Faustus
Socinus (1539-1604), one of the Radical Reformers, addressed the long-standing
question of whether one can accept, as divinely inspired scripture, a book
whose author is not known (e.g., Hebrews; Revelation):
A Book may be authentick, whose Writer is unknown.
But nevertheless (that we may speak in the
mean time to what we said was falsely assum’d in the Reasoning, wherein this Second Cause of Doubt, or of
with-holding Assent from any Book was explain’d,) I say, that altho’ the Name
of the Author of any Writing be
unknown, such Writing is not therefore to be deem’d of no Authority, or even of
less Credit, in Matters either of History
or Doctrine, than if the Author were known; provided it be
certain, that the Writing was taken to be true, worthy of Faith, and to be rely’d
on by them, who were well acquainted with the Truth of the Things contain’d
therein. And this is the Case of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For that Epistle, in those early Times, when many were
living who had been conversant with the Apostles themselves, as plainly may be
gathered out of Histories (although some of the Romish Church, and the Church of Rome itself, may contradict it), was generally approv’d by all
Christians, so that those very Persons of the opposite Opinion, dissented from
the other, because they would not allow it to be written by Paul, rather than for any other Reason,
which in itself could any way depreciate its Authority. That this Opinion was
anciently very much lik’d, the Syriac
Version of the New Testament of greatest
Antiquity, among other Things, makes appear; because ‘tis known to be extant in
that Book.
The Apocalypse,
or Revelation, remains, which has been always common Consent imputed to John the Apostle and Evangelist. Many
have doubted it notwithstanding: But Justin,
who liv’d near the Time when it was writ, quotes it as the Work of the same John, and as Eusebius plainly testifies, ascribes it to him. And Irenaeus, who flourish’d but a little
while after Justin, and who likewise
as he himself affirms, was in being at the Time almost when the Vision we speak of happen’d to that
Writer, not only expressly asserts, that it was the Writing of that Apostle
(which Eusebius witnesses by citing
the very Words of Irenaeus) but
withal plainly says, that it was confirm’d by the Testimony of those who
personally knew John. Whereore it
seems not agreeable to Reason, for some small or even great Dissimilitude of
Stile us’d in the other Writings of the same John, being of a quite different Nature or Subject (which perhaps of
all Arguments brought to prove that Writing to be his, is the most prevalent:)
I say, it is not therefore consonant to Reason, for any one to question its
being his Work, especially when there are so many other Testimonies and Conjectures
for the sounder Opinion; insomuch that those very Men, who absolutely denied
this to be the Work of the aforesaid Apostle, and rejected it of old, where
constrain’d to confess it written by such a one as would have it be thought,
that Jon really was its Author, which
may suffice for the Second Cause of
doubting, &c. (Faustus Socinus, A Demonstration
of the Truth of the Christian Religion, from the Latin of Socinus. After the
Steinfurt Copy. To Which is prefix’d, a short account of his life. [2d ed.;
London: W. Meadows, 1732], 41-44, spelling in original retained)
