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 shore 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 document 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 amusement, 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