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 FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the Canonicall Scripture.

Of the state of the first Question.

WE haue not any thing in this place to deale with those heretikes, which denie either the whole Scripture, or any part thereof: but one∣ly with our aduersaries the Papistes, that holding all those bookes to be Scrip∣ture, which we do acknowledge, doe adde vnto them other bookes which are not canonicall: so that they offend not as other heretikes, in denying any part of the Scripture, but, which is as bad in adding vnto it, for both these are accursed. Reuel. 22.18.

First of all breifly before we proceed, let vs see who they were that offend in the first kind. Some heretikes generally reiected the whole Scripture, some certaine partes thereof. The Sadducees receiued no Scripture, beside the fiue bookes of Moses, the Maniches condemned the whole old testament, and so did wicked Marcion.

The bookes of Moses the Ptolemaites refused, the booke of the Psalmes the Nicolaitanes, and the Anabaptistes in our dayes: there wanted not which condemned the booke of the Preacher and the Canticles as wanton and lasciuious bookes: and the Anabaptists are not here behind with their partes. The holy and excellent booke of Iob hath also found enimies, and some of the Rabbins which do thinke that the storie is but fained: which heresie is confuted Ezech 14.14. for there Noah, Iob, Daniel are named together: so that it is manifest, that such a man there was.

The new testament the Maniches most impiously affirmed to be full of lies. Cerdon the heretike condemned all but Lukes Gospel. The Valentinians could away with none but Iohns Gospell. The Alogians of all other hated Iohns writings. The Ebionites onely admitted Matthewes Gospell. The Acts of the Apostles the Seuerian heretikes contemned. The Marcionites the Epistles to Timothie, to Titus, to the Hebrues. The Ebionites could not away with any of S. Paules workes. ex Whitakero, cont. 1. de Script. cap. 3. Vnto these adde the Zwencfeldians and Libertines that refuse to be iudged by the Scripture, calling it a dead letter, and flie vnto the inward and secret reuelations of the spirite.

And by your leaue the Papists are not far from this heresie some of them: al∣though the Iesuite crie neuer so much with open mouth, that wee belye them, De verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 1. Take but a litle paines to peruse that worthy learned mans and reuerent fathers defence of the Apologie p. 521. there you shall find how that Lodouicus a Canon Lateran in Rome, said in the Councell of Trent, that the Scripture is but mortuum atramentū, dead inke. The Bishop of Poitiers sayd, that it was, but res mammis & muta, a dead and dumbe thing. Albertus Pigghius, that the Scriptures were but muti Iudices, dumbe Iudges. Eckius calleth it Euangelium nigrum, & theologiam atramentariam, the blacke Gospell and inkie diuinitie: and it is nasus cereus, a nose of wax saith he. And now in cometh Hosius with his part: that it is but lost labor which is bestow∣ed in the Scripture: for the Scripture is a creature, and a certaine bare letter. But the Iesuit saith, that we abuse the name of that man, for those are not his owne words, but he reporteth them of Zuinckfeldius: Be it so for this time, though M. Iewell bestowe some paines to proue them to be according to his owne meaning. Though these be not Hosius owne wordes, yet these are not much better, yea far worse, who speaking of Dauids writing of the Psalmes, sayth thus, Quid ni scriberet, scribimus indocti docti{que} poemata passim, why might not he write (sayth he) being a temporall Prince, as Horace saith, we write bal∣lades euery body both learned and vnlearned. p. 522.

I pray you now how much do these Papists differ from the Libertines and Zuinkfeldians, vnlesse it be in this, that the Libertins cleaue to secret reuela∣tions, the Papistes are pinned vpon the Popes sleeue, affirming that it is no Scripture nor Gospel without the determination of the Church. Nay one of them saith, determinatio Ecclesiae appellatur Euāgelium, the determination of the Church is called the Gospell. Iohannes Maria! will you yet heare of greater impietie? Anno Domini .1240. or thereabout there was a booke set forth by the Friers, called Euangelium aeternum, full of their owne fables, and abominable errors: they taught that Christes Gospell was not to be compared vnto it, and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but fifty years. This booke with much a do was condemned by the Pope, (but after long disputation) and it was burnt secretely, lest the fryers should haue bene discredited: and withall the booke of Guilielmus de S. amore, which he had written against the Friers, and disputed against their Gospell, was commanded to be burned with the other. Besides these heresies, their opinion also is to be reiected, that thynke that the holy writers might in some things be deceiued, as mistaking one thing for another, or fayling in their memorie. To this opinion Erasmus en∣clined, whom Bellarmine taketh paine to confute, lib. 1. cap. 6. He might as well haue turned his argument vpon Melchior Canus their owne champion, who thinketh that Stephen Act. 7. in telling so long a storie might forget him selfe in some things Cau. lib. 2. cap. 18. ex Whitakero, but now to the question.

The Papists Assertion.

THere are certaine bookes annexed to the old Testament, which the Pa∣pists [error 1] them selues do not acknowledge for canonicall, as the Prayer of Manasses, the two bookes of Esdras, commonly called the third and fourth of Esdras: also other which are not vsually in our English Bibles, as an appen∣dix to the booke of Iob, the 151. Psalme, a booke called the Pastor. All these by our aduersaries are reiected. The question betweene vs is concerning these books: first certaine peeces ioyned to canonicall bookes; as seuen Chapters of Esther, certaine stories annexed to Daniel, as of Bel & the Dragon, of Susanna, the Song of the three children: also the Epistle of Baruch ioyned to Ieremy. Thē folow certaine whole books, as Tobie, Iudith, the Wisedome of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, two bookes of the Machabees: these six bookes with the other three appendices or peeces of books the Papists hold to be canonicall, and of as firme authority as any part of the Scripture. Arguments they haue none, beside cartaine testimonies of some fathers and Councels, which we purpose not to deale withall, leauing them to our learned country men who haue ta∣ken in hand to discusse these controuersies to the full.

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.

OF THE BOOKE OF BARVCH.

The Papistes.

THis is their best reason for the authoritie of this booke, because Baruch was Ieremies scribe: and therfore Baruch can not be refused, vnlesse also we

doubt of Ieremie. Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo. Dei. cap. 8.

The Protestantes.

THis booke was neither written by Ieremie nor Baruch: first because it is in Greeke: if either Ieremie or Baruch had written it, it is most like they would haue written in Hebrue. Secondly, the phrase and manner of speach sheweth that it was neuer written in Hebrue: for in the 6. Chapter in the Epi∣stle of Ieremie, it is said that the Israelites should be in captiuitie seuen genera∣tions, that is 70. yeares, but it can not be found in any Hebrue booke that ge∣neration is taken for the space of 70. yeares.

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.

OF CERTAINE CHAPTERS annexed to Daniell.

THere are three parcels ioyned to Daniell, the song of the 3. childrē, the sto∣rie of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, in the vulgare Latin, which are not any part of Canonicall Scripture.

1 They are neither extant in Hebrue at this day, nor are like to haue bene translated out of Hebrue into Greeke: but compiled first in Greeke, and ther∣fore not written by Daniell: for v. 54.58. of the storie of Susanna, where one of the Elders saith, he saw her vnder a Lentiske tree, the other vnder a prime tree: he vseth a certaine paronomasie or allusion vnto the Greeke wordes, which cā not stand in the Hebrue, as of the tree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he saith the Angell of the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall cut you in two: and so of the tree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall deuide thee in two. As if a mā should thus allude in English: thou wast vnder the prune tree: the Lord shall prime thee. This allusion is not in the Hebrue, as the learned haue verie well obserued, but onely in the Greeke.

2 The time is vncertaine whē this storie should be done. It was in the cap∣tiuitie: for Susanna dwelt in Babilon, but Daniell could not then be so young a child as the storie maketh, for he was carried away in the first captiuitie with Iehoiakim as it is Dan. 1. And Ezechiell, that liued about that time doth speake of the great prudence & sage wisedome of Daniel, Ezech. 28.3. and ioyneth him with Noah & Iob. cap. 14. All this proueth that Daniell could not bee so very a babe in the beginning of the captiuitie, as the storie maketh him.

3 In the story of Daniell it is said that he was 6. dayes in the Lyōs den, but the true storie saith he was there but one night. cap. 6. The Iesuite aunswereth, he was twise in the Lyons den, or rather he thinketh there were two Daniels, the one of the tribe of Iuda, which was that great Prophet: the other of Leui, which was the principall in those two stories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon. But this is a poore shift, to inuent another Daniell, whom the Scrip∣ture neuer knew: and if it were so, why are all their actes ioyned together, as if one Daniell had done and write them all.

OF THE BOOKE OF TOBIE.

1 THis booke is not found in the Hebrue, in the which toung all the oracles of God were kept. Ergo it is worthelie doubted of.

2 Our aduersaries them selues confesse, that in Hieromes time it was not receiued for Canonicall. The Iesuite aunswereth: that it might be doubted of before it was determined in a Generall Councell: to whom (saith he) it apper∣taineth to define of Canonicall Scripture: As though this were not a greater doubt, whether a Coūcell hath any such authoritie, to determine which books ought to be receiued for Canonicall, for Canus a Papist maketh question of it. Lib. 2. cap. 8. And the Iesuite him selfe saith that the Church can not, Facere Canonicum de non Canonico, make a booke not canonicall, to be canonicall, but onely to declare those to be Canonicall, which are so in deed. Wherefore the Papistes take to much vpō them, to make this boke within the Canon, being of it selfe not Canonicall, and so adiudged by antiquitie.

3 He that readeth the booke it selfe shall finde that both the stile, and the matter is not such as beseemeth Canonicall Scripture: read Tremell. in cap. 3. ver. 8. cap. 13. ver. 15.

OF THE BOOKE OF IVDITH.

AN escpeciall Argument against this booke is, that the historie can not be assigned to any time.

1 It is pretie sport to see how the Papistes doe moyle them selues about this point: and can not agree amongest them selues. Some hold that this sto∣rie fell out after the captiuitie in Cambises time, as Lyranus, and Driedo: some in Darius Histaspis raigne, as Gerardus, Mercator: some would haue it before the captiuitie in Sedechias time, as Genebrard: some in Iosias time, as Iohan. Be∣nedictus:

but the Iesuite confuteth them all, and bringeth the storie to Manas∣ses raigne: but he hath also mist the cushin.

2 It appeareth that this story could not be after the captiuitie for we read not of any Nabuchadneser afterwards, for the kingdome was translated frō the Assirians to the Persians and Meedes. Againe it could not be before either in Iosias time, Sedechias, or Manasses, first because in the 5. Chap. v. 18. it is said that the temple had bene destroyed and cast downe, which could not be in any of those kings raignes. It is but a shift of Bellarmines, to say those words were foy∣sted into the text: it is rather to be thought, that the Iesuite is put to his trūps, not hauing els, what to answer. Secōdly Iudith being at this time in the flower of her age, and liuing afterward many yeares till she was 105. yeare old, all which time, and many yeares after her death, the booke saith in the last Chap∣ter, the land had rest: this can not agree with Manasses time: for within 40. yeares or not much aboue, the land fell into great trouble, straight after Iosias death. Where then is this long time of rest? And the Iesuite that still groūdeth vpon impossibilities and vnlikele-hoods, that Iudith was at this time 40. yeare old, which was (saith he) in the beginning of Manasses raigne, and so to dye a∣bout 7. yeares before Iosias: yet for all his scanning is driuē to this shift, that the many yeares peace after her death, must be vnderstood of poore 7. yeares. Thirdly, if all this happened in Manasses time, whom the Chaldeans tooke and carried away prisoner, and had much troubled and afflicted the country of Iudaea: what neede had Holofernes to enquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite, of the country their Citie, people, kings, and such like:* 1.1 seeing they had knowen the country, to well before in spoyling and wasting of it, as the Iewes by wofull experience had felt.

OF THE BOOKE OF WISEDOME.

The Papistes.

OVr aduersaries reason thus: they say that S. Paul. Rom. 11.34. vsing this speach: who hath knowen the Lordes minde or bene his counseller? doth alledge it out of the 4. Chapter of this booke. v. 13. Ergo it is Canonicall. We aunswere. First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimonie, though the wordes which he vseth▪ may els where be found. Secondly though the like wordes are read in the booke of Wisedome, yet is it not necessarie the Apostle should borrow them frō thēce, but rather they are alledged out of the 40. of Esay. 13. Where the Prophet saith, who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counseller? And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes, that S. Paul in that place vseth the Prophets wordes.

The Protestantes.

OVr reasons against the authoritie of this booke are these and such like.

1 Because this booke is not found in the Hebrue, but written onely

in Greeke: wherefore it is not Canonicall seeing the Iewes had all the oracles of God.

2 Philo a Iew is thought by the Papistes them selues to be the author of this booke, who liued after Christ in the time of Caligula, neither him selfe was a Christian or beleeued in Christ: therefore an vnlike man to be a writer of Canonicall Scripture. Bellarmine saith, it was another Philo, who was more auncient. Indeed Iosephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time, but he was an Heathen and no Iew.

3 If this booke were written by Solomon, why is it not extant in Hebrue? for Solomon wrote in Hebrue & not in Greeke. Many of the Papists also do proue, that it was not written by Solomon: for though Solomon in the 2. Chap∣ter be brought in praying vnto God: that is no good argument to proue Solo∣mon the author, for the author might speake in the person of Solomon.

OF THE BOOKE CALLED Ecclesiasticus.

The Papistes.

THey haue none but common and generall arguments for the authoritie of this booke, as that it was of old read in the church, & diuerse of the fa∣thers alledged testimonies out of it. All this proueth not, as we haue shewed before, that it was Canonicall, but that it was well esteemed and thought of, because of many wholesome and good precepts which are conteined in it.

The Protestantes.

WE do thus improue the authoritie of this booke.

1 The author in the Preface saith, that he trāslateth in this booke such things, as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrue, and excu∣seth him selfe, because that things translated out of the Hebrue do loose the grace, and haue not the same force: so then it appeareth that this booke can not be Canonicall being imperfect: neither was his grandfathers worke (which is now lost) to be thought any part of the Scripture, seeing he was no Prophet him selfe, but a compiler and a collector of certaine things out of the Prophetes.

2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth, and so craueth pardon: but the spirit of God vseth not to make any such excuse, whose works are most perfect, and feare not the iudgement of men.

3 This booke saith. cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuell prophesied after his death, & from the earth lift vp his voyce. Whereas the Canonicall Scripture saith not that it was Samuell, but that Saul so imagined, and thought it to be Samuell. 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was, phantasma Samuelis, but a shew one∣ly and representation of Samuell, and an illusion of the deuill. Lib. ad Dulcitiū, quaest. 6. For it is not to be thought, that the deuill cā disease the soules of any

men, much lesse of Saints departed.

OF THE TWO BOOKES OF the Machabees.

OVr Argumentes against the authoritie of this booke are these ensuing, for our aduersaries bring nothing on their part, but such Argumentes drawen from testimonies & authorities, as do generally serue for all the Apo∣crypha, which are aunswered afore.

1 Iudas is commended. 2. booke. chap. 12. for offring sacrifice for the dead: which was not commanded by the law, neither is it the custome of the Iewes so to do to this day: & againe they were manifest Idolaters: for there were foūd iewels vnder their coates consecrate to the Idols of the Iamnites. And our ad∣uersaries graunt them selues, that prayer is not to be made, for open malefa∣ctors dying impenitently.

2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the arke, the holy fire, the altar the tabernacle, which should be hid by Ieremie in a caue, and that the Lord would shew the people these things at their returne. Here are many things vnlikely and vntrue. First, it is found, saith the text in the writings of Ieremie: but no such storie is there found. Secondly Ieremie was in prison till the very taking of the Citie: and the Citie being taken the temple was spoyled, the ho∣ly things defaced and carried away, how could they then be conueyed by Iere∣mie? Thirdly in their returne, they found neither arke nor fire, nor any such thing: but saith the Iesuite, the Iewes in their conuersion to God in the end of the world, may haue them againe: as though, whē they shal beleeue in Christ, they will any more looke backe to the ceremonies or rites of the law, for what vse then I pray you shall they haue of altar or sacrifice or any such like.

3 There is a great disagreeing in the storie betweene the two bookes cō∣cerning the death of Antiochus. Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16. It is said that Antiochus dyed for grief in Babylon, hearing of the good successe of the Iewes. Lib. 2.1. ver. 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his souldiers slayne in the temple of Nanea, and his head cut of & throwen forth. Chap. 9. the same Antiochus falling sicke by the way dyed with a most filthie and stincking smell, cōsumed of wormes: How could this man dye thrise, in Babylon, in Nanea, and by the way in a straunge coūtrey. It is confessed by the Iesuite, that it was the same Antiochus, who saith he lost his armie in the temple, and sickned by the way and dyed at Babylon. But the storie saith that their heads were cut of: I thinke thē he could not liue, and that he dyed in a straunge country, therefore not at Babylon in his bed. These things hang not together.

4 Further the author of these bookes saith, that he abridgeth the story of one Iason a Syrenean. Lib. 2. cap. 2. v. 23. Who was an Heathen: but the spirite of God vseth not, neither needeth to borow of prophane writers. He saith that this worke was not easie but paineful to him, but required sweating and wat∣ching.

v. 26. But to the holy writers of Scripture, though their own labour and diligence was not wanting, yet was not the worke hard or molestious vnto them. Lastly the author faith he writeth for pleasure & recreation of the Rea∣der, and craueth pardon, if he haue not done well. Lib. 2.15.39. But to read for pleasure is no end of Scripture, neither doth the spirit of God vse any excuse either for matter or manner.

Our aduersaries say that S. Paule likewise confesseth, that he was rude in speaking. 1. Cor. 11.6. We aunswere, he so saith, because the false Apostles so gaue out of him, not that he was so indeed: and yet in that place S. Paule doth not excuse him selfe, for his not sufficiēt hādling of his matter, as this author doth: neither is that speach of S. Luke any thing like: for there the Euangelist doubteth not to say, that he had attained to an exact knowledge of all things. Vpon these premises we conclude, that these bookes of the Machabees are not Canonicall, nor to be taken for any part of holy Scripture, though we denie not, but that there may be some profitable vse of them for the storie.

AVGVSTINES IVDGEMENT OF the bookes called Apocrypha.

FIrst, generally of them all thus he writeth. Quas ita{que} Scripturas dicimus nisi Canonicas legis & Prophetarum, de vnit. Eccle. 16. We acknowledge no Ca∣nonicall Scripture of the old Testament, but the law and the Prophetes, but none of the Apocrypha were writtē by any of the Prophets. Againe he saith: Omnes literae, quib. Christus Prophetatus est, apud Iudaeos sunt Psal. 56. All the bookes, which do Prophesie of Christ, were kept amōgest the Iewes: but none of the Apocrypha were written in Hebrue. Ergo. Concerning the story of Bel and the Dragon he calleth it a fable, de mirabilib. lib. 2. cap. 32. Of the same cre∣dite is the storie of Susanna.

The booke of Iudith was not (saith he) receiued in the Canon of the Iewes. De Ciuit. Dei. 18.26.

The two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and the wisedome of Solomon are onely said to be Solomons, propter eloquij nonnullam similitudinem, because of some affi∣nitie and likenesse of the stile. De Ciuit. Dei. 17.20. So he thinketh that Solomon was not indeed the author of them: how then can that booke be Canonicall, which geueth it selfe a false title: being called the wisedome of Solomō, and was neuer compiled by Solomon.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Iudith ca. 5.