Monday, June 15, 2020

Faustus Socinus, "A Book May be Authentic, Whose Writer is Unknown"

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)