SINCE my present designe is to shew the Lyes and Scurrilous Language of Mr. Kellie his book falsly called, Truths Plea for In­fants: I shall first begin with his Lyes, 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 [Page 2]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 doe in his Reply: How then went I out of the Road like a Thief?

Again, Why did not he shew 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 goe after me: Doth not this plainly shew that I kept the road, and that he broke over hedge and ditch, because he was afraid to meet with me? I shall therefore appeale to all men who know what method is, whether my Book in An­swer to his Paper, be not more methodicall then his Reply.

The second Lye 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 Errours. How can this be cast­ing dirt upon them, unlesse they were not guilty of such errors as I charge upon them? Now therefore he must needs be a Lyer in saying I throw dirt up­on the fathers, when I say nothing of them but what he knowes to be true, unlesse he be ignorant of their Writings.

The third Lye I shall mention is that in the 12 line of his Answer to my Epistle, where he saith, that I doe not shew in what places to find their errors; which is false, for except two or three of the Fa­thers, whose errors were generally known, I doe 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 Lye that I shall mention, is that in the 21, 22 line of his Answer to my Epistle; he saith, that I doe slander GODLY learned men, as men minding their profits and credits, more then the truth. This is false, for I dare not think, much lesse write any such thing of GODLY learned men, as to think that they mind their profits and credits, more then 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 drosse and dung, that they might win Christ.

The fifth Lye 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 doe 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 Lye he tells a few lines after, in the same 2 page of his Book, where he saith, that I said Infants could not blesse. This is false, for I said that Infants could not CALL Christ blessed, as you [Page 4]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 blesse 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 blesse or praise, is false.

A seventh Lye is in page 9. where he supposeth me to Interpret Esay 65.20. as though Infants should live an hundred years before they dye a naturall death, or else that they must dye in their estate in glory. Both which are falsly suggested, for I said the contrary, that there should be no infant of dayes in the new Jerusalem, and so saith the Text; That the child (not an infant in his sense) should dye 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 dye a naturall 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 Booke, 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 Lyes to wrong his Neighbour, with so much confidence, and publish them in Print as he hath done.

The ninth Lye 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 Infants bap­tisme in the first three hundred years after Christ. This [Page 5]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 baptizing 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 infants baptism was no Apostolicall Custome, nor SO MUCH the Custome of those times, as he did imagine. Doth this prove that I said there was NO Antiquity for Infants 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 Custome of those times, &c. Which plainly shewes, that this error was crep in even in the first three hundred years, though it was not so MUCH their Custome, as it was afterwards.

Again, Did not Origen live in the first three hun­dred years? And doe not I say, page 68, that Origen was thought to favour Infants baptism; and yet this man dares to tell his Reader, that I say there was no Antiquity for Infants baptism the first three hun­dred years; which nothing is more false. However I have shewed, that if some Christian Parents who were eminent lights in the Churches in those times, did not baptize 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 unsavory speech, that plainly will shew 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, then the heele 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 doe not know the meaning of it, no more then the heele 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 knowes no more what a Horse is, then the heele of an old Cheese?

Nay further, whereas he talks of the Mathema­ticks, I know many Seamen that are better Mathe­maticians then Mr. Kellie, that doe not know how to spell all the tearms of Art belonging to it, and yet doe understand them better then the heele 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 my self, 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 [Page 7]saith, He perceives the knavery of Hereticks. This he applyes 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, Ʋp Robin, the Ram's in the Rye.

Again, page 34 he saith, I talke like an Asse. If these words savour of the Spirit which is from a­bove, judge.

Again, he would faine make us whom he calls Anabaptists odious, by telling his Reader that we are divided among our selves, as you may see in the be­ginning of his Answer to my Epistle; and that there be none more contradictious then we, both to all the godly learned in the world, and likewise to one another. Some (he saith) are for the Glasse-house, some for Pauls, some for Beach-lane, some for Arminians, some against them: Many that frequent one of our places (he saith) think it abomination to goe to another of them. Many of us (he saith) are turned Ranters, and Qua­kers, &c. 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 then those he calls Anabaptists; for first, They that are for Infants 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 Infants [Page 8]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 Independancy; 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 May-poles, and dancing upon the Lords 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; whip't, banish't, pilloried, and imprison'd others, though they have been for In­fants baptism alike zealous.

Again, how have you Poedobaptists studied to destroy one another, and take away the lives of one another, witnesse the Gunpowder Treason, the late Massacre in Savoy? How cruelly did you per­secute one another in Queen Mary's dayes?

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 dayes were most of them papists, in Queen Elizabeth's most were turned Protestants, in the Bishops time most were for Bishops, and in the Parliament time most were against Bishops; and over and besides all these, who are for Infants 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 infants baptism. And yet this man dares say, None are more contradicti­ous then Anabaptissts. Can any man that hath not [Page 9]sinned away his conscience, say such a thing with­out blushing?

And whereas he saith, Many of us are turned to be Quakers and Ranters, &c. I Answer, Who but a man that was minded to tempt his Antagonist to lay open his weaknesse, would have opened his mouth so weakly? For doe not most of the Quakers at this day consist of such as came from the Church of England, and were never of any baptized 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 straines; and we have by our dealing with them according to Christs 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 Gallowes, 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 Gallowes Members related to the Church of England. I doe not mention this as an Argument to prove the falsenesse 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 shew 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 then we; whereas nothing in the world is more false: Though I could wish with my soule, that we were all of us (which he calls Ana­baptists) [Page 10]more holy, that no occasion might be gi­ven to the Adversary to speak reproachfully; who are apt enough to devise evill 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 spake: But this is no new thing, for if they have call'd the Master of the house Belzebub, how much more they of his hous­hold?

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 denyed, 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 publick, let him appoint time and place, and I shall justifie all that is said in my Book, either as touching the controversie it self, 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 shewn his weaknesse 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 speake, they shall give an account thereof in the day of Judgement.