From Law’s own point of view, the logic of his position is undeniable; and in his third letter to Hoadly, the real heart of his attack, he touches the centre of the latter’s argument.  For if it is sincerity which is alone important it would follow that things false and wrong are as acceptable to God as things true and right, which is patently absurd.  Nor has Hoadly given us means for the detection of sincerity.  He seemed to think that anyone was sincere who so thought himself; but, says Law, “it is also possible and as likely for a man to be mistaken in those things which constitute true sincerity as in those things which constitute true religion.”  Clearly, sincerity cannot be the pith of the matter; for it may be mistaken and directed to wrong ends.  The State, in fact, may respect conscience, but Hoadly is no more entitled to assume the infallibility of private belief than he is to deny the infallibility of the Church’s teaching.  That way lies anarchy.

Here, indeed, the antagonists were on common ground.  Both had denied the absolute character of any authority; but while Hoadly virtually postulates a Church which logically is no more than those who accept the moral law as Christ described it, Law restricts the Church to that society which bears the traditional marks of the historic institution.  On Hoadly’s principles, there was no reason why anyone not hostile to the civil power should not enjoy political privilege; on Law’s there was every reason simply because those who denied the doctrines of the High Church refused a truth open for their acceptance.  Law, indeed, goes so far as to argue that in the light of his principles Hoadly should be a Deist; and there is ground for what, in that age, was a valuable point to make.  The sum total of it all is that for the bishop the outward actions of men alone concern the State; while Law insists that the root of action and the test of fitness is whether men have seen a certain aspect of the truth and grasped it.

The result, to say the least, was calamitous.  In May of 1717, convocation met and the Lower House immediately adopted an unanimous report condemning the “Preservative” and the sermon.  But Hoadly had the government behind him and the convocation was prorogued before further action could be taken.  Snape, Hare, Mosse and Sherlock, all of whom were chaplains royal, and had been drawn into the conflict, were dismissed from their office; and for more than one hundred and thirty-five years convocation was not again summoned.  It was a striking triumph for Erastianism, though the more liberal principles of Hoadly were less successful.  Robert Walpole was on the threshold of his power, and, as a manager of Sacheverell’s impeachment, he had seen the hold of the Church upon the common people, may even, indeed, have remembered that Hoadly’s own dwelling had been threatened with destruction in the popular excitement. Quieta non movere was his motto; and he was not interested in the niceties of ecclesiastic metaphysic.  So the Test Act remained immovable until 1828; while the annual Act of Indemnity for its infractions represented that English genius for illogical mitigation which solves the deeper problems of principle while avoiding the consideration of their substance.