Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius: what did he really about the "ancient" Baptists

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html ^

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius: did he really make THAT statement?

Introduction

When Baptists attempt to maintain their descent from the time of the Apostles, they often will bring up a purported statement of Cardinal Hosius from the sixteenth century, which „proves“ so they think, that the Baptists have been around from the beginning, so they are the true Christian church. That this statement was supposedly made by Hosius, who was a papal legate at the Council of Trent, is sure to cause doubts as to its authenticity, except among those who would like to believe it`s genuineness. It is the purpose of this essay to show the evidence for the inauthenticity of this statement, and to show also what Cardinal Hosius really did have to say about anabaptists in his writings.

A little about Hosius

Born 5.May.1504 in Krakow, Poland, of German parents.
Died 5.August.1579 in Capranica (near Rome).
Cardinal from 1561. Bishop of Ermland from 1551 to 1579.
Legate for Vienna 1560; papal legate for Council of Trent 1561-1563; legate for Poland 1566.
Fought entry of Protestants into Poland. In 1564 he called the Jesuits into Poland for that purpose.
Wrote the „Confessio“, a famous catechism, in 1577
Complete works published Cologne 1584.

More info at Catholic Encyclopedia: Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius

PART I. Cardinal Hosius and that infamous "statement": Is it genuine?

The statement reads as follows:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)" Quoted in the „Trail of Blood“ by J. Carroll.

Does this statement exist in his complete works? No.

The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title „Opera Omnia“. The complete title reads as follows:

D.STANISLAI HOSII, S R E CARDINALIS, MAIORIS POENITENTIARII; ET EPISCOPI VARMIENSIS

“Opera Omnia in Duos divisa tomos, quorum primus ab ipso auctore plurimus subinde in locis, integris & dimidijs paginis sic auctus & recognitus, ut novum opus fere censeri possit. Secundum autem totus novus, nuncque primus typis excusus.“

Coloniae
Apud Maternum Cholinum
Anno M. D. L XXXIIII

The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius

• There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is apparently meaningless. Similarly, I could find no publication of his with this title.

• I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.

• Nowhere in the letters of Hosius are the "reformers" referred to as such. Rather, they are referred to as "Lutherani", "Calvinisti", "Zuingliani" and, especially in his other works, "haeretici". The purported statement of Hosius uses language he never uses in his "Opera omnia", and so its authenticity must be called into question.

• The citation by various Baptist websites of two completely different purported statements by Cardian Hosuis, both given the same page reference, adds to the doubt about the genuineness of either. (The second purported statement is quoted in Note 1 below). The said statements are purported to be found on pages 112, 113 of "Apud Opera". However, only one statement can be found crossing over from page 112 to 113. How can you get two different statements, both starting on page 112 and both ending on page 113? (The only possibility would be if one statement were embedded in the other, but that is clearly not the case here.)

-----------

PART II: What Cardinal Hosius DID have to say about the „Anabaptists“.

Cardinal Hosius meant by the term „Anabaptist“ a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists.). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augustine!!!

See Catholic Encyclopedia: Donatists

a) The following is an extract from „Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis“ found in „Opera Omnia“ on page 432 of the Cologne, 1584 edition. It shows clearly how the Anabaptists of the time of Hosius could not agree among themselves, just as the anabaptist groups of Augustine’s time were also likewise hopelessly disunited.
(Note: original Latin will be shown in italics)

( Margin heading: Anabaptistae inter se dissecti)
"But this sect of Anabaptists is greatly divided. For they neither agree on the main doctrines among themselves .."( Est autem & haec Anabaptistarum secta valde dissecta: Neque enim doctrine capitibus inter se conveniunt. ) .It has also been in Augustines century, (fuit etiam Augustini seculo, & ficut aliae pleraeque omnes haereses) all heresies immediately from the beginning divided into many parts (sic & haec statim ab initio multas in partes fuit divisa).

b) Cardinal Hosius then goes on to list some of the anabaptist heretical groups of Augustine’s time. This is significant, because among other things it shows that Hosius regarded the Donatists as „anabaptists“ or re-baptizers. However, since we know exactly what the Donatists believed (and it certainly wasn’t what Baptists believe) we see that Hosius used the term „anabaptist“ as a generic term for sects which re-baptized. Here is his quote:
(Nam alij vocabantur Donatistae, alij Rogatistae, alij Maximianistae, Circenses alij, qui conversi tandem sunt a factione Donatistarum ( hoc enim nomen caeteris erat celebrius) ad Ecclesiae Catholicae societatem. )
(„For some are called Donatists, others Rogatists, other Maximinianists, othere Circenses, which at length are changed from the faction of the Donatists to the Catholic Church“)

c) And he continues by listing some of the sects of the sixteenth century.

“Muncerani, alij Orantes, alij Silentes, Somniantes, pueris similes, Synceri, Impeccabiles a Baptismo, Liberi, Binderliani, Sabbatarii, Maderanii, Hoffmannici, & post eos exorti Circumcisi: fortassis & Adamitae ad Anabaptistarum sectam pertinent. „

So it is clear from this that Hosius grouped all re-baptising sects together under the heading „Anabaptists“. This is very important to note, for it destroys conclusively any notion that the Baptists of today can trace their lineage back to the time of Augustine.

d) A quote from letter CLVII „Carolo Archiduci Austriae“ (from „Opera Omnia“, Liber Epistolarum)

„Nonne videmus a Lutheranismo ad Calvinismum, a Calvinismo ad Anabaptismum, ab Anabaptismo ad Trideismum, a Trideismi ad Atheism iam esse ventum? „
(„Do we not already see the wind to be from Lutheranism to Calvinism, from Calvinism to Anabaptism, from Anabaptism to Trideism, from Trideism to Atheism?“).

Proof again, if it were needed, that Cardinal Hosius certainly didn’t see the Anabaptists of his time being in any way descended from the groups at the time of Augustine.

e) Letter CL „Alberto Bavariae Duci“ (ibid.): in this letter we do have a reference to Anabaptists from 1,200 years earlier , („quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos“), however as we have seen, this refers to sects such as the Donatists, who did not reject infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling, they merely insisted that apostates should be „re-baptized“, hence their status as „ana-baptists“.

„Nam & alterius Principis edictum non ita pridem legi, qui vicem Anabaptistarum dolens, quos ante mille ducentos annes haeretisos, capitalique supplicio dignos esse pronunciatos legimus, vult, ut audiantur omnino, nec indicta causa pro condemnatis habeantur.“

f) Finally note the following reference. Again Hosius is goruping the Donatists as anabaptists:

Page 436 „Liber Primus De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis“ (ibid.)

Neque vero tantum Augustini seculo tales fuerunt: Ante quadringentos etia annos, quibus Bernardus vixit, fuerunt Anabaptistae non minus vitae prodigi, quam Donatistae.“
(„Not only in the time of Augustine were they as such. 400 years ago, during which Bernard lived, there have been anabaptists no less prodigious of life than the Donatists.“)
(Refs Augustus epist. 50 „Donatistae mortis oppetendae cupidi“; Bernardus. sermo 66 in cantic.)

Once again, there is absolutely no connection in Hosius' mind between the groups of the time of Augustine and those of the sixteenth century.

-----------

In summary:

We have shown that (i) it is almost certain that Cardinal Hosius never made that remark which is attributed to him, for reasons given in section I above, and (ii) that Cardinal Hosius certainly did not regard the Anabaptists of his time as being in any way descended from the sects of the time of Augustine.

An understanding of the general nature of the term „anabaptist“ as simply meaning „re-baptizer“ will clarify why Hosius says they existed as early as Augustine`s time. Note that in contrast, the term „Catholic“ has always meant something quite specific, union with the See of Peter in the universal Church. For this reason, the Catholic Church of today CAN and DOES claim continuity from the time of the Apostles.

As a final comment, it is well to note that the Catholic Church has much more ancient testimony than anything the Baptists can come up with. Just read the Early Church Fathers on Baptism, the Eucharist, the Primacy of Peter etc. See for example www.catholic.com or www.newadvent.org
The Baptists cannot provide any kind of support of this kind for their position.

-----------

Catholic Encyclopedia Links:

The following are some links to Catholic Encyclopedia articles relating to pre-reformation heretical sects. The casual reader will note that the teachings of these groups vary widely and can in no way be seen to be doctrinally consistent with modern-day Baptists!

Albigenses
Cathari
Donatists
Waldenses
Petrobrusians
Sabbatarians
Baptists

-----------

Note 1.

The Landmark Independent Baptist Church website cites the following quotation:

"If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptist since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people. (Cardinal Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, 112-113)." Baptist Magazine CVIII, 278. May, 1826)

Obviously, this is very different quote from the one quoted earlier. Yet they both have the same reference (Letters, Apud Opera, 112-113).

-----------

Note 2.

The list of contents for Cardinal Hosius‘ Complete Works (Colonia, 1584 edition) reads as follows:
Operum Tomi Primi
Catalogus

Confessio catholica fidei Christiana folio 1
Confutation Prolegomenon Brentij. 419
De expresso Dei verbo libellus 611
Dialogues de communione sub utraq. specie

• de Sacerdotum coniugio
• de Missa vulgari lingua celebranda

644
Iudicium & censura de adoranda Trinitate 669
Stanislai Orechouij Epistola ad Stanislaum Hosium Cardinalem 708
Stanislaj Hosij Cardinalis, ad eundem de loco, & auctoritate Romani Pontificis in Ecclesia, & in Concilijs 711
Fabiana Quadrantini Recantantiones 719.

Operum Tomi Secundi
Catalogus

De oppresso Dei verbo libellus 1
De Actis cum diversis Haereticis 61
Liber Epistelarum 145
Examen siue exiussio Confederationis Hareticorum 454
Altera exiussio eiusdem Confederationis 459
Orationes funebres duae, in Exequijs duorum Regum Poloniae Sigismundi primi & secundi recitatae 462.469
Eiusdem auctoris Testamentum ex manuscriptus adversarijs excerptum 483
Epistola Stanislai Rescij, de transitu Cardinalis Hosij 485
Eiusdem Ode lugubris 495.

---

Your comments are welcome at seanie@catholicweb.com

Forgeries Index

Sean's Faith Website homepage

Copyright © 2001 Sean Hyland. This text may be reproduced in its entirety provided the copyright notice is included, but may not be sold or exchanged for profit.

[pegleg]

You mean The Trail of Blood is shoddy scholarship? My goodness. ( /sarcasm ) Great post.

[patent]

Out of curiousity, what part of this post was your "I won't whine" comment not whining about?

patent

[RnMomof7]

Out of curiousity, what part of this post was your "I won't whine" comment not whining about?

LOL..the best part of my non whine was I did not push the abuse button :>) Happy Easter Patent !!

[patent]

That isn't much of an answer, what would you have pushed the abuse button on if you were one of us poor whiny Catholics?

[RnMomof7]

I do not know the answer to that..just it happens alot....too much for it to be an accident...Now because exchanges like this are dangerous due to the PC speech code thats it Patent

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Don't be silly!!!

A Calvinist DID post "something like this" on a Catholic thread earlier this week, (a thread for Catholics to prayerfully fight trouble in their own church, not a thread inviting Calvinists to bash the Church, mind you) as proof that the RCC was wrong and Calvinists were correct in their interpretation of scripture and history. I was aghast that OrthodoxPresbyterian would use such blatantly false "history" to try to bash us Catholics. It truly is below his level of scholarship and apologetics style, and I'm truly concerned he would trav el down such a tin foil hat path.

Regardless, it was necessary to correct the sinister deception he was foisting on Christians here by posting this response.

I never would have posted this if he had not entered a Catholic thread to spew forth such lies.

And I'm disappointed in you for whining about this measured response to such unadulterated lies.

[patent]

Above you make a factual statement:

Now I just want to say that if a Calvinist had posted something like this about Catholics all the crybabies would be out in force whinning about RC bashing...we will not whine however..because we believe in free speech!

You call Catholics crybabies, whiners, and then you set yourself up as superior to them by saying you won’t whine about it, though you just had. Now you seem to admit you don't have much proof that its Catholics getting these recent posts pulled, and you know full well that there are other people who can act with or without our request. You also know full well that many of us don't use the abuse button.

When asked what it is about this post that bugs you, you say nothing. You can’t pinpoint anything wrong with this post. Now you claim to be afraid to speak. So much for your loud protestations about refusing to "preach a gospel of compromise" on the thread about the religion forums. Your fear certainly didn’t stop you from interrupting a thread where we were trying to discuss what to do about pedophilia in our Church, so whatever. You have spine when you want to, you just don't have anything to support your name calling, so you just wave your hands. I didn’t think I'd see anything different.

This article is a historical discussion of what a Catholic Cardinal did or did not say about Anabaptists. That is hardly bashing, you folks rely on this guy, one of our Cardinals, for words he supposedly said, when he didn’t say them. You are full of it, I don't recall seeing Catholics complain about similar objective posts. What bugs us is being called non-Christian, babies, whiners, idolaters, subjective things like that.

You have this thing for whining about a double standard around here. Yet, when asked to support it you can’t point to anything. You can’t point to anything in this article that compares to what some of you say on threads attacking Catholics, even non theological threads like the pedophilia one I referenced above. You complain your posts get pulled, etc. Maybe you should ask yourself what it is about your style and that of your fellows in faith that gets them dumped.

patent  +AMDG

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Finally got back to my other computer for the ping list. Sorry for any redundancy. Please let me know if you would like on or off my little list. Thanks.

[RnMomof7]

A Calvinist DID post "something like this" on a Catholic thread earlier this week,

A thread that got pulled...you do make my point

[Proud2BAmerican]

I think it was Dr. Scott Hahn that said to become familiar with Church history was to become Roman Catholic.

Dr. Hahn may have been paraphrasing Cardinal Newman, who I believe said, "To be learned in Church history is to cease to be Protestant." Newman converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism after having set out to research and prove Anglicanism from Church history (he obviously ended up coming to a different conclusion than he set out to prove).

[history_matters]

No he doesn't make your point. You still have the burden on you to move beyond complaining to actual engagement with the article. Hit the abuse button if you don't like it. Or jump in and be part of a real discussion that doesn't include whining and subjective assaults. Or just go away to a thread where you and your buddies can congratulate each other on being so superior to Roman Catholics.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Well, considering that in early February Jim Robinson made it abundantly clear that he would tolerate no more Catholic bashing, it does not surprise me that that thread was pulled because of the patently false hystories posted by our calvinists there.

[Romulus]

This is a fearful amount of labor to have undertaken on a holiday weekend. A masterly performance, for which we are all in your debt. Bumped AND bookmarked!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

A Blessed Easter to you!

[First Conservative]

Glad to see you are still active on this site. The "Neverending" has regressed, as I noted you observed, but the same ROMAN ("Latin Rite") Catholics are also still around, like pegleg and Proud2B.

Some of the readers of this thread could learn a few things by reading some of the earlier postings on the "Neverending" by yourself, Havoc, gracebeliever, ksen, JHavard, and others.

My only comment is the truth of church history has been very successfully obscured through the efforts of the RC Church, as documented by this poster. RCs, BTW, are APOSTATE Baptists!!! (All early Christians were "Baptists," who were obediently baptized by immersion as a testament to their salvation according to the Scriptures - certainly NOT for the forgiveness of sins, as is taught by the RCC)

The RC Church began their split about 350 A.D. from the early, primitive and fundamental church primarily over infant baptism and church hierarchy. The early church did not call themselves "Baptists" - they just were!! So the "2000 year history of the RC Church" is just one of many fables they promote, and similar to Peter being the First "Pope," etc.

He is Risen!! Enjoy worshiping our Lord!

[Iowegian]

Forgeries? LOL The pot calling the kettle black, I'd say.

Heads up.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

the truth of church history has been very successfully obscured through the efforts of the RC Church, as documented by this poster

If the "truth" of your god and your version of the gospel is so easily obscured, the god you serve must not be the awesome, omnipotent God we Catholics serve.

This is your only response to historical reality? History proves your position completely wrong, so instead of rejecting the errors of your system and following Christ's Church, you must make up a history out of whole cloth to rationalize your continued rejective of the obvious TRUTH?

Pitiful.

[history_matters]

Thanks for a hoot of a laugh. (Where do you mini-Popes come from?) I thought feminists were bad with their revisionist history writing -- but they have nothing on you!