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.

OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther.

The Papistes.

ONe of their chief Arguments, besides testimonies and authorities, which would make to great a Volume, is this (which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha) they are read in the Church, & haue bene of auncient time, Ergo they are Canonicall. I aunswere, that it is no good argument. Hierome saith plainly, Legit Ecclesia, sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit, Praefat. in lib. Solomon. The Church indeede (saith he) readeth them, yet for all that they are not Canonicall. And Augustine was wōt to read vnto the people the Epist∣les of the Donatistes, and his aunsweres vnto them. Epist. 203.

The Protestantes.

THe most of our reasons against the authoritie of the 7. Chapters added to Esther (for of the 10 first Chapters, which are found in the Hebrue, we make no doubt at all) are drawen from the matter of the booke it selfe.

1 In the second of the Canonicall Esther. ver. 16. it is said that the conspi∣racie of the two Eunuches against the king, was in the 7. yeare of Assuerus: but in the 11. Chap. ver. 2. of the Apocryphall Esther, we read that Mardocheus did dreame of this conspiracie in the secōd yeare. Bellarmine aunswereth, that both are true, for the dreame was in the secōd yeare, & the conspiracie in the seuēth; so belike, there was fiue yeares betweene. But in the 11. Chapter, it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dreame, and the next night after his dreame the conspiracie was enterprised.

2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king. cap. 6.3. but the forged storie saith, that at the same time the king gaue him great gifts, which can not be meant, of that great honor which afterward was bestowed vpon Mardoche: for then Haman (being hanged the same day) could worke him no despite, wheras the forged story saith, that after the king had rewarded him, then Haman began to stomach him, because of those two Eunuches.

3 Againe the storie which is added, was written many yeares after Mar∣doches & Esthers death, vnder the raigne of Ptolomaeus & Cleopatra, as it appea∣reth. cap. 11.1. it is not like therefore to be a true storie: Bellarmins ridiculous cōiecture is this, that there were two stories writtē in Hebrue of Esther, the one cōpendious & short, which we now haue: the other more large, which might be translated by Lisimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now onely haue, the originall being perished. What goodly gesses here be, to make Canonicall Scripture? what neede two bookes of one thing? If the first were written by the spirite of God and so were Canonicall, what neede a secōd? the spirite of God vseth not to correct his own writings: and this can not be that ample and large storie imagined, being shorter, and not so full as the first.

4 Besides the false storie saith, that Haman was a Macedonian. Cap. 16. v. 10. the true storie saith, he was an Agagite or Amalekite. cap. 8.3. how can these two agree? Nay the forged booke saith, that Haman would haue destroyed the king, & so cōueyed the kimgdome of the Persians to the Macedonians: which could in no wise be: for the kingdome of the Macedonians was not yet spo∣ken of: and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander, who was many yeares after. Vide plura▪ Whitach. quaest. 1. cap. 8. De Scripturis.

5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated, which was set downe in the for∣mer part, which argueth, that the story was not writtē by one mā: and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrue, another in Greeke. If any say (as the Iesuite saith) that this part was in Hebrue, and being translated into Greeke, was lost: why was one part rather lost then the other? and was it not as like to be preserued in Hebrue as in Greeke? These are verie bare and suspicious coniectures.