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

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.

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.

"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.

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.“

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

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!!!

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“)

“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:

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.

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.

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!

"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).

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 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.

I was not aware of any Ignatian forgeries. Here is an excerpt of an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Collections
The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians

· of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
· of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
· of Tralles (Trallianois);
· of Rome (Pros Romaious);
· of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
· of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
· to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).

We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius

· to Mary of Cassobola (Pros Marian Kassoboliten);
· to the Tarsians (Pros tous en tarso);
· to the Philippians (Pros Philippesious);
· to the Antiochenes (Pros Antiocheis);
· to Hero a deacon of Antioch (Pros Erona diakonon Antiocheias). Associated with the foregoing is
· a letter from Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius.

It is extremely probable that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition of the spurious letters, and the union of both in the long recension was the work of an Apollonarist of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning of the fifth century. Funk identifies him with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, which came out of Syria in the early part of the same century. Subsequently there was added to this collection a panegyric on St. Ignatius entitled, "Laus Heronis". Though in the original it was probably written in Greek, it is now extant only in Latin and Coptic texts. There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection ". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.
In this collection is also to be found the "Martyrium Colbertinum". The Greek original of this recension is contained in a single codex, the famous Mediceo-Laurentianus manuscript at Florence. This codex is incomplete, wanting the letter to the Romans, which, however, is to be found associated with the "Martyrium Colbertinum" in the Codex Colbertinus, at Paris. The mixed collection is regarded as the most reliable of all in determining what was the authentic text of the genuine Ignatian letters. There is also an ancient Latin version which is an unusually exact rendering of the Greek. Critics are generally inclined to look upon this version as a translation of some Greek manuscript of the same type as that of the Medicean Codex. This version owes its discovery to Archbishop Ussher, of Ireland, who found it in two manuscripts in English libraries and published it in 1644. It was the work of Robert Grosseteste, a Franciscan friar and Bishop of Lincoln (c. 1250). The original Syriac version has come down to us in its entirety only in an Armenian translation. It also contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters. This collection in the original Syriac would be invaluable in determining the exact text of Ignatius, were it in existence, for the reason that it could not have been later than the fourth or fifth century. The deficiencies of the Armenian version are in part supplied by the abridged recension in the original Syriac. This abridgment contains the three genuine letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp. The manuscript was discovered by Cureton in a collection of Syriac manuscripts obtained m 1843 from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Nitria. Also there are three letters extant only in Latin. Two of the three purport to be from Ignatius to St. John the Apostle, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply to the same. These are probably of Western origin, dating no further back than the twelfth century.
The Controversy
At intervals during the last several centuries a warm controversy has been carried on by patrologists concerning the authenticity of the Ignatian letters. Each particular recension has had its apologists and its opponents. Each has been favored to the exclusion of all the others, and all, in turn, have been collectively rejecte d, especially by the coreligionists of Calvin. The reformer himself, in language as violent as it is uncritical (Institutes, 1-3), repudiates in globo the letters which so completely discredit his own peculiar views on ecclesiastical government. The convincing evidence which the letters bear to the Divine origin of Catholic doctrine is not conducive to predisposing non-Catholic critics in their favor, in fact, it has added not a little to the heat of the controversy. In general, Catholic and Anglican scholars are ranged on the side of the letters written to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphi ans, Smyrniots, and to Polycarp; whilst Presbyterians, as a rule, and perhaps a priori, repudiate everything claiming Ignatian authorship.
The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed Virgin, which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious. The great body of critics who acknowledge the authenticity of the Ignatian letters restrict their approval to those mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The six others are not defended by any of the early Fathers. The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters. In 1623, whilst the controversy was at its height, Vedelius gave expression to this latter opinion by publishing at Geneva an edition of the Ignatian letters in which the seven genuine letters are set apart from the five spurious. In the genuine letters he indicated what was regarded as interpolations. The reformer Dallaeus, at Geneva, in 1666, published a work entitled "De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur", in which (lib. II) he called into question the authenticity of all seven letters. To this the Anglican Pearson replied spiritedly in a work called "Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii", published at Cambridge, 1672. So convincing were the arguments adduced in this scholarly work that for two hundred years the controversy remained closed in favor of the genuineness of the seven letters. The discussion was reopened by Cureton's discovery (1843) of the abridged Syriac version, containing the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Romans, and to Polycarp. In a work entitled "Vindiciae Ignatianae" London, 1846), he defended the position that only the letters contained in his abridged Syriac recension, and in the form therein contained, were genuine, and that all others were interpolated or forged outright.
This position was vigorously combated by several British and German critics, including the Catholics Denzinger and Hefele, who successfully de fended the genuineness of the entire seven epistles. It is now generally admitted that Cureton's Syriac version is only an abbreviation of the original.
While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI., III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: "Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith", the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, "De morte peregrini", written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as "testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of" (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).

So it seems that there is a bit of controversy surrounding the letters of Ignatius.

-ksen

You overstate your case.

According to your own post,

the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged.

Here is the crux of the issue, as usual:

Each has been favored to the exclusion of all the others, and all, in turn, have been collectively rejected, especially by the coreligionists of Calvin. The reformer himself, in language as violent as it is uncritical (Institutes, 1-3), repudiates in globo the letters which so completely discredit his own peculiar views on ecclesiastical government. The convincing evidence which the letters bear to the Divine origin of Catholic doctrine is not conducive to predisposing non-Catholic critics in their favor...whilst Presbyterians, as a rule, and perhaps a priori, repudiate everything claiming Ignatian authorship.

So in summary,

NO, there is no controversy whatsoever among Christians as to the authenticity of the individual Ignatian letter I quoted except among those unwilling to accept the blatantly obvious witness of history and desire to replace real, valid history with their own fallacious hystories made up out of whole cloth to support their new false doctrines of the reformation.

Just as Martin Luther attempted to remove James from the New Testament, because it refutes his new novel interpretations, and successfully removed Old Testament books (like 2 Maccabees, which refutes his rejection of purgatory,) so the reformers and their heirs attempt to discredit Ignatius, because his letters PROVE the early Church believed universally in the Real Presence, the hierarchy, the authority of men to lose and bind, and the CATHOLICITY of all early Christians.

Of course, that's what this entire thread is about, and your efforts to cast doubt upon the letter of Ignatius that I quote is just more of the same revisionist deception that the original story above completely disproves.

You seem to be purposely misrepresenting what your own post says, or at the very least you are simply reading it incorrectly in your zeal to find anything to refute the words of Ignatius, because they undermine your entire theological framework and understanding of Christianity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume the latter is probably the case.

Here is the next paragraph from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the obvious source of the obsession of Calvinists and others to try to impugn the authenticity of the Ignatian letters:

Contents of the letters

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said ("The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius", in "Historical Sketches", I, London, 1890) that "the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles". Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters' of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

Here then we see why you must believe, erroneously, that the quote I posted is a forgery. For to believe the Truth is to become Catholic.

See the references to Ignatius' Letters in this excerpt regarding St. Polycarp. I think it pretty much lays our current "debate" to rest. All that remains is for you the reader to act on this TRUTH:

St. Polycarp Martyr (A.D. 69-155).

Our chief sources of information concerning St. Polycarp are: (1) the Epistles of St. Ignatius; (2) St. Polycarp's own Epistle to the Philippians; (3) sundry passages in St. Irenaeus; (4) the Letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the martyrdom of St. Polycarp.

The Epistles of St. Ignatius

Four out of the seven genuine epistles of St. Ignatius were written from Smyrna. In two of these -Magnesians and Ephesians- he speaks of Polycarp. The seventh Epistle was addressed to Polycarp. It contains little or nothing of historical interest in connexion with St. Polycarp. In the opening words St. Ignatius gives glory to God "that it hath been vouchsafed to me to see thy face". It seems hardly safe to infer, with Pearson and Lightfoot, from these words that the two had never met before.

The Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians

The Epistle of St. Polycarp was a reply to one from the Philippians, in which they had asked St. Polycarp to address them some words of exhortation; to forward by his own messenger a letter addressed by them to the Church of Antioch; and to send them any epistles of St. Ignatius which he might have. The second request should be noted. St. Ignatius had asked the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia to send a messenger to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the restoration of peace; presumably, therefore, when at Philippi, he gave similar instructions to the Philippians. This is one of the many respects in which there is such complete harmony between the situations revealed in the Epistles of St. Ignatius and the Epistle of St. Polycarp, that it is hardly possible to impugn the genuineness of the former without in some way trying to destroy the credit of the latter, which happens to be one of the best attested documents of antiquity. In consequence some extremists, anti-episcopalians in the seventeenth century, and members of the Tubingen School in the nineteenth, boldly rejected the Epistle of Polycarp [the only credible intellectual position, if you honestly reject Ignatius, but one which no individual today impugning Ignatius makes--p2brc.] Others tried to make out that the passages which told most in favour of the Ignatian epistles were interpolations.

These theories possess no interest now that the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles has practically ceased to be questioned. The only point raised which had any show of plausibility (it was sometimes used against the genuineness, and sometimes against the early date of St. Polycarp's Epistle) was based on a passage in which it might at first sight seem that Marcion was denounced: "For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own lusts, and saith there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan." St. Polycarp wrote his epistle before he had heard of St. Ignatius' martyrdom. Now, supposing the passage just quoted to have been aimed at Marcion (whom, on one occasion, as we shall presently see, St. Polycarp called to his face "the first-born of Satan"), the choice lies between rejecting the epistle as spurious on account of the anachronism, or bringing down its date, and the date of St. Ignatius' martyrdom to A.D. 130-140 when Marcion was prominent. Harnack seems at one time to have adopted the latter alternative; but he now admits that there need be no reference to Marcion at all in the passage in question (Chronologie, I, 387-8). Lightfoot thought a negative could be proved. Marcion, according to him, cannot be referred to because nothing is said about his characteristic errors, e.g., the distinction between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament; and because the antinomianism ascribed to "the first-born of Satan" is inapplicable to the austere Marcion (Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I, 585; all references to Lightfoot (L), unless otherwise stated, will be to this work).

When Lightfoot wrote it was necessary to vindicate the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles and that of St. Polycarp. If the former were forgeries, the latter, which supports - it might almost be said presupposes- them, must be a forgery from the same hand. But a comparison between Ignatius and Polycarp shows that this is an impossible hypothesis. The former lays every stress upon episcopacy, the latter does not even mention it. The former is full of emphatic declarations of the doctrine of the Incarnation, the two natures of Christ, etc. In the latter these matters are hardly touched upon. "The divergence between the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is equally remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous, as well as more precise, than in the former. The obligations to the New Testament are wholly different in character in the two cases. The Ignatian letters do, indeed, show a considerable knowledge of the writings included in our Canon of the New Testament; but this knowledge betrays itself in casual words and phrases, stray metaphors, epigrammatic adaptations, and isolated coincidences of thought...On the other hand in Polycarp's Epistle sentence after sentence is frequently made up of passages from the Evangelical and Apostolic writings...But this divergence forms only part of a broader and still more decisive contrast, affecting the whole style and character of the two writings. The profuseness of quotations in Polycarp's Epistle arises from a want of originality...On the other hand the letters of Ignatius have a marked individuality. Of all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect" (op.cit., 595-97).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius: did he really make THAT statement?