An Advertisement from the Bookseller.  
THe Impartial Reader desiring Information into the Principle of Baptising Believers, may be furnished with the following Treatises, bound together, or severally.  

A Treatise of Baptism; wherein that of Believers, and that of Infants is Examined by the Scriptures, with the History of both out of Antiquity.  
A Reply to Mr. Wills, in Defence of the said Treatise.  
A Second Reply to Mr. Baxter, in Defence of the same.  
A rejoinder to Mr. Wills his Vindiciae; with an Answer to his Appeal; all by Mr. Henry Danvers.  
A Treatise concerning the Covenant and Baptism; wherein is showed, that Believers only are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; with a Reply to Mr. Whistons' Answer to Mr. Danvers, by Mr. Edward Hutchinson: With a Letter [of Reproof] to Mr. Obed. Wills by T. B.    

The Baptists Answer to Mr. Obed. Wills, his Appeal against Mr. H. Danvers.  
SIR,  
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 Judgement, 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 accommodation, in a more private and friendly manner, betwixt you and him, so to rectify 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 public 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 satisfy the Reader.  
Others of your Charges he traverses, and joins 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 yourself 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 Justify 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 add 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 Matthew, which Double Injury we conceive deserves your Double Consideration, in order to a Candid acknowledgement.  
III. You charge him, p. 169. With abusing Calvin, fathering Estius' 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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 subjoin, That he understands not English Authors, etc.  
V You charge Mr. Danvers for affirming from Walden, That the Wicklevians, in agreement to the Doctrine of Pelagius and others, denied Infant Baptism, he acknowledges it to be his mistake to allege, 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 Baptised 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 ancient 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 beat 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' 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 magdeburg's give an account when they speak of that Milevitan Synod, of some that affirmed Infant's 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 magdeburg's? we have searched Basil, and find his Words to be lib. 3. p. 84. contra Eunom. to the sense 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. We 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, & Beat Marry Virgins, 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 publicly 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 yourself, 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 enhance 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 Doctrines, etc.) 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 yourself concerned to appear any further in this Controversy, you would be persuaded, 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.  
London the 13th. of the 5th. Month 1675. 

Hans. Knollys.  
Will. Kyffen.  
Dan. Dyke.  
Jo. Gosnold.  
Hen. Forty.  
Tho. De .