[N]o man can set a better state of the question between Scripture and tradition, than Hooker doth. His words are these: "The Scripture is the ground … - William Laud

As for that in which he is quite mistaken, it is his inference, which is this: "That I should therefore consider carefully, whether it be not more Christian, and less brain-sick, to think that the pope, being S. Peter's successor, with a General Council, should be judge of controversies, &c., and that the pastoral judgment of him should be accounted infallible, rather than to make every man that can read the Scripture interpreter of Scripture, decider of controversies, controller of General Councils, and judge of his judges: or to have no judge at all of controversies of faith, but permit every man to believe as he list; as if there were no infallible certainty of faith to be expected on earth; which were, instead of one saving faith, to induce a Babylonical confusion of so many faiths as fancies, or no true Christian faith at all. From which evils, sweet Jesus, deliver us!" I have considered of this very carefully; but this inference supposes that which I never granted, nor any Protestant that I yet know—namely, that if I deny the pope to be judge of controversies, I must by and by either leave this supreme judicature in the hands and power of every private man, that can but read the Scripture, or else allow no judge at all, and so let in all manner of confusion. No, God forbid that I should grant either: for I have expressly declared, "That the Scripture, interpreted by the Primitive Church, and a lawful and free General Council determining according to these, is judge of controversies: and that no private man whatsoever is or can be judge of these."

So the Church and the Commonwealth, God's house, "the Temple," and the King's house, "the house of David," are met in my text. And they would ever meet, and in love, no question, did not some distempered spirits breathe sour upon them. For the Church cannot dwell but in the State. You never read that she "fled" out of the State "into the wilderness," but when some "dragon" persecuted her. And the Commonwealth cannot flourish without the Church: for where the Church is not to teach true religion, States are enforced, out of necessity of some, to embrace a false; and a false is not a help to make a kingdom flourish. But when they dwell together, when the Church, the house of grace, is a welcome inmate to the State, which is a wise fabric of nature, then in the Temple there is meeting; "the people go up to bless and praise the name of the Lord." And then in the State there is meeting, to settle the "thrones of judgment," to make firm "the house of David." And then, and never but then, "Jerusalem," that is, both State and Church, "is as a city that is at unity in itself."

There is a great deal of difference, especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church, between the Church and a Church; and there is some between a true Church and a right Church, which is the word you use, but no man else that I know: I am sure not I. For “the Church” may import in our language “the only true Church;” and, perhaps, as some of you seem to make it, “the root and the ground of the Catholic.” And this I never did grant of the Roman Church, nor ever mean to do. But “a Church” can imply no more than that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did nor ever will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a “true Church,” I granted also; but not a “right,” as you impose upon me.