The Bishops’ interest in midwives may have been caused partly by a praiseworthy desire to secure an adequate supply for the assistance of women in each parish. But from the Church’s point of view, the midwife’s chief importance was not due to the fact that the life of mother and child might depend on her skill, but to her capacity for performing the rites of baptism. The reasons for granting her this authority are explained as follows:—“in hard Labours the Head of the Infant was sometimes baptized before the whole delivery. This Office of Baptizing in such Cases of Necessity was commonly performed by the Midwife; and ’tis very probable, this gave first Occasion to Midwives being licensed by the Bishop, because they were to be first examined by the Bishop or his delegated Officer, whether they could repeat the Form of Baptism, which they were in Haste to administer in such extraordinary Occasion. But we thank God our times are reformed in Sense, and in Religion.”[637] Though the midwife was only expected to baptize in urgent cases she might strain her privilege, and baptize even a healthy infant into the Roman Church. Her power in this respect was regarded with suspicion and jealousy by English Protestants, not only because she might inadvertently admit the infant to the wrong fold, but because it resembled the conferring of office in the Church upon women; however, as no man was usually present at the birth of a child, and it was fully believed that delay might involve the perpetual damnation of the dying infant’s soul, no alternative remained. Peter Heylyn, in writing of Baptism, comments on the difficulty, saying that “the first Reformers did not only allow the administration of this Sacrament [Baptism] in _private_ houses, but permitted it to private persons, even to women also.” He continues that when King James, in the Conference at Hampton Court, seemed offended because of this liberty to women and laicks, Dr. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, denied that the words gave this liberty, and Dr. Babington alledged “that the words were purposely made ambiguous as otherwise the Book might not have passed Parliament.” To whom it was replied by the Bishop of London that there was no intent to deceive any, but the words did indeed “intend a permission of private persons to Baptize in case of _necessity_.”[638] Footnote 637: Watson, _Clergyman’s Law_, p. 318. Footnote 638: _Heylyn (Peter), Cyprianus Anglicus_, p. 27. The fear of secret baptisms into the Catholic Church is shown in a letter which states that “the wief of Frances Lovell esqʳ of West Derhᵐ is noted for a recusant. And the said Frances had a childe about three yeares past christianed by a midwief sent thither by the La. Lovell, and the midwief’s name cannot be learned.”[639] Footnote 639: Bacon, (Sir Nat.), _Official Papers_, p. 176. 1591.