Wayne Grudem (himself a Baptist, but the Anglican "Reasserters" clearly regard him as an authority) argued this idea in his Systematic Theology. He stated the position that only the scriptures have the authority to verify their own authority, an obviously circular argument that collapses in on itself; and it is something that the Fathers of the Church would have found, at best, quite unnecessary. After all, the Fathers of the Church were very much aware of having received authoritative tradition, a consistent teaching handed down from the Apostles, that other part of Apostolic Succession that must accompany the Laying on of hands. Allowing the authority of this Tradition to answer the demands of Reason secures the place both of Scripture and its proper interpretation by Apostolic teaching.
The tautology of Grudem's argument is dangerous, as is demonstrated in the same book. For he wrote that if we found a work that could be identified as a writing by one of the Apostles, we would have to regard it as scripture. This exists in a modern version of Protestantism, or neo-Evangelicalism, that often stresses that the scriptures are the Word of God as they were in the original autographa (original autographs). Of course, we have no access to any autographa of scripture, and therefore no settled authority, really, for anything- that is, if we buy that model of authority.
The authoritative Tradition of the Church answers the demands of Reason, and also gives us a fixed and authoritative Canon of Scripture that modern Evangelicalism, by its circular argument and concept of an ever elusive autographa, simply cannot have. And, this genuine crisis of authority exists in the "Reasserter" camp too. What they fail to see, also, is how well their position plays into the hands of the most heretical and apostate revisionists, aiding them in everything from women's "ordination" to the blessing of same sex unions. The authority of scripture, without the authority of the Church that has handed down a recognized body of teaching to guide our understanding of scripture, can be used by anybody to teach anything. They can argue endlessly, but never prevail over those who are "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (II Tim. 3:7)
* * *
It has been pointed out that Richard Hooker, due to the era in which he lived, did sometimes use the word "tradition" in a negative way. Because he could, at times, use it in that way, it is all the more significant when he used it positively, in this case to speak of the authority of the Church not just in matters of polity, but of doctrine. So it is that he makes the case for the authority of the Church to teach that the Scriptures are the very words of God himself, and that they contain all things necessary for salvation.
XIII. Because we maintain that in Scripture we are taught all things necessary unto salvation; hereupon very childishly it is by some demanded, what Scripture can teach us the sacred authority of the Scripture, upon the knowledge whereof our whole faith and salvation dependeth? As though there were any kind of science in the world which leadeth men into knowledge without presupposing a number of things already known. No science doth make known the first principles whereon it buildeth, but they are always either taken as plain and manifest in themselves, or as proved and granted already, some former knowledge having made them evident. Scripture teacheth all supernatural revealed truth, without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained. The main principle whereupon our belief of all things therein contained dependeth, is, that the Scriptures are the oracles of God himself. This in itself we cannot say is evident. For then all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart, as they do when they hear that “every whole is more than any part of that whole,” because this in itself is evident. The other we know that all do not acknowledge when they hear it. There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed which doth herein assure the hearts of all believers. Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world by revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is divine and sacred.
XIV. The question then being by what means we are taught this ; some answer that to learn it we have no other way than only tradition; as namely that so we believe because both we from our predecessors and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough? That which all men’s experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied. And by experience we all know, that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God’s Church1 . For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. If infidels or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture, and our own persuasion which Scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proved a truth infallible. In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew, what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of God by arguments such as unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judged thereof as they should. Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true. Wherefore if I believe the Gospel, yet is reason of singular use, for that it confirmeth me in this my belief the more: if I do not as yet believe, nevertheless to bring me to the number of believers except reason did somewhat help, and were an instrument which God doth use unto such purposes, what should it boot to dispute with infidels or godless persons for their conversion and persuasion in that point?
Laws Of Ecclesiastical Polity Book III. Ch. viii. 13, 14.