|
Post by Tonkin on Nov 18, 2010 19:20:44 GMT -5
By private baptisms I expect this means the baptism did not take place in a church. Now ... If someone did not have a private baptism recorded in the church records does this mean I will not find the baptism on sites like the OPC and others ? This may sound like a silly question, but then again, it may explain why so many baptisms (and marriages) are not found in the early records. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Roy - from down under.
|
|
|
Post by Sarch on Nov 18, 2010 23:37:50 GMT -5
Hi Roy I can only tell you what I have found looking at baptisms in church records I have found baptisms recorded as private in the church records and a few times a private baptism and a church baptism for the same child. In the case of two baptisms I think it may be because the child was not expected to live and was given a hasty baptism at home and then when stronger one in the church I suspect that if the baptism was private the minister/vicar/priest still had to record it - as the final number for the year had to be reported to the bishop Sarch
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Nov 20, 2010 20:27:55 GMT -5
Greetings Sarch. Thank you for taking the time to reply. This answers a few questions for me, including the two baptisms. I have come across these second baptisms a few times and thought someone had recorded the same baptism a second time. So ... it is safe to say that a private baptism was still recorded in the church records. I was not sure, so had to ask. Regards, Roy - from down under.
|
|
|
Post by Sarch on Nov 21, 2010 0:46:47 GMT -5
Hi Roy There was a lot of speculation in my answers But at the end of each year there is a tally of the number of children baptised which I have noticed in the registers, and which I think must then have been sent to the Bishop of the area who collated the numbers for his Diocese and sent them on to higher authority like the Archbishops office Sarch
|
|
|
Post by donne on Nov 21, 2010 15:02:30 GMT -5
So ... it is safe to say that a private baptism was still recorded in the church records. I was not sure, so had to ask. Difficult to say for certain since the only private baptisms I've found in my own family have ipso facto been recorded in the parish registers. I imagine that the same reasons for the omission of a public baptism from parish records i.e. forgetfulness or incompetence could also apply to private baptisms. However, since the families requesting the private baptism would, I expect, be the better off maybe this was less likely to happen. A private baptism was usually necessary for a sickly baby perhaps not expected to live whereas a later public baptism would show off the new arrival to the whole parish.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 22, 2010 6:48:48 GMT -5
I am not so sure about this. I would think it was more religious beliefs than anything else that would have dictated the situation. CT
|
|
|
Post by donne on Nov 22, 2010 10:22:13 GMT -5
Well, I was referring to the private baptisms which are recorded as such in the Anglican parish registers - presumably carried out by the incumbent. But regarding those baptisms of children of dissenting couples, there is an interesting thread in soc.genealogy.britain in which Roy Stockdill has made the following contribution:
"Daniel, I explained this some time ago but it does not yet seem to have made it into the Genbrit list. I also e-mailed you directly.
To explain again, because so many children were being baptised by dissenting ministers, or others were being baptised privately at home, their births were not being recorded.
Thus a law was introduced in 1694/5 that made it compulsory for all births to be notified to the incumbent of the parish, on penalty of a fine for refusal. A tax was introduced on registrations, plus a fee of sixpence for the incumbent.
It was never popular and many clergy ignored it, so it was abolished in 1706 - a shame, really, from the family historians' point of view since it gave not only a baptismal date but also an actual birthdate.
In the example you cite, the child was born on the 1st June, its birth was notified to the incumbent and entered in the parish register on the 4th and it was baptised on the 12th.
Clear now?
-- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer"
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Nov 22, 2010 22:50:35 GMT -5
Thanks again Sarch. Your speculation turns out to be correct. I picked up a baptism on the OPC site and it was noted by the transcriber to be a private baptism and was recorded into the church records some time after the event. So the answer is yes ... private baptisms were recorded in the church records.
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Nov 23, 2010 0:51:54 GMT -5
Hi Donne. And thank you for your input on this. This article by Stockdill is interesting. I now know that private baptisms were recorded into the church records, but Stockdill tells us that private baptisms were not being recorded into the church records, hence this new law in 1694/5. Stockhill may have meant to say not all private baptisms were recorded in the church records. One does get confused with issues such as this, but it may explain why some baptisms have not been located. That's the way it was - and that's the way it stays.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 23, 2010 6:54:45 GMT -5
Roy, Roger ( ) was talking about 'dissenting ministers' so it is a little different to the 'run of the mill' private baptism I think you initially referred to. (Sorry all but I simply could not resist the name association here with ROY and ROGER! ;D) But there is yet more to the question and answer! Lordy, Lordy yes! - although this probably moves into the realms of persons who were not baptised at all. In Matthews History of St Ives (et al) there are transcripts involving the Parishes of Towednack, St Ives etc. and one Andrew Rosewall of Towednack. At one point of proceedings in these documents is a reference to the fact that a child of (from memory at this point) Mr John Hingston was buried without having been baptised due to the fact that the Vicar was often absent. At that period I believe Towednack and St Ives were Chapelries of Lelant but the inference was that the Vicar was neglecting his duties. The main point of this is that 'a child' died and was buried unbaptised because the Vicar had not been about. I would need to check the document again but I think there was mention of others in this situation so the name of John Hingston would have added some importance to the problem. CT
|
|
|
Post by tonymitch on Nov 23, 2010 11:54:55 GMT -5
There can only be ONE Baptism, not two.
The 1559 Book of Common Prayer as amended by the inclusion in1604 of the Rite for "Of them that be Baptised in Private Houses in Tyme of Necessitie" says.....
The Pastours and Curates shal oft admonish the people, that they deferre not the Baptisme of enfantes any longer then the Sonday, or other holy day, next after the childe be borne unlesse upon a great and reasonable cause declared to the Curate, and by him approved......And let them not doubte, but that the childe so Baptised, is lawfully and sufficiently Baptised, and ought not to be Baptised agayne in the Church. But yet neverthles, if the child whyche is after this sorte Baptised, do afterwarde live, it is expediente that he be broughte into the Churche, to the entent that if the Priest or Minister of the same Parish did himself baptize that childe, the Congregation may be certified of the true forme of Baptisme, by him privately before used: Or if the child were baptized by any other lawfull Minister, that then the Minister of the Parish where the childe was borne or Christened, shall examine and trie whether this childe be lawfully baptized, or no. In which case, if those that bring any childe to the Church, do answer that the same child is already baptized, then shall the Minister examine them further....
And yf the Minister shall prove by the aunswers of suche, as brought the childe, that all thinges were done as they oughte to be: Then shal not he Christen the childe againe, but shall receyve him, as one of the flocke of the true Christian people,
But if they which bring the enfantes to the Church, do make an uncerteine aunswere to the Priestes questions, and say that they cannot tel what they thought, didde, or said, in yt great feare, and trouble of minde: (as ofte times it chaunseth) then let the Priest Baptise him in forme above written, concerning publique Baptisme, saving that at the dipping of the chylde in the Fonte, he shal use this forme af wordes.
If thou be not Baptized al ready, N. I baptise the in the name of the father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoste. Amen.
NOW BACK TO THE 21st Century.....As I understan it, there was never a requirement for the clergy to send in statistics of Baptisms, but the fact of Baptism is received by the Diocese when Confirmation statistics are sent, as one Sacrament is seen as a fulfilment of the other.
Tony M
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 23, 2010 12:30:46 GMT -5
Tony - I don't intend to make light of your comments or the original query but there may be some levity involved in my own response. PRs from the 19th Century prove this to be false and there is ample proof of this. I have lost count of the amount of times I have seen a record for the baptism of a child which has been followed (often some years later) by the record of a multiple baptism in the same family with that same child record as being baptised again. I have also seen on numerous occasions the baptism of a child in the non-conformist registers and then later found that same child baptised into the Established Church. (And vice versa) And here is where the problem begins - the fact that this quote relates to the mid-16th and early 17th Centuries. My earlier comments relating to the Court Depositions at Towednack and St Ives concerned events occurring in the 1670s and 1680s at which time it was stated that children were buried without baptism because the Vicar was never around to perform the baptisms! This and the following have been separated to make them a little easier to read. And both above comments indicate to me that the art of 'water conservation' was well practised all those years ago! ;D Probably not but you will find records of the number of baptisms performed (for population statistics) recorded in many of the PRs at the end of each year. I have a sense of DE JAVU creeping in here but I seem to recall that I passed similar comments to the following a couple of years back. If you look through the PRs for a group of adjoining Parishes you will find that each has adopted different practices. (Assuming a different Vicar for said Parishes.) There may have been ONE RULE laid down - but the interpretation of said rule differed. A little like the old 'pass the message down the line' scenario! Whatever was laid down as 'procedure' in 1559 was certainly not still adhered to in 1659. And don't forget the amount of baptismal records you have seen that record the subject as 'adult' or 'age xx'. CT
|
|
|
Post by tonymitch on Nov 23, 2010 16:10:37 GMT -5
CT. Levity is something we all need....Don't worry you can't offend me....I've been insulted by professionals. Seriously....my response was a Theological one, not a Geneological one so perhaps it shouldn't have been placed on this site. The Church's teaching is quite definate. There is only one baptism, even if it's done twice! The Established church (C of E) is in the catholic tradition and the Sacrament of Baptism can only be given once. If a child is baptised at home CORRECTLY it cannot be baptised again.....It is a Christian and cannot be made a Christan again because it is already a Christian. But......Note the letout clause in the Book of Common Prayer...."If thou be not Baptized al ready." Problems arise when another church/denomination is involved. A Roman Catholic priest may possibly refuse to acknowledge the baptism of a person in the Anglican church and 're-baptise' to be on the safe side. A Baptist would not accept the baptism of an infant and therefore insist on adult baptism by total immersion. Methodists/Bible Christans et al would again be in the traditional catholic stream but the Anglican Vicar MIGHT refuse to accept that they had been 'correctly' baptised because many of these baptisms were performed by Lay men. As for the Quakers and good old Salvation Army....they don't belive in the Sacrament of baptism.... On a personal level, I was 'baptised' twice"! I was training to be a Cleric when I discovered that I had been 'baptised' in a Unitarian church. As the Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity it was decided that I was not even a Christian and needed to be baptised. This means my baptism will appear to future family historians twice. The 'double entry' system of bookeeping is obviously not confined to tax dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Nov 24, 2010 17:34:46 GMT -5
CT and Tony. Thank you both for taking the time to educate me on baptisms. I find it all very interesting and I'm now a wee bit wiser. Having an understanding of things like this comes in handy when searching the records. Roy - from down under.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 11, 2010 4:23:53 GMT -5
Or maybe there were only two and the clerk had a stutter!
|
|