LXI. The ancient it may be were too severe, and made the necessity of baptism more absolute than reason would, as touching infants. But will any man say1 that they, notwithstanding their too much rigour herein, did not in that respect sustain and tolerate defects of local or of personal solemnities belonging to the sacrament of baptism? The Apostles themselves did neither use nor appoint for baptism any certain time. The Church for general baptism heretofore made choice of two chief days in the year, the feast of Easter, and the feast of Pentecost. Which custom when certain churches in Sicily began to violate without cause, they were by Leo Bishop of Rome advised2 rather to conform themselves to the rest of the world in things so reasonable, than to offend men’s minds through needless singularity: howbeit always providing that nevertheless in apparent peril of death, danger of siege, straits of persecution, fear of shipwreck, and the like exigents, no respect of times should cause this singular defence of true safety to be denied unto any. This of Leo did but confirm that sentence which Victor had many years before given3, extending the same exception as well unto places as times.

That which St. Augustine speaketh of women hasting to bring their children to the church when they saw danger, is a weak proof that when necessity did not leave them so much time, it was not then permitted them neither to make a church of their own home.

Which answer dischargeth likewise their example of a sick Jew carried in bed to the place of baptism, and not baptized at home in private.

The cause why such kind of baptism barred men afterwards from entering into holy orders, the reason wherefore it was objected against Novatian4, in what respect and how far forth it did disable, may be gathered by the twelfth canon set down in the council of Neocæsarea after this manner. “A man which hath been baptized in sickness, is not after to be ordained priest.” For it may be thought, “that such do rather at that time, because they see no other remedy, than of a voluntary mind lay hold on the Christian faith, unless their true and sincere meaning be made afterwards the more manifest, or else the scarcity of others enforce the Church to admit them5.”

They bring in Justinian’s imperial constitution, but to what purpose, seeing it only forbiddeth men to have the mysteries of God administered in their private chapels, lest under that pretence heretics should do secretly those things which were unlawful? In which consideration he therefore commandeth that if they would use those private oratories otherwise than only for their private prayers, the Bishop should appoint them a clerk whom they might entertain for that purpose. This is plain by later constitutions made in the time of Leo6: “It was thought good,” saith the emperor, “in their judgment which have gone before, that in private chapels none should celebrate the holy communion but priests belonging unto greater churches. Which order they took as it seemeth for the custody of religion, lest men should secretly receive from heretics, instead of the food the bane of their souls, pollution in place of expiation.” Again7, “Whereas a sacred canon of the sixth reverend synod requireth baptism, as others have likewise the holy sacrifices and mysteries, to be celebrated only in temples hallowed for public use, and not in private oratories; which strict decrees appear to have been made heretofore in regard of heretics, which entered closely into such men’s houses as favoured their opinions, whom under colour of performing with them such religious offices they drew from the soundness of true religion: now that perverse opinions through the grace of Almighty God are extinct and gone, the cause of former restraints being taken away, we see no reason but that private oratories may henceforward enjoy that liberty which to have granted them heretofore had not been safe.”

In sum, all these things alleged are nothing, nor will it ever be proved while the world doth continue, but that the practice of the Church in cases of extreme necessity hath made for private baptism always more than against it.