following Enquiries. And if this was and is the currant doctrine of the Scriptures of the Old Teftament and of thofe written by the Apostles, we cannot suppose them to be ignorant of it: And if they were not, it is not reasonable to Suppose they would reckon more neceffary to qualifie men for their enterance into the visible Church, than was neceffary to their being of it.

3. The Apoftles had Commission to Baptife Difciples and Believers without limitation or exception; and thofe who had but the initial Faith which I before defcribed, are in Scripture faid to have believed and to have been difciples, as is fhew'd in the following Papers; and therefore

the

the Apoftles Commiffion to Baptife, must needs extend to the Baptifing of fuch. And it is no ways likely that the Apostles would make exception in reference to the Baptifing of perfons, where their Commiffion made none, but that they Baptifed all that were at all difciples as fuch, without discrimination or making a difference between believers and believers, or difciples and difciples, in reference to their Baptifing of fuch: Nor does it all appear by any the least bint in Scripture that they did. Indeed our Saviour in Commissionating his Apofles, feems to make a difference between teaching men fo as to make them difciples capable of Baptifm, and the teaching them

after

afterwards how to live a truly Chriftian Life: he seems to have directed them to bring them firft to believe Chrift to be the Son of God, the Meffiah, the Saviour, the great Prophet that brought to men the way of Salvation, land to engage them to become difciples unto him and his Religion, and to baptize them into it; and then afterwards to inftruct them in the particulars of their duty: And this the double teaching mentioned in their Commiffion, Mat. 28.19,20. feems to imply, and their baptifing men fo fuddenly and upon fo little Teaching as they did, does likewife infer.

I have also given fame account in the Tenth Enquiry, how agreeable it is to the Wisdom and Goodness

nefs of God towards men in feveral refpects, to admit fuch as have but common grace, into the Church as vifible: and if it be fo, then they act cross to Gods gracious defign who labour to keep them out of it.

Another mistake upon which Separation from parochial Communion is founded, is an opinion that our blessed Saviour has been more particular then indeed he has, in determining the external manner and circumstances of Gods publick worship.

For the promoters of Separation were wont heretofore to fuggeft to us from those words concerning Chrift, Heb. 3. 2. That he was faithful to him that appointed him, as Mofes was

faithful

That

faithful in all his Houfe. Chrift had given direction in particular about the worship of God, and the orders to be observed in his Houfe now under the Gospel, as Mofes had done under the Law. And accordingly they often urged that care fhould be taken, that all things be done according to the Pattern in the Mount. By which many people became difaffected to the worship of God by the use of a Liturgy in as much as they could not find our Saviour to have given any precept or direction for the worhiping God in fuch a way, after fuch manner. Whereas the faithfulness of Chrift to him that had appointed him, did not stand in being as par

or