The example of Peters baptizing in Cornelius house, is sufficient to proue that then it was lawful to baptize in priuate families: the example of Paul baptizyng the iaylour and his familie, proueth the same: But it ministreth a more readie answere to a quareller, bicause Paul then being prisoner, had not such libertie to make cheise of his place, as Peter had. But they are both verie fit examples for my purpose, the bignesse of Cornelius familie or the smalnesse, is not materiall to this question, for we speake of the place, not of the persons. And whereas you say, that in Cornelius house, there was a competent number, and as many as would make a congregation, I answer that so it is with vs when baptisme is ministred in priuate families: for wheresoeuer* 1.1 two or three be gathered together in the name of Christ, there is a congregation.
To your seconde answere of the difference of tyme, bicause that was in tyme of perse∣cution. &c. I say that as persecution was then a cause why baptisme 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 as vsually mi∣stred in priuate houses, so necessitie is now yt cause, why the same is ministred some tymes in priuate families. Neither doe I mayntein or allow the administring of the sacraments in priuate families, to be vsual or without vrgent cause, but only vpon extreme necessitie of sicknesse, peril of death & such like. In which cases as neuer any lerned man misliked ministring of the sacraments in such places, so are not you able to shew, either scripture, doctor or reson to yt cōtrary, & whatsoeuer you say of ye tune of persecutiō touching ye matter, yt same may be said of the time of necessitie also. But here I would haue the Reader to note, yt you are now driuen to confesse a difference