'85. _Q._ We have amongst us various Sects and Denominations who go by the general name of Dissenters. In what light are we to consider them? _A._ As heretics; and in our Litany we expressly pray to be delivered from the sins of "false doctrine, heresy, and schism."
'86. _Q._ Is then their worship a laudable service? _A._ No; because they worship God according to their own evil and corrupt imaginations, and not according to His revealed will, and therefore their worship is idolatrous.
'87. _Q._ Is Dissent a great sin? _A._ Yes; it is in direct opposition to our duty towards God.
'94. _Q._ But why have not Dissenters been excommunicated? _A._ Because the law of the land does not allow the wholesome law of the Church to be acted upon; but Dissenters have virtually excommunicated themselves by setting up a religion of their own, and leaving the ark of God's Church.
'98. _Q._ Is it wicked then to enter a meeting-house at all? _A._ Most assuredly; because, as was said above, it is a house where God is worshipped otherwise than He has commanded, and therefore it is not dedicated to His honour and glory; and besides this, we run the risk of being led away by wicked enticing words; at the same time, by our presence we are witnessing our approval of their heresy, wounding the consciences of our weaker brethren, and by our example teaching others to go astray.
'99. _Q._ But is language such as this consistent with charity? _A._ Quite so: for when there is danger of the true worshippers of God falling into error we cannot speak too plainly, or warn them too strongly of their perilous state; at the same time that it is our duty to declare in express terms to those who are without, that they are living separate from Christ's body, and consequently out of the pale of salvation, so far, at least, as God has thought fit to reveal.'
Assuming, as we may fairly do, that the author of all this--well! we need not describe it--preaches as he publishes, have the heretics and sinners whom he thus consigns to perdition no right to complain that, besides receiving--according to the 'Clergy List'--£230 a year of public money, he should also be invested with authority by the State? It is idle to say that truth is truth, and falsehood falsehood, and that the one will prevail, and the other perish, no matter whether he who utters it is an established clergyman, or a dissenting preacher. In the long run it will be so, but the struggle between truth and falsehood is prolonged when, instead of the two being left fairly to grapple with each other, the weight of State-influence, as well as of State-gold, is thrown into the wrong scale. To speak plainly, the establishment of a Church is an organized system of bribery in favour of that Church. It may fail to buy the adherence of strong and independent minds, but the minds of the majority are neither the one nor the other. It appeals successfully to the self-seeking, the timid, the conventional, the fashion-loving, and _they_ are to be found among every class of the community. And, in doing so, it inflicts injustice--injustice to those who reject the established doctrines, even though they may be in possession of every civil right.