CHR and BAP

[arthurk]

I did a bit more research in the BCP, and did actually find two references to "christening", both in the order for the Private Baptism of Children. (I originally thought there weren't any.) If a child has been privately baptised by someone else, "then the Minister of the Parish, where the Child was born or christened, shall examine and try whether the Child be lawfully baptized, or no."

There follow 4 questions aimed at establishing if the child was properly baptised (with the word "baptized" used explicitly in each case), then the following rubric: "And if the Minister shall find by the answers of such as bring the Child, that all things were done as they ought to be; then shall not he christen the Child again, but shall receive him as one of the flock of true christian people, saying thus..."

This seems to make clear that officially at least, the C of E regards "baptism" and "christening" to be exactly the same, and distinct from "receiving" or "welcoming". In some registers, as Guy pointed out, the ministers do seem to imply a difference between baptism and christening, but unfortunately they don't seem to have told us what that is - and it wouldn't be official church teaching anyway.

Arthur

(In case anyone is wondering, I prefer the spelling "baptise", but I have quoted from the BCP as printed, where "baptize" is used.)

[jespa]

I have found an entry for a Christening for Feb 6th 1799 and it is noted that the child’s Baptism is to be found in the previous years register on December 29th 1798. As this practice of Baptism and Christening seems not to be isolated to Shropshire, (re: Guy Etchells reply), I feel that it is wrong to state that it would not have been official church teaching because we simply can not be sure of that. To that end I have contacted the Church for clarification and if I receive a reply I will post and let you know.

[arthurk]

The problem here is not in knowing what the Church of England's official teaching was: I and others have quoted from the Book of Common Prayer (which was in use in 1799) and elsewhere to demonstrate that officially there is no difference between christening and baptism. The problem is trying to work out what ministers meant when they recorded baptisms and christenings as if they were different ceremonies. (In one register I've seen, individual entries were noted as "Named", "Christened", or both; later entries showed a distinction between those who had apparently been "fully baptised" and those who had not - whatever that meant.)

According to the church's official teaching, all of this was irregular, and while someone in the C of E HQ might be able to explain it, what you really need is some contemporary reference to these practices, perhaps in literature or someone's diaries, which will explain what these people thought they were doing.

Arthur

[Guy Etchells]

One can trace the separation of baptisms and naming (christenings) all the way back to the times of Judaism (Jews and the Old Testament). When the naming was celebrated at the time of circumcision (brit milah) rather than the time of baptism.
Cheers
Guy

[arthurk]

That may be true, Guy (although baptism was never a core Jewish ceremony, and didn't have the initiatory aspect it has in the Christian church - cf John the Baptist), but it doesn't actually help a lot.

The picture that seems to be emerging is that what some clergy appeared to be conducting and/or recording was not consistent with the official C of E doctrine and practice. That wouldn't be the first or last time this has happened, but we still don't know exactly what was going on.

Incidentally, in the example I quoted (from Swineshead, LIN) the minister was not equating "naming" with "christening"; some children were recorded as named, and others as named and christened. It's clear from other entries that he used the terms christening and baptism interchangeably, so the naming he refers to must have been something different.

We could go on for ever speculating about what was meant by "naming" (or in some cases, "christening" where a baptism was recorded as well). Maybe there was some conscious harking back to a Jewish precedent, but as I have already said, if we really want to know what these irregular practices were, we need to know what people of the time were saying about them.

Arthur

[Ken Boyce]

On the question of the form of baptism in the C of E references to baptisms in Tudor and Stuart times (there are some in Google Books) indicate that the English Church was having great difficulty at that time in deciding the role and practise of Baptism in the English Church
Also in early Georgian times (c1725) people, especially in the colonies, were beginning to object to the inconvenience caused by the church edict that Baptisms and Marriages had to take place in (side) a church by an ordained C of E cleric hence the proliferation of naming parties and clandestine marriages. Prior to 1754 a clandestine or irregular marriage was a marriage not performed by the established Church and according to church edicts (Banns or License) Clandestine marriages were legal under civil law until the Marriage Act of 1753
I wuold think that edicts of the C of E would be governed by the Cannon Law of the church in force at any given time not by the BCP at least until the Ecclesiastical Courts lost their legal powers. I have not come across any reference to Christenings in literature dealing with Cannon Law
Sure is strange that such an important event in people lives down the centuries appears to be so befuddled
Regards

[Ken Boyce]

Re Strange Entries in Registers
One more kick at the can
I think the strange entries referred to in this thread may be explained by the 1771 ed of the BCP posted by me earlier and stem from the fact that the church edict was that all baptisms had to normally take place physically in (side) the parish church and by the Parish Minister
https://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/bcp/bcp.htm
Go to the pages displaying the links to the images for the public and private baptisms of children
Bottom of page 260 “….and let them not doubt but that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized and ought not to be baptized again. Yet nevertheless should the child which after this sort baptized do afterwards live it is expedient that it be brought into the church to the intent that if the minister of the same parish did himself baptize that child the congregation may be certified of the true form of baptism privately before him used………
……but if the child was baptized by any other lawful minister ……..shall find that all things were done as they ought to be then shall not christen the child again
I leave you to draw your own interpretations of these and how they fit with the various register entries
Of particular interest is the meaning of the ref “shall not christen”
Regards