Of the many signs that tell of the adversaries’ mistrust of their own cause, none declares it so loudly as the shameful outrage they put upon the majesty of the Holy Bible. After they have dismissed with scorn the utterances and suffrages of the rest of the witnesses, they are nevertheless brought to such straits that they cannot hold their own otherwise than by laying violent hands on the divine volumes themselves, thereby showing beyond all question that they are brought to their last stand, and are having recourse to the hardest and most extreme of expedients to retrieve their desperate and ruined fortunes. What induced the Manichees to tear out the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles? Despair. For these volumes were a torment to men who denied Christ’s birth of a Virgin, and who pretended that the Spirit then first descended upon Christians when their peculiar Paraclete, a good-for-nothing Persian, made his appearance. What induced the Ebionites to reject all St. Paul’s Epistles? Despair. For while those Letters kept their credit, the custom of circumcision, which these men had reintroduced, was set aside as an anachronism. What induced that crime-laden apostate Luther to call the Epistle of James contentious, turgid, arid, a thing of straw, and unworthy of the Apostolic spirit? Despair. For by this writing the wretched man’s argument of righteousness consisting in faith alone was stabbed through and rent assunder. What induced Luther’s whelps to expunge off-hand from the genuine canon of Scripture, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, and, for hatred of these, several other books involved in the same false charge? Despair. For by these Oracles they are most manifestly confuted whenever they argue about the patronage of Angels, about free will, about the faithful departed, about the intercession of Saints. Is it possible? So much perversity, so much audacity? After trampling underfoot Church, Councils, Episcopal Sees, Fathers, Martyrs, Potentates, Peoples, Laws, Universities, Histories, all vestiges of Antiquity and Sanctity, and declaring that they would settle their disputes by the written word of God alone, to think that they should have emasculated that same Word, which alone was left, by cutting out of the whole body so many excellent and goodly parts! Seven whole books, to ignore lesser diminutions, have the Calvinists cut out of the Old Testament. The Lutherans take away the Epistle of James besides, and, in their dislike of that, five other Epistles, about which there had been controversy of old in certain places and times. To the number of these the latest authorities at Geneva add the book of Esther and about three chapters of Daniel, which their fellow-disciples, the Anabaptists, had some time before condemned and derided. How much greater was the modesty of Augustine (De doct. Christ. lib. 2, c. 8.), who, in making his catalogue of the Sacred Books, did not take for his rule the Hebrew Alphabet, like the Jews, nor private judgment, like the Sectaries, but that Spirit wherewith Christ animates the whole Church. The Church, the guardian of this treasure, not its mistress (as heretics falsely make out), vindicated publicly in former times by very ancient Councils this entire treasure, which the Council of Trent has taken up and embraced. Augustine also in a special discussion on one small portion of Scripture cannot bring himself to think that any man’s rash murmuring should be permitted to thrust out of the Canon the book of Wisdom, which even in his time had obtained a sure place as a well-authenticated and Canonical book in the reckoning of the Church, the judgment of ages, the testimony of ancients, and the sense of the faithful. What would he say now if he were alive on earth, and saw men like Luther and Calvin manufacturing Bibles, filing down Old and New Testament with a neat pretty little file of their own, setting aside, not the book of wisdom alone, but with it very many others from the list of Canonical Books? Thus whatever does not come out from their shop, by a mad decree, is liable to be, spat upon by all as a rude and barbarous composition. They who have stooped to this dire and execrable way of saving themselves surely are beaten, overthrown, and flung rolling in the dust, for all their fine praises that are in the mouths of their admirers, for all their traffic in priesthoods, for all their bawling in pulpits, for all their sentencing of Catholics to chains, rack and gallows. Seated in their armchairs as censors, as though any one had elected them to that office, they seize their pens and mark passages as spurious even in God’s own Holy Writ, putting their pens through whatever they cannot stomach. Can any fairly educated man be afraid of battalions of such enemies? If in the midst of your learned body they had recourse to such trickster’s arts, calling like wizards upon their familiar spirit, you would shout at them,—you would stamp your feet at them. For instance I would ask them what right they have to rend and mutilate the body of the Bible. They would answer that they do not cut out true Scriptures, but prune away supposititious accretions. By authority of what judge? By the Holy Ghost. This is the answer prescribed by Calvin (Instit. lib. I, c. 7), for escaping this judgment of the Church whereby spirits of prophesy are examined. Why then do some of you tear out one piece of Scripture, and others another, whereas you all boast of being led by the same Spirit? The Spirit of the Calvinists receives six Epistles which do not please the Lutheran Spirit, both all the while in full confidence reposing on the Holy Ghost. The Anabaptists call the book of Job a fable, intermixed with tragedy and comedy. How do they know? The Spirit has taught them. Whereas the Song of Solomon is admired by Catholics as a paradise of the soul, a hidden manna, and rich delight in Christ, Castalio, a lewd rogue, has reckoned it nothing better than a love-song about a mistress, and an amorous conversation with Court flunkeys. Whence drew he that intimation? From the Spirit. In the Apocalypse of John, every jot and tittle of which Jerane declares to bear some lofty and magnificent meaning, Luther and Brent and Kemnitz, critics hard to please, find something wanting, and are inclined to throw over the whole book. Whom have they consulted? The Spirit. Luther with preposterous heat pits the Four Gospels one against another (Praef. in Nov. Test.), and far prefers Paul’s Epistles to the first three, while he declares the Gospel of St. John above the rest to be beautiful, true, and worthy of mention in the first place,—thereby enrolling even the Apostles, so far as in him lay, as having a hand in his quarrels. Who taught him to do that? The Spirit. Nay this imp of a friar has not hesitated in petulant style to assail Luke’s Gospel because therein good and virtuous works are frequently commended to us. Whom did he consult? The Spirit. Theodore Beza has dared to carp at, as a corruption and perversion of the original, that mystical word from the twenty-second chapter of Luke, this is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which (chalice) shall be shed for you [Greek: potaerion ekchunomenon], because this language admits of no explanation other than that of the wine in the chalice being converted into the true blood of Christ. Who pointed that out? The Spirit. In short, in believing all things every man in the faith of his own spirit, they horribly belie and blaspheme the name of the Holy Ghost. So acting, do they not give themselves away? are they not easily refuted? In an assembly of learned men, such as yours, Gentlemen of the University, are they not caught and throttled without trouble? Should I be afraid on behalf of the Catholic faith to dispute with these men, who have handled with the utmost ill faith not human but heavenly utterances? I say nothing here of their perverse versions of Scripture, though I could accuse them in this respect of intolerable doings. I will not take the bread out of the mouth of that great linguist, my fellow-Collegian, Gregory Martin, who will do this work with more learning and abundance of detail than I could; nor from others whom I understand already to have that task in hand. More wicked and more abominable is the crime that I am now prosecuting, that there have been found upstart Doctors who have made a drunken onslaught on the handwriting that is of heaven; who have given judgment against it as being in many places defiled, defective, false, surreptitious; who have corrected some passages, tampered with others; torn out others; who have converted every bulwark wherewith it was guarded into Lutheran “spirits,” what I may call phantom ramparts and parted walls. All this they have done that they might not be utterly dumbfounded by falling upon Scripture texts contrary to their errors, texts which they would have found it as hard to get over as to swallow hot ashes or chew stones. This then has been my First Reason, a strong and a just one. By revealing the shadowy and broken powers of the adverse faction, it has certainly given new courage to a Christian man, not unversed in these studies, to fight for the Letters Patent of the Eternal King against the remnant of a routed foe.


Quum multa sunt, quae adversariorum diffidentiam in causa loquuntur, tum nihil aeque atque sanctorum maiestas Bibliorum foedissime violata. Etenim qui, posteaquam reliquorum testium voces et suffragia contempserunt, eo sunt redacti nihilo secius, ut stare nequeant, nisi divinis ipsis codicibus vim et manus intulerint; ii se profecto declarant extrema fortuna confligere, et rebus iam desperatis ac perditis, experiri durissima velle atque ultima. Manicheis[3] quid causae fuit, ut “Evangelium Matthei et Acta refigerent Apostolica?” Desperatio. His enim voluminibus cruciabantur, et qui Christum negaverant prognatum de Virgine, et qui Spiritum christianis tum primo coelitus illapsum finxerant quum ipsorum Paracletus, Persa nequissimus, erupisset. Quid Ebioniis,[4] ut omnes Pauli repudarient epistolas? Desperatio. His enim suam dignitatiem retinentibus, antiquata circumcisio est, quam isti revocaverant. Quid Luthero[5] ut Epistolam Iacobi “contentiosam, tumidam, aridum, stramineam,” flagitiosus apostata nominaret, et “indignam spiritu censeret apostolico?” Desperatio. Hoc enim scripto confessus miser atque disruptus est, quum “in sola fide iustitiam, constitueret.” Quid Lutheri catulis, ut Tobiam, Ecclesiasticum, Machabaeos, et horum odio complures alios eadem calumnia comprehensos, e sincero canone repente dispungerent? Desperatio. His enim oraculis disertissime coarguuntur, quoties de angelorum patrocinio, quoties de arbitrii libertate, quoties de fidelibus vita defunctis, quoties de Divorum hominum intercessione disputant.

Itane vero? Tantum perversitatis, tantum audaciae? Quum Ecclesiam, concilia, cathedras, Patres, martyres, imperia, populos, leges, academias, historias, omnia vetustatis et sanctitatis vestigia conculcassent, scripto Dei verbo tantum controversias velle dirimere proclamassent, illud ipsum verbum, quod solum restiterat, exsectis e toto corpore tam multis, tam bonis, tam speciosis, partibus, delumbasse? Septem enim ipsos de veteri Testamento[6] codices, ut minuta dissimulem, calviniani praeciderunt; lutherani vero etiam epistolam Iacobi, et huius invidia quinque alias;[7] de quibus aliquando fuerat et alicubi controversum. His quoque libellum Estheris et tria capita Danielis adnumerant novissimi Genuenses; quae quidem Anabaptistae, istorum condiscipuli, iam pridem damnaverant atque deriserant.

Quanto modestius Augustinus,[8] qui sacrosanctum catalogum pertexens, non sibi neque alphabetum hebraicum, ut Iudaei; neque privatum spiritum, ut Sectarii, pro regula posuit; sed illum Spiritum, quo totum corpus Ecclesiae Christus animat. Quae quidem Ecclesia custos huius depositi, non magistra, quod haeretici cavillantur, thesaurum hunc universum quem Tridentina[9] Synodus est amplexa, vetustissimis olim conciliis publicitus vindicavit. Idem Augustinus,[10] de una Scripturarum particula speciatim disserens, inducere in animum non potest, librum Sapientiae, qui iam tum Ecclesiae calculo, temporum serie, priscorum testimonio instinctione fidelium, ut firmus et canonicus robur obtinuerat, cuiusquam temeritate vel susurro extrudi extra canonem oportere. Quid ille nunc diceret, si viveret in terris, et Lutheros Calvinosque concerneret opifices bibliorum, qui sua lima politula et elegantula vetus novumque Testamentum raserint; neque Sapientiam tantum, sed et alia permulta de canonicorum librorum ordine segregaverint: ut quidquid ex horum officina non prodierit, illud ad omnibus phrenetico decreto tamquam incultum et horridum conspuatur?

Ad hoc tam dirum et exsecrabile perfugium qui descenderunt, ii certe licet in ore suorum asseclarum volitent, sacerdotia nundinentur declamitent in concione, ferrum in catholicos, equuleum crucemque consciscant; tamen victi, abiecti, squalidi, prostrati sunt: quandoquidem arrepta virgula censoria, veluti arbitri sedentes honorarii, divinas ipsas tabulas, si quae ad stomachum non fecissent, obliterant. Ecquis est vel mediocriter institutus, qui talium cuniculos hostium reformidet? Qui homines quamprimum in corona vestra, eruditorum hominum, ad eiusmodi veteratorias artes, tamquam ad familiarem daemonem currerent, non aurium convicio sed strepitu pedum exciperentur. Quaererem ab eis, verbi gratia, quo iure corpus biblicum detruncent atque diripiant? Respondent: non se veras Scripturas exscindere, sed excernere supposititias. Quo iudice? Spiritu sancto. Hoc enim responsum a Calvino[11] praescribitur, ut Ecclesiae iudicium, quo spiritus examinantur, subterfugiat. Cur igitur alios alii lancinatis, quum omnes eodem Spiritu gloriemini?

Calvinianorum spiritus recipit sex epistolas, quae spiritui non placent lutherano; freti tamen uterque sancto Spiritu. Anabaptistae historiam Iobi fabulam[12] appellant, tragicis et comicis legibus intermixtam. Qui sciunt? Spiritu docente. Castalio[13] mysticum illud Salomonis Canticum, quod ut paradisum animae, ut manna reconditum, ut opiparas in Christo delicias catholici admirantur, nihilo pluris quam cantilenam de anicula, et cum pedissequis aulae colloquium amatorium venereus furcifer aestimavit. Vnde hausit? A spiritu. In Apocalypsi Ioannis, cuius omnes apices excelsum aliquid et magnificum sonare confirmat Hieronymus,[14] tamen Lutherus[15] et Brentius et Kemnitius quiddam, nescio quid, difficiles aristarchi desiderant; eo scilicet propendentes, ut exautoretur. Quem percontati? Spiritum. Quatuor Evangelia fervore praepostero Lutherus[16] inter se committit, et prioribus tribus Epistolas Pauli longe praeferens, “unicum” deinceps “Evangelium Ioannis, pulchrum, verum, praecipuum” decernit esse nominandum; quippe qui, quod in ipso fuit, libenter etiam Apostolos suarum rixarum socios adscripsisset. Quo doctore? Spiritu. Quin etiam iste fraterculus[17] non dubitavit Evangelium Lucae petulanti stylo perstringere, quod in eo crebrius bona nobis virtutum opera commendentur. Quem interrogavit? Spiritum. Theodorus Beza ex Lucae vigesimo secundo capite : “Hic calix, novum testamentum, in meo sanguine, qui (calix) pro vobis fundetur, <Greek: potaerion enchunomenon>,” ausus est ut corruptum vitiatumque traducere, quod haec oratio nullam expositionem, nisi de vino calicis converso in verum Christi sanguinem, patiatur. Quis indicavit? Spiritus. Denique quum omnia credant suo quisque spiritui, nomen sancti Spiritus horribili blasphemia mentiuntur. Qui sic agunt, nonne se produnt? Nonne facile refutantur? Nonne in concessu talium virorum, quales estis Academici, tenentur ac minimo negotio constringuntur? Cum his ego timeam pro fide catholica disputare, qui pessima fide voces non humanas, sed aethereas tractavere?

Nihil hic dico, quae vertendo perverterint quamvis intolerabilia sint, quae accusem. Gregorio Martino, scientissimo linguarum, collegae meo, qui doctius et plenius hoc praestabit, nihil praeripio, nec aliis, quibus id laboris esse iam prae manibus intellexi. Facinorosius crimen est ac tetrius, quod nunc persequor. Inventos esse doctorculos, qui temulento quodam impetu in coeleste chirographum involarint; idipsum pluribus locis, ut maculatum, ut mancum, ut falsum, ut subreptitium condemnarint; eius partes aliquas correxerint, aliquas corroserint, aliquas evulserint. Hinc omne propugnaculum, quo muniebatur, in lutheranos spiritus, tamquam in valla phantasmatum pictosque parietes commutarint; ne prorsus obmutescerent, quum in Scripturas, erroribus suis infestas, impingerent, quas nihilo commodius expedire, quam sorbere favillas, aut saxa mandere, potuissent.

Haec ergo mihi prima ratio vehemens et iusta fuit quae ubi partes adversarias umbraticas et fractas ostendisset, animum sane addidit viro et christiano et in his studiis exercitato, pro sempiterni Regis diplomate adversus reliquias profligatorum hostium decertandi.

Ten Reasons – St Edmund Campion —HOME