The Infants Advocate of Circumcision and Baptism, Chapter 20
CHAP. XX. Two hiſtorical Obſervations, on the Adverſaries of Infants Baptiſm.
IT is worth our obſervation to conſider, who was the author from whom, and what the company with whom this oppoſition of Infants Baptiſm began
For the firſt; I find one Balthaſar Pacimontanus, about the year of our Lord, 1527. firſt ſpreading this doctrine: pretending, belike, that he fetcht the firſt principles thereof out of Luthers works, which gave Luther the occaſion to writ againſt him, juſtly to aſſert himſelf herein. This Balthaſar was afterward burnt at Vienna for an Heretick.
I cannot learn what heretical opinions this man maintained, that the demerit of them ſhould deſerve death. If it were only for denying infants baptiſm, I conceive all the ſpectators at his ſuffering bound to have endeavoured by their tears to have quenched the fire. Indeed I would have all of his opinion burnt; but how? as Luther ſaith, Igne charitatis: and as Solomon ſaid long before him▪ Prov. 25. 22. By heaping coals of fire on their heads, of meekneſſe, and moderation, if in any competent time they might be reclaimed. Poſſibly Vienna, being the Emperours Court, where the Roman faction managed all at their pleaſure, ſome mixture of Proteſtant Doctrine in his opinions might ſharpen the rage of Papiſts againſt him.
But it is more then ſuſpicious, that not this, but the complication of other pernicious tenents cauſed his execution. The rather becauſe we find, that the Tranſylvanian Miniſters, Anno 1567. ſet forth two books, one againſt the Trinity, the other againſt the Incarnation of Chriſt; and at the end of both added their thirty ſix arguments againſt the baptizing of infants.
Men who are dark, and conceal'd in themſelves, lying at a cloſe guard, are beſt diſcovered by their ſociety; Company is the cleareſt comment on the text of a reſerved perſon. True, this held not in our Saviour, being piety it ſelf, though converſing with Publicans and ſinners, for whoſe converſion he was ſent, and ordained. But generally it fails not but that men conjecture, and conclude the inclinations of perſons, from thoſe with whom they conſtantly aſſociate. Would it not therefore make any conſcientious Chriſtians, juſtly wary to entertain the doctrine of Anti-pedo-baptiſm, when he ſees it uſhered into the world, with two ſuch hideous and helliſh Hereſies going before it?
Some will ſay, there was no affinity in kindred, or familiarity in acquaintance, nor dependency of intereſt, but a meer caſual coincidency betwixt theſe three Treatiſes. Who knows not, but an honeſt man may on the road accidentally travel with ſtrangers, whoſe faces he never ſaw before, without any privity to their bad deſigns? For my own part I was never bred in the ſchool of Tyrannus, and am loath to load the doctrine of Anti-pedo-baptiſm, with the burden of more badneſſe then it hath of it ſelf; yet give me leave to ſay, it may & ought be taken on ſuſpicion, becauſe coming in the company of two ſuch Blaſphemous books from the ſame Authors; yea, let it be confined, and kept in durance, until it hath cleared its own innocency, which muſt be done by ſhewing better teſtimonials for the truth thereof, then any which hitherto it hath produced.
My prayers ſhall be, that what is ſaid of Jeconiah, Jer. 22. 30. write ye this man childleſs. So this error in denying baptiſm to infants, may not be procreative of any other in the maintainers thereof. May he, who binds the Sea in a girdle of ſand, and ſaith to the waves thereof, Job 38. 11. Hitherto ſhalt thou come, and no farther; erect ſtrong rampiers to bound and bank the defenders hereof, that here they may ſtop▪ ſtay, ſtand ſtill, without making their progreſſe into worſe, and more dangerous errours. Amen.