Curious Church Customs and Cognate Subjects Part 8

A statute dating from the time of Henry III. runs as follows:--"If really from necessity the child shall be baptized at home, the water on account of the sanct.i.ty of baptism shall either be poured into the fire, or carried away to the church to be poured into the Baptistery and _the vessel shall be burnt at the same time, or shall be deputed to the use of the Church_."

One of the most confessedly difficult pa.s.sages in the New Testament is S.

Paul's question, "What shall they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Cor.

XV. 29). Bingham discusses this text at some length. Two main lines of interpretation have been followed by the various commentators. The one is, that there was a custom among some of the early heretics, that when anyone died without baptism, another was baptized in his stead. S. Chrysostom says that this was practised among the Marcionites with a great deal of ridiculous ceremony, which he thus describes:--"After any catechumen was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased, then, coming to the dead man, they spake to him and asked him whether he would receive baptism? And he making no answer, the other answered for him, and said, 'He would be baptized in his stead.' And so they baptized the living for the dead, as if they were acting a comedy upon the stage; so great was the power of Satan in the minds of these vain men. Afterward, when anyone challenged them upon this practice, they had the confidence to plead the apostle's authority for it." Bingham proceeds to reject this interpretation on two grounds; 1st, that it was superst.i.tious and delusive, "Any Jew or Gentile might easily be made a Christian by having another, after his death, baptized for him." This objection, however, is not conclusive, it does not follow that S. Paul approved of the practice, no doubt he would account it a superst.i.tion. But he is employing the _argumentum ad hominem_. "What do these people mean by their practice if they do not believe in a resurrection?" The second objection is more cogent, viz.: that the interpretation in question was not accepted by any early Christian writer.

The other line of interpretation which Bingham adopts, shall be given in his own words. "But S. Chrysostom gives a much more rational account of the apostle's argument, for he supposes him to refer to the Catholic custom, of making every catechumen at his own baptism, with his own mouth declare his belief of the resurrection of the dead by repeating the creed of which that was a part, and so being baptized into that faith, or hope of the resurrection of the dead. And, therefore, he puts them in mind of this saying, 'If there be no resurrection of the dead, why art thou then baptized for the dead, that is, the body? For, therefore, thou art baptized for the dead, believing the resurrection of the dead, that the body may not remain dead, but revive again.' So that 'baptizing for the dead,' is an elliptical expression for being baptized into the faith or belief of the resurrection of the dead. And so I think Tertullian is to be understood when he says in opposition to the error of the Marcionites, "That to be 'baptized for the dead' is to be 'baptized for the body,'

which is declared to be dead by baptism;--that is, we are baptized into the belief of the resurrection of the body, both whose death and resurrection are represented in baptism." And the interpretation of Epiphanius comes pretty near these, when he says, "It refers to those who were baptised upon the approach of death, in the hopes of the resurrection from the dead; for they shewed thereby that the dead should rise again, and that therefore they had need of the remission of sins, which is obtained in baptism." The same sense is given by Theodoret, and Theophylact, and Balsamon, and Zonaras, and Matthew Blastaras among the Greeks; and it is embraced by Bishop Patrick, and Dr. Hammond, as the most natural and genuine exposition of this difficult pa.s.sage of the apostle."

The use of Sponsors in the administration of baptism dates from the earliest times. Their duties varied according as the baptized person were an infant or an adult. For the most part at first, parents were sponsors for their own children, and it was the exception when they were not. "The extraordinary cases," says Bingham, "in which [the baptized] were presented by others were commonly such cases where the parent could not, or would not, do that kind office for them; as when slaves were presented to baptism by their masters; or children when parents were dead, brought by the charity of any who would show mercy on them; or children exposed by their parents, which were sometimes taken up by the holy virgins of the church" (iii. 552.) Sponsors for children were called on, 1st, to answer in their name to all the interrogatories of baptism; 2nd, to be guardian of their spiritual life for the future. In the case of adults their duty was to admonish and instruct them both before and after baptism. Very commonly sponsors for adults were deacons or deaconesses. Only one sponsor originally was required, in the case of adults, a man for a man and a woman for a woman. For children there was no restriction as to the s.e.x of the sponsor.

Sponsors were called "spiritual parents," and out of this relations.h.i.+p grew the practice in the Roman Catholic Church, which forbade sponsors, or G.o.dparents, from marrying within the forbidden degrees of spiritual relation. The first notice of this occurs in the laws of Justinian, which forbid a man to marry a woman, whether she be slave or free, to whom he has stood G.o.dfather, "because nothing induces a more parental affection, or juster prohibition of marriage, than this tie, by which their souls are in a divine manner, united together." This was afterwards extended to prohibition between a G.o.dfather and the mother of the child, and the prohibition took final shape in the decrees of Trent, which further forbid marriages between the sponsors themselves, nor may the baptizer marry the baptized. A host of troubles and difficulties are on record in the pages of history, arising out of these prohibitions.

It is uncertain when proxies were first allowed. The first English record appears to be the case of Jane, the daughter of Thomas G.o.dfrey, of Grub Street, who was baptized at S. Giles', Cripplegate, in 1615. Mr. G.o.dfrey kept a diary, in which he writes, "My gossips were Mrs. Jane Hallsye, wife of Mr. John Hallsye, one of the Citty Captains, and my sister Howlt, and Sir Multon Lombard, who sent Mr. Michael Lee for his deputy. My brother Thomas Isles afterwards bestowed a christening sermon on us."

In mediaeval times a child on being baptized was arrayed by the priest in a white robe, which had been anointed with sacred oil, and was called a Chrismale. This robe was called the Chrisom, and if the child died within a month, it was shrouded in this robe, and was called a Chrisom-child.

Parochial registers very frequently have the expression applied to children who are buried, and it will be remembered by readers of Shakespeare. Sometimes the cloth was called the Christening Palm. Later, say a hundred years ago, though the arraying by the minister was not in use, a newly baptized child was arrayed in a palm or pall to be brought down to see company.

In Perths.h.i.+re, it is said, a child who was about to be privately baptized was placed in a clean basket covered over with a cloth, in which was placed a portion of bread and cheese. The basket was then hung on the iron crook over the fire, and turned round three times. It was to counteract the malignant spells of witches and evil spirits. Here is an inventory of christening garments of the seventeenth century (_Notes and Queries_):--

1. A lined, white figured satin cap.

2. A lined, white satin cap, embroidered with sprays in gold coloured silk.

3. A white satin palm, embroidered to match. Size 44 in. by 34 in.

4. A pair of deep cuffs, white satin, similarly embroidered, trimmed with lace, evidently intended to be worn by the bearer of the infant.

5. A pair of linen gloves or mittens for the baby, trimmed with narrow lace, the back of the fingers lined with coloured figured silk.

6. A palm, 54 in. by 48 in., of rich still yellow silk lined with white satin.

According to Sarum use, yellow was the altar colour for confessors'

festivals. This yellow pall may have been considered specially suitable at the child's being first openly pledged to confess the faith of Christ crucified. Another name for the christening palm is the christening sheet or "cude cloth." This is a superst.i.tion that if it is not burned within a year of the child's birth it will never be able to keep a secret.

The gift of "Apostle Spoons" by sponsors is said, by Stow, to have originated in the days of Queen Elizabeth. Shakespeare, on being G.o.dfather to one of Ben Jonson's children, gave him "a dozen of Latten spoons." In the days of James I. it was the fas.h.i.+on for sponsors to give s.h.i.+rts with little bands or cuffs wrought with silk or blue thread, but this did not last, they went back to spoons or cups.

Brand quotes from "The Comforts of Wooing":--"The G.o.dmother hearing when the child was to be _coated_, brings it a gilt coral, a silver spoon and porringer, and a brave new tankard of the same metal." According to s.h.i.+pman the custom of making presents at baptisms declined in the time of the Commonwealth.

Pepys, however, observed the custom:--"Nov. 24th. At my goldsmith's, bought a basin for my wife, to give the parson's child, to which the other day she was G.o.dmother. It cost me 10 14s. besides graving, which I do with the cypher's name, Daniel Mills."

Christening tongs were also a favourite present, which were of the same size as an ordinary pair of sugar tongs, but were in the form of a stork standing upright upon the claws which partly form the handle. When opened for the purpose of grasping the sugar, the body, which is hollow, discloses the image of a baby in swaddling clothes.

This no doubt originated in the old Teutonic fiction that newly-born babes were brought by storks.

Here are a few Scottish notes of gifts _from_ the child to its parents.

They are all from various columns of _Notes and Queries_:--

In 1871, a gentleman was met in one of the princ.i.p.al streets of Edinburgh by a very respectably dressed female, with a nurse carrying a child. They stopped him, and the former presented him with a paper bag containing a biscuit, a bit of cheese, and a bit of gingerbread. On his expressing surprise, she said, "Oh! sir, it is the christening bit."

In country places in Scotland, it was a custom, now nearly exploded, for the mother on the way to baptism to take a supply of bread and cheese, a "whang" or slice of which she gave to the first person she met on the country road after leaving church, and it was accounted a high insult to refuse it. Probably the provision was part of the "blythe" meat presented to the friends in the house, who had a.s.sembled after the birth to offer congratulations. Such offerings may perhaps be traced to the period when the old Romans inhabited the Caledonian regions.

In 1855, at Candleriggs, a silver coin was given in return for the eatables. The appearance of copper was, if possible, to be avoided.

In Fifes.h.i.+re, before starting for the kirk, the "christening-piece,"

consisting of shortbread, cheese, and oatcake, was made up into a white paper parcel tied with ribbon; this the mother held in her right hand as she left the house, and presented to the first person met by her, whether stranger or friend, gentle or simple. The "christening-piece" was always gladly accepted, and in return kind wishes were expressed for the future happiness of the child.

It is noticeable that at the other end of Great Britain we have the same idea.

At Looe, in Cornwall, the gift was generally a small cake made for the purpose, and called the "christening crib," crib being a provincialism for a bit of bread. At Polperro, three miles from Looe, a gift termed the "kimbly" was also made to the person who brought the first news of a birth to those interested in the new arrival.

This custom was still practised in Devons.h.i.+re in 1883.

Where children are brought in batches to be baptized, as is often the case in large towns, it is curious to note that superst.i.tions exist about the precedence of s.e.xes, though in different places the ideas are contrary.

Thus in the North of England there are places where the parents are very anxious that the girls should be taken first, on the ground that otherwise the boys will be beardless. In Surrey and Worcesters.h.i.+re the same desire is expressed; in the West of Scotland the males have precedence. The old ideas can hardly be cla.s.sed under superst.i.tions. In those churches, where now-a-days ancient rules are revived, Holy Communion is always administered to men before women, and Confirmation to boys. Maskell, in his _Monumenta Ritualia_, Eccl., Angl., 1-23, quotes the following rubric from Bishop Leofric's missal:--"Et accipiat presbyter eos a parentibus eorum, et baptizantur primi masculi deinde feminae, sub trina mersione, Sanctam Trinitatem semel invocando."

Cases are on record where a cottager's tenth child was christened with a sprig of myrtle in its cap to mark it as the t.i.the child; it is said that a Rector of Compton recognized such a t.i.the child, and sent him to school.

One of the silliest and most mischievous pieces of legislation was the Act 23, George III., c. 67. It enacted that after the 1st of October, 1783, stamp duty of 3d. should be paid to His Majesty on the entry of every marriage, birth, or christening, in the register of every parish, precinct, or place in Great Britain, under penalty of 5 for each entry.

And that the churchwardens should provide a book for each entry, and the parson, vicar, curate, and other person receiving the duty was to be allowed 2s. in the for his trouble. By 25 George III., c. 75, the tax was extended to dissenters. People were furious, and the poor parson, who was supposed to be charging for his own benefit, got the hardest words.

The Act was repealed by 34 George III., c. 11, the tax ceasing October 1st, 1794.

In conclusion, we will put together a few odds and ends of folk lore. In Ayrs.h.i.+re, in the end of the last century, when a child was taken to a distance to be baptized, a quant.i.ty of salt was placed round it before leaving the house, to ward off evil.

In Worcesters.h.i.+re, it is considered that if an engaged couple stand as G.o.d-parents to the same child, it is a sure sign that their engagement will never end in marriage. This is clearly a relic of what we have already noticed, the mediaeval church law by which those persons who stood in any spiritual relations.h.i.+p to one another were thereby debarred from contracting marriage.

In Dalston, Carlisle, there is a belief that if the baptism of a child takes place after it has been "shortened," the baby will not only be noisy and disagreeable in church during the administration of the sacrament, but will remain bad-tempered and ill-natured for ever afterwards.

The belief still prevails in many rural districts that children dying unbaptized wander in woods and solitudes lamenting their hard fate. In Sweden parents will, therefore, carry a child miles away in the depth of winter to the minister to have it baptized before it is half-a-day old.

There are, however, methods by which it is supposed even if baptism be deferred, that the devil's power over the child can be neutralized. One is to wrap it in red cloth and lay it in its cradle, with a psalm book and a pair of scissors placed crosswise upon its breast.

"In presenting a child to the minister, its head must be on the right arm of the male parent." (West of Scotland).

Brand quotes from a book on Scotland, published in 1793, the statement that the inhabitants of Kirkwall and S. Ola would consider it as an unhappy omen were they by any means disappointed in getting their children baptized on the very day which they had previously fixed in their minds for that purpose.

The same compiler has this:--In the North, when the child was taken to church to be christened, a little boy was engaged to meet the infant on leaving the house, because it was deemed an unlucky omen to encounter a female first.

It is supposed to be lucky for children to cry at baptisms, as if they are quiet and good then it shows they are too good to live. The idea arose from the custom of exorcism. When the devil was going out of a possessed person it cried and rent him sore; therefore the tears and struggles of the infant would be convincing proof that the evil one had departed. In Ireland, the nurses pinch the baby rather than let it be silent or cheerful.

In Scotland (to quote Brand once more), on their return from church, they take the newly baptized child and vibrate it three or four times gently over a flame, saying thrice, "Let the flame consume thee now or never."

This is possibly derived from a feast called Amphidromia, held at Athens, by private families on the fifth day after the birth of the child, when it was the custom of the gossips to run round the fire with the infant in their arms, and then, having delivered it to the nurse, they were entertained with feasting and dancing.

Another Scotch fancy is that it is unlucky to tell the names of infants before baptism.

In one of Dekker's plays (1630) occurs the following:--I am the most wretched fellow, sure some _left-handed priest christened me_, I am so unlucky.

In Greece, while the father is alive, none of his sons are baptized with his name; thus a father and son never have the same Christian name at the same time. But on the death of the father it is customary for one of his sons to adopt his name. The eldest son always bears the name of his paternal grandfather (a common custom in Scotland), even though the latter be alive. On the other hand, for the obvious reason of identification, an illegitimate son always takes the baptismal name of his father. It is probable that this practice arises from a belief that the father would die on giving to his son precisely his own name, and that the Greek church does not allow the variation of a second Christian name.