Chapter 30.—35. Accordingly this precedent is wholly without bearing on the matter in hand. We might rather say that the declaration of the apostle sufficiently inculcates this care, when he says, "Let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless."2388
And since this is done anxiously and habitually in both parties, by almost all concerned, how comes it that so many are found to be
reprobates subsequently to the time of having undertaken this ministry, except that, on the one
hand, human care is often
deceived, and, on the other
hand, those who have begun well occasionally deteriorate? And since things of this sort happen so frequently as to allow no man to
hide them or to
forget them, what is the reason that Petilianus now
teaches us insultingly, in a few words, that the baptizer ought to be
examined by the candidate for
baptism, since our
question is, by what means the conscience of the recipient is to be cleansed, when the stain on the conscience of him that gives, but not in
holiness, has been concealed from view, if the conscience of one that gives in
holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient. "Since I see," he says, "that you are unacquainted
with the order of the sacrament, I tell you this as shortly as I can: you were bound both to
examine your baptizer, and to be
examined by him." What an answer to make! He is surrounded in so many places by such a multitude of men that have been
baptized by
ministers who, having in the first instance seemed
righteous and
chaste, have subsequently been
convicted and degraded in consequence of the disclosure of their faults: and he thinks that he is avoiding the force of this
question, in
which we ask by what means the conscience of the recipient is to be cleansed, when he is unacquainted with the stain upon the conscience of him that gives but not in
holiness, if the conscience of one that gives in
holiness is what we look for to cleanse the conscience of the recipient,—he thinks, I say, that he is avoiding the force of this
question, by saying shortly that the baptizer ought to be
examined. Nothing is more unfortunate than not to be consistent with
truth, by which every one
is so shut in, that he cannot find a means of
escape. We ask from whom he is to receive
faith who is
baptized by one that is faithless? The answer is, "He ought to have
examined his baptizer." Is it therefore the case that, since he does not
examine him, and so even unwittingly receives his
faith from one that is faithless, he receives not
faith but guilt? Why then are those men not baptized afresh, who are found to have been baptized by men that are detected and convicted reprobates, while
their true character was yet concealed?
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
