Ten Reasons Proposed to His Adversaries for Disputation in the Name Part 8

[Footnote 118: Euseb. l. 3, c. 30.]

[Footnote 119: Dam. in vita Telesph. to. 1 con. c. stat. d. 5.]

[Footnote 120: Lib. 3, c. 3.]

[Footnote 121: Euseb. 5 hist. 24.]

[Footnote 122: Euseb. 4 hist. 13 et 14.]

[Footnote 123: Euseb. 7 hist. 2 interp. Ruff.]

[Footnote 124: Prud. in hym. de S. Laur.]

[Footnote 125: Vid. Aug. Ser. 1 de S. Laur.; Ambr. l. 1 offi, c.

41; Leo serm. in die S. Laur.]

[Footnote 126: Prud. in hym. de S. Laur.]

[Footnote 127: Metaph.; Ambr. et alii.]

[Footnote 128: Aug. l. 6 confess. c. 7 ad 13.]

[Footnote 129: Hier. in epit. Paul.]

[Footnote 130: Ambr. in orat. fun. de Satyro.]

[Footnote 131: Vide s.e.x tomos Surii de vitis Sanct.]

[Footnote 132: Matth. xv. 18.]

[Footnote 133: Euseb. 4 hist. 5.]

[Footnote 134: Hieron, in epit. Paul. et pa.s.sim in epist.]

[Footnote 135: Prudent. in Pin. de S, Laur.]

[Footnote 136: Gen. x. 9.]

[Footnote 137: Dam. in Sylv.; Niceph. l. 7, c. 33; Zonaras, Cedremus.]

[Footnote 138: Euseb. l. 2 de vit. Const. c. 7, 8, 9; Sozom.

l. 1, c. 8, 9.]

[Footnote 139: Athan. in vita S. Ant.]

[Footnote 140: Theod. l. 1, hist. cap.]

[Footnote 141: Vid. Volate, lovium Aemilium l. 8, Blond. l. 9 de 2.]

[Footnote 142: Clem. l. 1, recog.]

[Footnote 143: Iren. l. 1, c. 2.]

[Footnote 144: Cypr. ep. ad Iubatam et l. 4 ep. 2.]

[Footnote 145: Theod. de fab. haeret.]

[Footnote 146: Aug. haer. 46, 53, 54.]

[Footnote 147: Epiph. haer. 75.]

[Footnote 148: Aug. haer. 54.]

[Footnote 149: Socr. l. 2, C. 28.]

[Footnote 150: Hier. in Iovin. et Vigilant.; Aug. haer. 82.]

[Footnote 151: Vid. Tert. de praescr.; Aug. l. 2 de doctr. christ. c. 8.]

[Footnote 152: 1 Cor. i. 13.]

[Footnote 153: 1 Reg. v. 4.]

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

This is no dry controversial divinity, but a sort of illuminated copy of _theses_, the call of a knight's trumpet challenging his antagonist to come forth. The Ten Reasons represent the ten _theses_, which Edmund Campion would fain have maintained in the Divinity School at Oxford against all comers, sharing, as he did to the full, the pa.s.sion which his age felt and seems entirely to have lost, for such intellectual tournaments, as the natural means to bring out the truth and compose religious differences.

The reader, then, must not be surprised to find in this little work quite as much of rhetoric as of logic; if he is unfriendly, he may say considerably more. Nor, if he knows anything of the controversial methods of the sixteenth century, will he be surprised at the vehemence of the language. Compared with his opponents, Luther for example, Edmund Campion is mere milk and honey. His book made a great stir: it is what a successful book must be, instinct with the spirit of the age in which and for which it was written.

The Protestant answer to the Ten Reasons was not given in the Divinity School at Oxford. It was the rack in the Tower, and the gibbet at Tyburn; and that answer was returned ere the year was out.

J.R.

Pope's Hall, Oxford

May 1910

PREFACE.

_Edmund Campion, to the Learned Members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, Greeting._

Last year, Gentlemen, when in accordance with my calling in life I returned under orders to this Island, I found on the sh.o.r.e of England not a little wilder waves than those I had recently left behind the in the British Seas. As thereupon I made my way into the interior of England, I had no more familiar sight than that of unusual executions, no greater certainty than the uncertainty of threatening dangers. I gathered my wits together as best I could, remembering the cause which I was serving and the times in which I lived. And lest I might perhaps be arrested before I had got a hearing from any one, I at once put my purpose in writing, stating who I was, what was my errand, what war I thought of declaring and upon whom. I kept the original doc.u.ment on my person, that it might be taken with me, if I were taken. I deposited a copy with a friend, and this copy, without my knowledge, was shown to many. Adversaries took very ill the publication of the paper. What they particularly disliked and blamed was my having offered to hold the field alone against all comers in this matter of religion, though to be sure I should not have been alone had I disputed under a public safe conduct.

Hanmer and Chartres have replied to my demands. What is the tenour of their reply? All off the point. The only honest answer for them to give is one they will never give: "We embrace the conditions, the Queen pledges her word, come at once." Meanwhile they fill the air with their cries: "Your conspiracy! your seditious proceedings! your arrogance! traitor! aye marry, traitor!" The whole thing is absurd. These men are not fools: why are they wasting their pains and damaging their own reputation?

Nevertheless, in reply to these two gentlemen (one of whom has chosen my paper to run at for his amus.e.m.e.nt, the other more maliciously has confused the whole issue) there has recently been presented a very clear memorial setting forth all that need be said about our Society and their calumnies and the part that we are taking. The only course left open to me (since as I see, it is tortures, not academic disputations, that the high-priests are making ready) was to make good to you the account of my conduct; to show you the chief heads and point my finger to the sources from whence I derive this confidence; to exhort you also, as it is your concern above others, to give to this business that attention which Christ, the Church, the Common Weal, and your own salvation demand of you. If it were confidence in my own talents, erudition, art, reading, memory, that led me to challenge all the skill that could be brought against me, then were I the vainest and proudest of mortals, not having considered either myself or my opponents. But if, with my cause before my eyes, I thought myself competent to show that the sun here shines at noon-day, you ought to allow in me that heat which the honour of Jesus Christ, my King, and the unconquered force of truth have put upon me. You know how in Marcus Tullius's speech for Publius Quintius, when Roscius promised that he should win the case if he could make out by arguments that a journey of 700 miles had not been accomplished in two days, Cicero not only had no fear of all the force of the pleading of the opposing counsel, Hortensius, but could not have been afraid even of greater orators than Hortensius, men of the stamp of Cotta and Antonius and Cra.s.sus, whose reputation for speaking he set higher than that of all other men: for truth does sometimes stand out in so clear a light that no artifice of word or deed can hide it. Now the case on our side is clearer even than that position of Roscius. I have only to evince this, that there is a Heaven, that there is a G.o.d, that there is a Faith, that there is a Christ, and I have gained my cause. Standing on such ground should I not pluck up heart? I may be killed, beaten I cannot be. I take my stand on those Doctors, whom that Spirit has instructed who is neither deceived nor overcome. I beg of you, consent to be saved. Of those from whom I obtain this consent I expect without the least doubt that all the rest will follow. Only give yourselves up to take interest in this inquiry, entreat Christ, add efforts of your own, and certainly you will perceive how the case lies, how our adversaries are in despair, and ourselves so solidly founded that we cannot but desire this conflict with serene and high courage.

I am brief here, because I address you in the rest of my discourse. Farewell.

FIRST REASON

HOLY WRIT