No one who reads the unsparing vigor of his criticism can doubt that Law must have been thoroughly happy in the composition of his defence; and, indeed, his is the only contribution to the debate which may claim a permanent place in political literature.

In one sense, indeed, the whole of Law's answer is an _ignoratio elenchi_, for he assumes the truth of that which Hoadly sets out to examine, with the inevitable result that each writer is, for the most part, arguing from different premises.

But on the assumption that Hoadly is a Christian, Law's argument is an attack of great power.
He shows conclusively that if the Church of England is no more than Hoadly imagines it to be, it cannot, in any proper historic sense, be called the Church of England at all.

For every one of the institutions which Hoadly calls an usurpation, is believed by Churchmen to be integral to its nature.

And if sincerity alone is to count as the test, then there cannot, for the existing world, be any such thing as objective religious truth.