which we deny not, neither certainly can affirme it, seeing in some Greeke copies it is left out, and in the Syriacke translation. But it mattereth not who was the author, seeing we receiue it as canonicall: for the title is no part of the booke, and so neither of Scripture: and we receiue many bookes in the old Testament, the authors whereof are not perfectly knowne.

So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old Testamēt: they are called Apocrypha, because they are hid and obscure, not because their authours are vnknowne: for as I sayd, we knowe not by whom certaine Canonical bookes were written: neither are they so called because of some vntruthes conteined in them contrary to Scripture, as the most of them haue▪ for it foloweth not, that euerie booke which hath no vntruth or lye, should straight wayes be taken for Scripture, but they are therfore iudged and called Apocrypha, because they were not in former time receiued into publike and

authentick authoritie in the Church, neither to be alledged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life, and may haue other profi∣table vse. But the Canonicall Scripture onely hath this priuiledge to geue rules of faith, and thereupon it hath the name, that we may be bold to beleeue and ground our faith vpon the canonicall & holy Scripture, which is the onely word of God. Wherefore out of this number of Canonicall Scripture we ex∣clude all the books afore named, & therfore let not the reader be deceiued, that although they be ioyned in one volume with the Scripture; to think that they are for that of the same authoritie and credit with the rest: first we will shew one reason in general, and afterward come vnto the particular books in order.

1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets: we haue a sure word of the prophetes, saith S. Peter 2.1.19. and S. Paule, Rom. 16.26. calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets. But none of those bookes aforenamed, of Tobias, Iudith and the rest, were written by the Prophets: for they were all written since Malachies time, who was the last Prophete, as the Church complaineth, Psal. 74.9. There is not one Prophete; nor any that can tell vs how long. Ergo none of these bookes are canonicall.

2 All the canonicall bookes of the old Testament, were acknowledged of the Iewes and Hebrues, for they were then onely the Church of God, and where should Scripture be found but in the Church? to them, sayth S. Paule, were committed the oracles of God, Rom. ▪3.2. But the Iewes receiued none of these books: for none of them are written in the Hebrue toung, neither did they receiue them with the like authoritie as other bookes of Scripture; and this some of the Papists can not denie. Ergo thy are not Canonicall.

3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament, but it hath approbation of the new: for as the Prophetes beare witnesse to Christ, so he againe doth witnesse for the Prophets, and therefore it is a true proposition of Caietane, though he be controlled and checked of Catharinus an other Papist for it, that there is no Scripture, which was not either written or approued by the Apostles: but in the whole new Testament you shall not find one testimony cited either in the Gospel or the Epistles out of any of the Apocrypha, as out of other bookes of Scripture: therefore hauing no approbation of the new Testament, we conclude they are none of the old.

4 It shall appeare in the seuerall discourse of the particular bookes, that there is somewhat euen in the bookes themselues to be found, that barreth them from being Canonicall.