If a church may assemble without and against the magistrate’s consent (as is affirmed), then much more constitute and become a church, &c.
Secondly, by their grant in this passage, that God’s people may thus assemble and practise ordinances without and against the consent of the magistrate, I infer, then also may they become a church, constitute and gather without or against the consent of the magistrate. Therefore may the messengers of Christ preach and baptize, that is, make disciples and wash them into the true profession of Christianity, according to the commission, though the magistrate determine and publicly declare such ministers, such baptisms, such churches to be heretical.
Thirdly, it may here be questioned, what power is now given to the civil magistrate in church matters and spiritual affairs?
If it be answered, that although God’s people may do this against the magistrates’ consent, yet others may not:
Gross partiality.
I answer, as before, who sees not herein partiality to themselves? God’s people must enjoy their liberty of conscience, and not be forced; but all the subjects in a kingdom or monarchy, or the whole world beside, must be compelled by the power of the civil sword to assemble thus and thus.
Secondly, I demand, who shall judge whether they are God’s people or no? for they say, whether the magistrate consent or consent not, that is, judge so or not, they ought to go on in the ordinances, renuente magistratu.
If the civil magistrate be to build the spiritual or Christian house, he must judge in the matter.
How agrees this with their former and general assertion, that the civil magistrate must set up the Christian church and worship? Therefore, by their own grant, he must judge the godly themselves, he must discern who are fit matter for the house of God, living stones, and what unfit matter, trash and rubbish.
A close and faithful interrogatory to the consciences of the authors of these positions.