A STOP TO A LYING PAMPHLET Falsely Called Truth's Plea for Infants.  
Lately Published by Mr. Alexander Kellie, in Answer to a Book lately published, Entitled, Infant's Baptism Disproved.  
In which Pamphlet his very many Lies and Eayling, not becoming a man merely Civil (much less a Minister of Christ as he pretends) are hereby manifest.  
By JER: IVES, Cheesmonger.  
The mouth of him that speaketh Lies, shall be stopped,  Psalm 63.11. 
Should thy Lies make men hold their peace? And when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed?  Job 11.3. 
The proud have forged a Lie against me,  Psalm 119.69. 
And the Prophet that speaketh Lies he is the tail,  Esay 9.15. 
Holding faith and a good conscience, which some have put away, and concerning faith have made shipwreck, of whom is Hymeneus, and ALEXANDER, etc.  1 Tim. 1.19, 20. 
LONDON: Printed for the Author. 1656.   

TO THE READER.  
READER;  
THese ensuing lines are sent out after a lying Pamphlet, that so thou mightst apprehend it, and bring it to its deserved judgement; and that thou mayest know it when thou meetest with it, first take notice of its name, which is, Truth's Plea for Infants. Little would a Book of this name be suspected to have more Lies in it, than it contains sheets: But herein it's much like the Pharisees Cups, that were clean without, but foul within. And this thou wilt find it to be, if thou shalt compare my Book and his Answer together, and observe the places in both to which I shall refer thee, which is all I shall do at this time. This if I should never do any more, would be enough to keep the judgement of a wise man from being touched with such an unclean thing. And truly, if James speaks true, that A good fountain cannot send forth sweet water and bitter, than the manifest untruths in the Book, do plainly show how little the Author was inspired with the Spirit of truth, which Christ saith, John 16.13. will lead into ALL truth.  
And if this shall not be thought a sufficient Answer to the whole, I do assure thee, If Mr. Kellie will come in public with his Book in his hand, I will meet him, if he dares, and show him (before as many Scholars as he pleases of his own judgement) that there is not any thing in my Book, because he talks of my not knowing my Accidence (the Printers errors excepted, which his Book is not free from) but I shall make appear to be according to their own Rules; and I shall also before the same men at the same time, show him how much he hath swerved from the known Rules of the Schools, and Christianity, as though he were a stranger to both, as I have in part already done, in divers places of my  Book; from which he hath not so much as endeavoured to clear himself. Thus hoping thou wilt take this in good part, I subscribe myself  
Thy Friend, so far as thou art the Truths. Jer: Ives.   

A STOP TO A Lying Pamphlet. FALSELY CALLED Truth's Plea for Infants.  
SINCE my present design is to show the Lies and Scurrilous Language of Mr. Kellie his book falsely called, Truth's Plea for Infants: I shall first begin with his Lies, and they may be called Legions, for they are many. Among which take these that follow. The first that I shall mention, is in the latter end of his Epistle to the Reader, where he excuseth his impertinencies by telling his Reader, that He was to pursue me as a Thief with Hue and Cry over hedge and ditch. And by this he would make him believe, that I in my Book went out of the Road, in answering a Paper he sent to my house; which is false, as my whole Book will declare, wherein I set down all his Arguments impartially in a different Letter, and Answer them one by one, that the Reader might know what was mine, and what was his, which he did not do in his Reply: How then went I out of the Road like a Thief?  
Again, Why did not he show me and his Readers in what Page I did break the bounds of Discourse, that so he might have justified his breaking the hedge to go after me: Doth not this plainly show that I kept the road, and that he broke over hedge and ditch, because he was afraid to meet with me? I shall therefore appeal to all men who know what method is, whether my Book in Answer to his Paper, be not more methodical than his Reply.  
The second Lie I shall mention, is in the 11 line of his Answer to my Epistle, where he saith, that I cast dirt upon the fathers, because I mention in my Epistle some of their Errors. How can this be casting dirt upon them, unless they were not guilty of such errors as I charge upon them? Now therefore he must needs be a Liar in saying I throw dirt upon the fathers, when I say nothing of them but what he knows to be true, unless he be ignorant of their Writings.  
The third Lie I shall mention is that in the 12 line of his Answer to my Epistle, where he saith, that I do not show in what places to find their errors; which is false, for except two or three of the Fathers, whose errors were generally known, I do mention the Books, Chapters, or Pages wherein the errors I charge them with may be found, as any one may see that reads over the Epistle to my Book.  
The fourth Lie that I shall mention, is that in the 21, 22 line of his Answer to my Epistle; he saith, that I do slander GODLY learned men, as men minding their profits and credits, more than the truth. This is false, for I dare not think, much less write any such thing of GODLY learned men, as to think that they mind their profits and credits, more than truth; no, I have not so learned Christ: But indeed I said the reason why the learned did not find out the right way, in the midst of these many ways, was because of their pride on the one hand, or profit on the other: Now doth this slander the GODLY learned, judge I pray, and see whether I say any such thing in all my Epistle. I always thought the GODLY learned to be but a few in comparison to the vast number of the learned; & I likewise believe the GODLY learned are such as would with that blessed and godly Apostle Paul, count all things dross and dung, that they might win Christ.  
The fifth Lie I shall mention is found about the middle of the 2 page of his Book, wherein he saith, that I cite some Scriptures of all Nations, but therein (he saith) I am no noble Berean as I would make men believe, in the beginning of my Epistle (His reason is) Because (he saith, if you will believe him) that I do not give one place set down where to find those Scriptures. This is also a notorious untruth, for both the Chapters and Verses are set down where to find every Text mentioned upon that occasion, as you may see in my Book, page 2.  
Again, A sixth Lie he tells a few lines after, in the same 2 page of his Book, where he saith, that I said Infants could not bless. This is false, for I said that Infants could not CALL Christ blessed, as you may perceive by what I say toward the lower end of the third page of my Book; for there is a sense in which all the works of God bless and praise him, Psal. 145.10. But doth it follow therefore that all his works CALL him blessed? Therefore to say, I said Infants could not bless or praise, is false.  
A seventh Lie is in page 9 where he supposeth me to Interpret Esay 65.20. as though Infants should live an hundred years before they die a natural death, or else that they must die in their estate in glory. Both which are falsely suggested, for I said the contrary, that there should be no infant of days in the new Jerusalem, and so saith the Text; That the child (not an infant in his sense) should die an hundred years old. Now Reader how that which I have said in the 13 page of my Book, can give a man that puts away lying lips, occasion to suppose that either I must mean that Infants must live a hundred years before they die a natural death, or else that they must die after they come to an estate of glory; judge.  
The eighth Untruth that he tells, is page 10 of his Book, where he saith, That I like a base fellow said, in the 16 page of my Book, that God makes but a bare promise, but is not so good as his word. Indeed if I had said so, I had been base, but there is no such saying of mine in the whole Book. Sure this man might have been called Alexander the Coper-Smith, since he can forge Lies to wrong his Neighbour, with so much confidence, and publish them in Print as he hath done.  
The ninth Lie I shall mention is in the 40 page of his Book, towards the lower end of it, where he saith, That I said there was no Antiqnity for Infant's baptism in the first three hundred years after Christ. This is false, I said not so, as you may see in the 68 page of my Book, where I have these words (viz.) That Eusebius who wrote the History of the first three hundred years, doth not mention the baptising of one infant. I also said in the same page, That the Churches did not receive men to baptism, but upon profession of faith; and also, That infant's baptism was no Apostolical Custom, nor SO MUCH the Custom of those times, as he did imagine. Doth this prove that I said there was NO Antiquity for Infant's baptism in the first three hundred years after Christ? Nay, doth not those words before mentioned, and which are found in the beginning of the 69 page of my Book, prove the contrary (viz.) That it was not so MUCH the Custom of those times, etc. Which plainly shows, that this error was crep in even in the first three hundred years, though it was not so MUCH their Custom, as it was afterwards.  
Again, Did not Origen live in the first three hundred years? And do not I say, page 68, that Origen was thought to favour Infant's baptism; and yet this man dares to tell his Reader, that I say there was no Antiquity for Infant's baptism the first three hundred years; which nothing is more false. However I have showed, that if some Christian Parents who were eminent lights in the Churches in those times, did not baptise their infants, it much makes such a practice questionable; that's all I brought those passages for; for many errors were crept into the Church at that time, and the being of them then, doth not prove the truth of them.  
I shall now give a Catalogue of his unsavoury speech, that plainly will show what spirit did assist him in writing his Book, which because there was a word Printed in my Epistle to my Book, that was not true Orthography, that is to say, not truly spelt, that therefore I did no more know what the word meant, than the heel of an old Cheese. 
* See his Book towards the latter end of his Answer to my Epistle.  Suppose I had spelt the word false, and that it had not been the Printers Errata, doth this prove what he hath spoken, that I do not know the meaning of it, no more than the heel of an old Cheese. Doth it follow that because a man cannot spell a word, that therefore he doth not know what is meant by it? As for example, Doth it follow that though a man should not spell Horse aright, that he knows no more what a Horse is, than the heel of an old Cheese?  
Nay further, whereas he talks of the Mathematics, I know many Seamen that are better Mathematicians then Mr. Kellie, that do not know how to spell all the terms of Art belonging to it, and yet do understand them better than the heel of an old Cheese: By this you may see he matters not what he saith.  
Again in his Book, page 4. he saith, That I would make simple people believe the Moon was made of green Cheese; but (he saith) the Cheesmonger hath never a taster to make them find it so.  
Again, page the 6 he saith, meaning myself, You are a sweet youth.  
Again, page the 9 he calls me, Miserable bold fellow.  
In the same page, about the latter end of it, he saith, He perceives the knavery of Heretics. This he applies to me, because of what I answered to his Argument in my Book, page 17. Which if in that Answer there is any thing that renders me a knave, read and judge.  
Again, page 21 he saith, When my Nose is Cheese, the Cats shall eat it.  
Again, page 22 he hath these words, Up Robin, the Ram's in the Rye.  
Again, page 34 he saith, I talk like an Ass. If these words savour of the Spirit which is from above, judge.  
Again, he would feign make us whom he calls Anabaptists odious, by telling his Reader that we are divided among ourselves, as you may see in the beginning of his Answer to my Epistle; and that there be none more contradictious than we, both to all the godly learned in the world, and likewise to one another. Some (he saith) are for the Glass-house, some for Paul's, some for Beach-lane, some for Arminians, some against them: Many that frequent one of our places (he saith) think it abomination to go to another of them. Many of us (he saith) are turned Ranters, and Quakers, etc. The like you shall find in the 36 page of his Book.  
To all which I Answer, That this is as false as the rest, to say that NONE are more contradictious than those he calls Anabaptists; for first, They that are for Infant's baptism are more contradictious; as for instance, Some are Papists, some are Lutherans, some are Calvinists, some Arminians, some Arians, some Athanasians; some for the salvation of all, both men and Devils, as Origen was, whom he brings as one of the Fathers that held Infant's baptism. See page 41 of his Bo●k. Others against him, and for the salvation of none but the Elect. Some have been for Episcopacy, some for Presbytery, some for Independency; some have been Brownists, and have judged it abomination to come to any of his Assemblies; some have been for the Cross in baptism; others against it; some for God fathers and God mothers, others of them have judged it a Popish Inovatiou; some have been for sports, as Maypoles, and dancing upon the Lord's day; others have been zealous against it; for this cause some of you have cut the ears, and slit the noses, and branded the cheeks; whipped, banished, pilloried, and imprisoned others, though they have been for Infant's baptism alike zealous.  
Again, how have you Poedobaptists studied to destroy one another, and take away the lives of one another, witness the Gunpowder Treason, the late Massacre in Savoy? How cruelly did you persecute one another in Queen Mary's days?  
And whereas he talks of turning with the Times, who hath been more guilty of this then the generality of Poedobaptists, who in Queen Mary's days were most of them papists, in Queen Elizabeth's most were turned Protestants, in the Bishop's time most were for Bishops, and in the Parliament time most were against Bishops; and over and besides all these, who are for Infant's baptism, and yet are thus divided. Let me add to make full measure, Master Rude multitude in all parts of the Christian world, who are also very zealous for infant's baptism. And yet this man dares say, None are more contradictious than Anabaptissts. Can any man that hath not sinned away his conscience, say such a thing without blushing?  
And whereas he saith, Many of us are turned to be Quakers and Ranters, etc. I Answer, Who but a man that was minded to tempt his Antagonist to lay open his weakness, would have opened his mouth so weakly? For do not most of the Quakers at this day consist of such as came from the Church of England, and were never of any baptised Church? But suppose they were of us, as it is like some were, yet they left us, and their baptism too, before they fell into these strains; and we have by our dealing with them according to Christ's rule, left them, upon their leaving the truth. But now what multitudes are there at every Assize and Session, both in City and Country, that are condemned justly to the Gallows, some for Murder, some for Theft, some for Sodomy, some for Incest, some for Buggery, some for Witchcraft, some for Treason, who all dye at the Gallows Members related to the Church of England. I do not mention this as an Argument to prove the falseness of my Opposites Opinion: No, I scorn such unmanlike Arguments; for there hath been, and may be bad men of the best profession; but to show that my Antagonist had mightily forgot the many Errors and Vices of the Poedobaptists, while he was blazoning before the world the Errors of the Anabaptists, by which he would frighten the simple, as though none were more contradious and unholy than we; whereas nothing in the world is more false: Though I could wish with my soul, that we were all of us (which he calls Anabaptists) more holy, that no occasion might be given to the Adversary to speak reproachfully; who are apt enough to devise evil against us, though we should give them no occasion, as Mr. Kellie hath done against me, laying to my charge the thing that I never spoke: But this is no new thing, for if they have called the Master of the house Belzebub, how much more they of his household?  
I have now done with his new Arguments, by which he confutes my Book; and for the rest, they are most of them old ones, which he sent in a Paper to my house, and I have answered them in my Book; and he like a man in a Circle brings the Arguments denied, as a Reply to my Answers, as you may see by viewing over my Book, and his Answer to it: How that most of his Reply to me, is but a repetition of what I have already Answered.  
I say again therefore, if Mr. Kellie will meet me in public, let him appoint time and place, and I shall justify all that is said in my Book, either as touching the controversy itself, or any other words that have fallen from my pen, save (as I have said) the Printers Errors, which I had not time to correct when I sent my Book to him; and I am sure his Book is not without many such Errors; and therefore he hath shown his weakness to carp at such things; as the mis-citing of some Texts, and the mis-spelling of some words, although his Conscience could not but tell him they proceeded not from error of Judgement.  
I shall now conclude with the words of Christ, Mat. 12.36. But I say unto you, that for every IDLE WORD men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of Judgement.  
FINIS.