Letters on the rule of faith; or the method of finding out the true religion from the "end of religious controversy."

Abstract

Letter V

Second False Rule

Dear Sir,

After all that I have written concerning the rule of faith, adopted by yourself and other more rational Protestants, I have only yet treated of the extrinsic arguments against it. I now therefore proceed to investigate its intrinsic nature, in order to shew more fully the inadequacy, or rather the falsehood of it.

When an English Protestant gets possession of an English bible, printed by Thomas Basket, or other "printer to the king's most excellent majesty," he takes it in hand with the same confidence as if he had immediately received it from the Almighty himself, as Moses received the tables of the law on Mount Sina, amidst thunder and lightning. But how vain is this confidence, whilst he adheres to the foregoing rule of faith. How many questionable points does he assume as proved, which cannot be proved without relinquishing his own principles and adopting ours!

I. Supposing then you, dear sir, to be the Protestant I have been speaking of; I begin with asking you: by what means have you learnt what is the canon of scripture, that is to say, which are the books that have been written by divine inspiration; or, indeed, how have you ascertained that any books at all have been so written? You cannot discover either of these things by your rule, because the scripture, as your great authority Hooker shews (I) and Chillingworth allows, cannot bear testimony to itself... [Excerpt]