CHURCH BAPTISMS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21830, 19 June 1934, Page 6

CHURCH BAPTISMS

POWERS OF LAYMEN —————— - ■ NO AUTHORITY FOR, J.p,> S DENOMINATIONS' PRINCIPLES The recent baptism of a child in an isolated part of North Canterbury by a justice of the peace was referred to in a report presented by the public questions of the Christ, church Presbytery at a meeting of the presbytery last week. The report mentioned that it appeared that there was no legal provision for the baptism. The report stated that the family concerned belonged to the Anglican Church, but the alleged power given io a State official was the concern of every Church. The clerk, in reply to an inquiry, had replied that as far as he could ascertain there was no legal provision of the sort claimed by the justice of the peace who had carried out the baptism. If some Churches made provision for baptism by laymen in certain circumstances that was purely an internal matter for those Churches, and had no bearing on the official functions of a justice of the peace. Surprise that a justice of the peace should have taken it on himself to baptise a child was expressed by Mr. - Ai H. Hobbs, president of the Canterbury branch of the Justices of the Peace Association. He said that there was no mention of such a privilege in the text-book generally used by justices, Redell's Duties and Privileges of a Justice of the Peace, in any case, the association would not attempt to claim the privilege, if any such privilege existed. / Mr. Hobb.°. added that the J.P. in question, whom he had questioned, had been quite emphatic that he had the necessary authority to perform the bap. tismal ceremony. He said he had -been told by an Anglican clergyman and by another authority that he possessed such a privilege and, as he was travelling in the direction of the Clarence accommodation house, he had consented to baptise the child. Mr. Hobbs said he had never heard of such a case ever occurring in New Zealand. Less Rigid Denominations inquiries made in Chxistchurch by the Sun snowed that most of the other denominations performing infant baptism are not so rigid as the Presbyterian Church in requiring that only ordained clergymen should officiate at baptisms, Tiie Anglican and Congregational Churches, for example, consider that any baptised Christian person, layman or not, may baptise a child, though it is preferred that whenever possible an ordained minister should perform the ceremony. The Methodist Church has a rather less flexible principle. The attitude of the Church of England was defined by Archdeacon F. N. Taylor. In emergency, he said, any Christian might baptise. Often, in rural districts, or in cases of sickness, or when for any reason the services of a priest could not be secured, baptism was performed by lay people—a nurse or a doctor, parents, or neighbour or friend, in such instances the child would later be publicly received ' into the Church, but there would be no necessity for a further baptism. It was, of course, preferred that a priest should perform baptisms, if available. "Baptism has no connection whatever with the State, which neither prescribes nor regulates baptism," Archdeacon Taylor added. "Therefore a justice of the" peace, as such, has no more standing in the matter than, say, a member of Parliament or any other person. The justice of the peace in the case under discussion did not baptise the child with the authority of a jp&tice of the peace, but by his authority as a Christian." Other Churches The Methodist Church, it was ex* plained, allowed ministers and home missionaries to baptise. In special cases permission could be obtained from the chairman of the district for other persons to administer the sacrament of baptism. As a matter of expediency, and in harmony with the apostolic principle, it was preferred that the clergy should perform baptisms. The Congregational Church views thtf matter very broadly, as the Rev. D. Gardner Miller explained. This Church, he said, did not hold that baptism should be restricted in any way to anyone in special office. "We believe that any Christian man or woman may perform any function of the Congregational Church—preaching, baptism or dispensing communion," he said. "Naturally, we prefer that when possible baptisms should be done by the clergy, but any other Christian man or woman has the right."