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 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, 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies an Immerſion, or Waſhing the whole Body, anſwering the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereas you ſay the Dr. tells us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies the waſhing the whole Body, and anſwers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. We have examined 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 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 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 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 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 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 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 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.