Full Baptisms

[Stewpot1944]

I have come across a family member's baptism record in the Whitnash CofE church in 1801/2. The first part of the record says that the baby was baptised on November 22nd 1801, but later it was added that he received a full baptism in June 1802. This isn't the only child in these church records who had this additional ceremony performed but I have Googled the question "what is a full baptism?" and cannot find an answer anywhere.
The modern interpretation is that it means full immersion in water but I can't believe you would immerse a child under the age of 12 months. Any thoughts?

[Bertieone]

A Full Baptism was to follow a short baptism performed for example on sick children not expected to live, perhaps in church or private houses.

These were performed in direct opposition to the Rubric, later they were brought into the church for the completion of the rite.

[Stewpot1944]

Hi
I'm struggling to get a definitive answer to this query and am wondering if it was a local "thing". You can see the record for my relative, John Maycock, in the Whitnash parish register in 1802.
There are a number of similar Full baptism records on this page but I cannot see a corresponding burial record for any of these children so I'm not sure it was done with death in mind.
On the previous page to John's record, I have selected these examples of somewhat similar but just as confusing records -
a. John Heritage ..."Received his baptism December 8th 1799"
b. Susannah? Reading, "baptised October 1799 .... Received December 25".
And
c. Will Warmant "Received his full baptism 25th March 1798"

[Bertieone]

They were not expected to live, yet they did, hence "later they were brought into the church for the completion of the rite"

Also, a baptism might have been performed that didn't receive the full rite, unacceptable to the church.

In Liverpool baptisms you sometimes see PB at the side of the name, later to find the child has been baptised again. PB meaning, Private Baptism.

[MaryA]

About that date vicars would have served a number of parishes and travelled round to each to perform the services as required.

If the vicar didn't get to a home where a baby's life was in danger then the baptism would have taken place by either a parent or midwife.

Happily if the baby survived it would be taken to have a proper baptism, or rather more of a naming/welcoming into the church ceremony. This is the same as Bert was describing, does it make any more sense?

[Stewpot1944]

Many thanks for your replies. While looking for my ancestor I came across another possible match - a John Maycock who was baptised in 1802 in Whitnash, about 10 miles from Dunchurch. Going through the Dunchurch records, the vicar there makes no mention of full baptisms, a child being "received" or private baptisms, just straightforward baptisms. I'm not challenging your comments; I just find it interesting to see the apparently different practices adopted by different clergy.