WE have seriously con­sidered your Appeal against Mr. Danvers, and have also heard, and careful­ly weighed the Defence he makes thereto; and in order to give an Impartial Judgment, as you call us to, have desired some of our Number diligently to examine the Authors cited by you both; and though it appears to us, that Mr. Danvers, has earnestly endeavou­red an accomodation, in a more pri­vate [Page 2] and friendly manner, betwixt you and him, so to rectifie mi­stakes on any hand, which (had it been accepted of) might have saved this trouble; and that the Method you have used in this Ap­peal be unusual, and unlike the Pattern you seem to take; an Ap­peal in these Cases being then only proper, when the Party appealed against, appears to be so contuma­cious, and stubborn, as to reject, and stand out against just convi­ction and admonition; which we find not to be justly chargeable upon Mr. Danvers, and whether it be not rather your own over­sight, we hope you will in time be sensible of; yet we say, we shall not insist upon that Consideration; and to give you, and the World that satisfaction expected from us, [Page 3] some of us whose names are sub­scribed, have examined the Parti­culars you charge him with, and find some mistakes and escapes on Mr. Danvers side, which he inge­niously acknowledges; and we hope may be to your full satisfa­on as it cannot (in justice) but be to ours, since (as you seem to hint) a publick owning, is what you expect.

Some of the Particulars in your Appeal, we find to be so trivial, and insignificant, that they deserve not to be mentioned, and deem his Answers returned to them respectively, sufficient to satisfie the Reader.

Others of your Charges he tra­verses, and joyns issue with you at the Bar you have brought it to, and the most material of these we now remark to you; so that what [Page 4] he acknowledges, and what's inconsi­derable, and what's here further examined, comprehends your whole Appeal.

And we must observe to you, that you lie obnoxious to the Re­turn you made to Mr. Danvers, when he charged you with leaving out part of the Sentence of Nazian­zen, viz. Si aliquid periculi immineat, calling it, p. 7. of your Vind. A frivolous Charge; excusing your self after such a manner as you will not be satisfied with from others; therefore if we say many of your Charges are frivolous, your Rea­son in your own behalf will Justi­fie us, you being Judge.

I. And therefore 1. we desire you to consider, whether the stop­ping your Translation out of Calvin, where you did, p. 162. Appeal, be [Page 5] not unfair, and a misleading an English Reader.

II. You charge Coll' Danvers Appeal, p. 166. to adde the words, [for it cannot be, that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Bap­tism till the Soul hath before received the truth of Faith] and say, they are not Jeroms Words, but of Mr. Danvers Adding: But upon Exa­mination of that place [Mat. 28. Tom. 9. Edit. Paris. An. 1546.] we find them to be Jeroms Words Verbatim, as Mr. Danvers Cites them. And we observe in your Quotation of Mr. Danvers, in that place you add, [Magd. Cent. 4. c. 6. 418.] as if Mr. Danvers had particularly Quoted the Magd. there, which indeed he doth not; but only Jerom upon Mathew, which Double Injury we conceive [Page 6] deserves your Double Considerati­on, in order to a Candid acknow­ledgment.

III. You charge him, p. 169. With abusing Calvin, fathering Estius's Words upon him, though he hath owned it a mistake in his Reply, But we observe also, That he Quotes Estius Annot. Gen. 17.7. at the end, which you leave out, though you took all his words to that, and yet reprove him so often for the same, which seems neither ingenious nor fair.

IV. You charge him with abu­sing Dr. Hamond, p. 107. in affir­ming, That [...] signifies an Im­mersion, or Washing the whole Body, answering the Hebrew [...] whereas you say the Dr. tells us, [...] signi­fies the washing the whole Body, and answers to [...] &c. We have exa­mined [Page 7] the Doctor's Book, Printed for R. Royston, Anno 1653 and find Mr. Danvers quoted his words truly, and the mistake to be yours, which we hope will convince you of the untrue and unjust reproach you subjoyn, That he understands not English Authors, &c.

V. You charge Mr. Danvers for affirming from Walden, That the Wicklevians, in agreement to the Doctrine of Pelagius and o­thers, denyed Infant Baptism, he acknowledges it to be his mistake to alledge, That it was agreeable to Pelagius and others, (said to be for Infant Baptism) but if Wal­den be to be believed, it appears, That the Wickliffists judged Eccse­siastical Baptism unprofitable to little ones, in these words [nostri Wiclivistae Baptismum Ecclesiasti­cum [Page 8] inutile judicant parvulis con­tra omnes praedictos] against all the aforesaid, viz. Pelagius, Vincen­tius Victor, and those that Bap­tized Children, as born of Belie­ving Parents. And we must re­mark to you, that in your Quo­tation, p. 172. Appeal, you leave out [parvulis] the principal word there, and with what design or end we leave you to consider.

VI. You charge him, p. 179, 180. for adding the Words [it is our Will, That all that affirm, That Young Children receive Everlasting Life, albeit they be not by the Sacra­ment of Grace or Baptism renewed] to the Milevitan Decree. We have examined that 4th. Tom. in Collect. Reg. and find the Canon quoted by Mr. Danvers in p. 559 of it, taken out of a very antient Copy, immedi­ately [Page 9] following the Words you Cite, thus, Item placuit, ut siquis dicit ideo dixisse dominum; In domo patris mei mansiones multe sunt, ut intelliga­tur, quia in regno Coelorum erit aliquis medius, aut ullus alicubi locus, ubi be­ate vivant parvuli, qui sine Baptismo ex hac vita migrarunt sine quo in regno Coelorum quod est vita aeterna intrare non possunt, Anathema sit, An. Christi 424. Now for you to affirm, that the said Clause was of Mr. Dan­vers's own adding; whereas, as he says, Here is an express Anathema against those that affirmed Children might be saved without Baptism, is an Instance (to give the most fa­vourable conjecture of it) that you have made but a lame search: So that it is very just for us to acquit Mr. Danvers of this Charge. We presume you know, that the Magde­burgs [Page 10] give an account when they speak of that Milevitan Synod, of some that affirm'd Infants Salvati­on without Baptism, as by the In­stances Mr. Danvers gives from them, undeniably appears; And in opposition to them was that A­nathema enacted, and every Cir­cumstance concurs to evidence it as genuine as the other Canons: And therefore upon a review of the place we question not but you will be satisfied here is no forgery or pre­varication in Mr. Danvers in this Particular.

VII. Under the Head of his fa­thering upon Authors that which they say not, you charge him with abusing Basil. Appeal p. 181. in fa­thering those Words upon him, [must the faithful be sealed with Baptism? Faith must precede, and [Page 11] go before] whereas you say, there is no such Speech in what the Magd. repeat of Basil, contra Eunom. which we conceive to be a very weak ground for your Charge. For must it follow, that the Words are not Basils, because you find it not in the Magdeburgs? we have search'd Basil, and find his VVords to be lib. 3. p. 84. contra Eunom. to the sence he is Cited by Mr. Danvers, viz. [...], i. e. It is necessary first to believe, and afterwards to be signed with Baptism. So that this is also your own error and oversight.

VIII. You charge him with a notorious untruth, p. 185. for af­firming from the Magd. That Guli­elmus added the Virgin Mary to the form of Baptism. VVe have exami­ned the Magd. Cen. 13. p. 419 Cap▪ 4. [Page 12] Edit. Basil Anno 1574. and find the words, Male Gulielmus ad formam Baptismi addidit Mariam Baptizo te in nomine patris omnipotentis, & fi­lii & spiritus sancti, & Beate Ma­rie Virginis, as Cited by Mr. Dan­vers; and therefore for you to af­firm the contrary is a gross mistake.

And thus, Sir, we have given a true and impartial representation of the Particulars as we find them, being, as we conceive, the principal mat­ters under our Cognizance, omitting the less material, & do recommend them to your Christian consideration, hoping that your serious review of them, will discover them to be your errors. And as Mr. Danvers has publickly owned what of mistake he is convinced of in his Answer to your Appeal: So it is justly expected, you will also, according to your pro­mise [Page 13] in the Preface to your Appeal, do the same in these Particulars.

And since your Charges do not appear to be true to the satisfaction of all impartial persons; but on the contrary great mistakes on your side, you will not, we hope, think it unjust if we acquit him, & reflect the blame of the Charge upon your self, as you desire, in case you be found in the error.

The Particulars Mr. Danvers owns in his said Answer to your Appeal, we bring not under our discussion or censure, concluding it to be enough that he acknowledges them.

And such petty Charges as he sufficiently answers, and are indeed of little weight, save to inhaunce the number of your Particulars, as also things controverted, and only collateral to the grand Proposition in dispute, (as are those things you call [Page 14] strange Doctrins, &c.) we think do not so properly offer themselves to our Considerations. And therefore we conclude we may be excused if we wave them.

And lastly, we propose, That if the Return we give to your Appeal should be deemed insufficient by you, or short in any thing, (which we are not conscious of) and that thereupon you take your self concerned to appear any further in this Controversie, you would be perswa­ded, that things may be transacted in an amicable and friendly way; which we hope may tend to our mutual satisfaction in the clearing up of Truth, and to Che­rish that love, that all that fear the Lord should bear each other, though differing in some things, which is our very earnest desire; and to promote which, we shall en­deavour to contribute the utmost we can.