Speratus,
History records a lot of different types of emergency type baptisms. This of course does not make them necessary (or biblical), but it is none-the-less history.
Examples:
The Statutes of Salisbury I, 1217-1219, taught, “Priests should frequently teach that laypeople ought to baptise babies in urgent situations. Either the father or the mother should do this in cases of necessity, without damage to matrimony… When a woman dies in childbirth and it is certain that she is dead, she should be cut open if it is believed that the child is alive, that is, if the woman's mouth is open [so that the child can still breathe!]”
The Statutes of Winchester I, 1224, taught, “Priests should teach their parishoners that newborn infants who they believe are going to die immediately may and should be baptised by a lay person. and for this reason they should teach them the correct form of baptism,…”.
The Statutes of Exeter I, 1225-37, taught “When a child baptised by a lay person is brought to church, to receive from the priest what they were lacking in that respect, the priest should inquire diligently what the person who baptised the child said and what they did. If they find that the child was baptised correctly and in the proper form of the Church, and used the complete form of words in their own language, they should approve what they did, adding what the layperson was not able to give, i.e. anointing the child on the crown of the head, the chest and the shoulders, and do the other things which precede and follow the immersion. He should say, 'I do not intend to rebaptise you, but if you are not baptised, I baptise you N in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'… If a women dies in childbirth, and it is absolutely certain that she is dead, she should be cut open if the infant is believed to be alive, so that something which could be saved does not die; however, first the mouth of the women should be open so that the child enclosed in the womb can get air.”
The Statutes for Durham peculiars, 1241-49 (?), taught, “When a woman dies in childbirth and it is certain that she is dead, she should be cut open if it is believed that the child is alive, that is, if the woman's mouth is open…. Priests should instruct pregnant women of their parish that when they know that the time of their delivery is approaching, they should make sure that they can get hold of water quickly and have it ready, and because of the imminent danger they should give their confession to the priest, in case they are taken by surprise and they cannot get the help of a priest when they need it.”
The Statutes of Chichester I, 1245-52, Statutes of Wells, 1258, Statutes of London II, 1245-59, Statutes of Winchester III, 1262-5, and the Statutes of Exeter II, 1287, taught similar things.
In any case, baptism must be done lawfully (i.e., by an ordained minister) and especially not by women.
While you are correct that Calvin embraced such ideas that is was a mockery to allow the unordained (men or women) to baptize we must ask if this is
fully “scriptural?” Others look through the Scripture and discover some interesting “facts” and/or some special circumstances. While the rule of the Directory for the Publick Worship of God of the Westminster Assembly is that baptism must be performed by a minister, the OT antecedent, circumcision, did not necessitate it to be performed by a minister. Zipporah's circumcision of her and Moses' son was valid (Exod. 4:25, 26; Calvin’s reply against this while informative, is
not fully convincing,
Institutes, 4.15.20-22). However, we need not stop just in the OT, as the NT has its examples as well. Kistemaker, remarks on the baptism of Cornelius' household (Acts 10:48), stating: "Peter, as the Greek text implies, orders the … Jewish Christians to baptize the Gentile converts." These Jewish Christians were simply "
some of the brothers" (Acts 10:23),
not "
some other ministers." It seems that the Apostle “regarded these ordinary, male Jewish Christians as covenantally competent to perform the rite of baptism. The apostles, then, place emphasis not on themselves but on the name of Jesus." Barnes agrees, explaining that "it seems not to have been the practice of the apostles themselves to baptize very extensively." J.A. Alexander states: "It can scarcely be mere fortuitous coincidence, that Peter, Paul, and Christ Himself, should all have left this rite to be administered by others. 'Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples' (John 4:2). 'I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus, etc.' (I Cor. 1:14). 'Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel' (I Cor. 1:17). Baptisms were performed under the apostles' supervision, but not necessarily by their hands."
While I would commend that under “normal” conditions that a person should be baptized by a minister (for, "The two principal parts of the office of pastors are to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments" (Institutes, 4.3.6)), it is
not necessitated by Scripture. In addition, there is nothing in Scripture that necessitates an infant
having to be baptized prior to death, nor would I suggest putting a mother or an infant at physical risk to baptize them. However, "if" circumstances are such that the infant can be baptized prior to death (as obedience to the covenant relationship to God) then, it should be done. However, once again, I stress, it
is not a necessity.
[color:"FF0000"]<marquee behavior="alternate"><font size="7">
Scripture</font></marquee>[/color]
