RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Essex => Topic started by: olleym on Tuesday 15 April 14 14:50 BST (UK)
-
On 17 April 1827 the vicar of St Andrew's, Halstead carried out 110 baptisms; is this a record for one day?
I believe 17.04.1827 was the Tuesday after Easter Sunday, can anyone offer an explanation for so many baptisms on that particular day?
Mark
-
Hi,
According to the tv programme "Rev"......no baptisms are carried out during Lent, so there would be a backlog after Easter.
Nanny Jan
-
Also by Googling I found this
"Canon 856 of the Code of Canon Law says that baptisms should ordinarily be done on Sundays or, if possible, at the Easter Vigil. "
I bet the church was noisy on that day. ;D
-
The code is a catholic document; the Vicar must have been "High" C of E.
Mark
-
It must have been like a production line!!!
-
It seemed to happen every year with this particular vicar; I had never seen it before.
-
You couldn't get married during Lent either. My mum and dad's wedding in 1965 was fitted in just before Lent started.
-
Sometimes a sudden increase in Baptisms is the result of the Vicar having a "push" on procrastinating parents to have the children baptized.
-
the Vicar must have been "High" C of E.
Mark
He would have needed to have been "High" on something with that many "Screaming Kids" ;D
Frank.
-
Also by Googling I found this
"Canon 856 of the Code of Canon Law says that baptisms should ordinarily be done on Sundays or, if possible, at the Easter Vigil. "
Not only is this a reference to the Catholic code, as already noted; it is also a reference to the revised Code of Canon Law promulgated in January 1983, so just a tad anachronistic.
My concordance of canons between the 1983 and 1917 codes offers no equivalent in the 1917 code, which was a codification of the then existing canon law.
As it happens, I have a copy of Gibson's Codex Anglicani of 1713 on the shelf in my study. It leads on the subject of Baptism with Article xxvii of the 39 Articles, and then continues (on page 435 of volume 1) with Canon lxviii of the Canons of 1603 (1604 in the Province of York):
lxviii. Ministers not to refuse to Christen or Bury.
No Minister shall refuse or delay to Christen any Child according to the Form of the Book of Common-Prayer, that is brought to the Church to him upon Sundays or Holydays to be Christened, or to Bury any Corps that is brought to the Church or Church-Yard (convenient Warning being given him thereof before) in such manner and Form as is prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer. And if he shall refuse to Christen the one, or Bury the other, except the party deceased were denounced Excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione, for some grievous and notorious Crime, (and no man able to testifie of his Repentance) he shall be suspended by the Bishop of the Diocese from his Ministry by the space of three Months.
Nothing there, then, about withholding the sacrament during Lent.
The rubric to the service for the Publick Baptism of Infants in the Book of Common Prayer reads as follows:
Due notice, normally of at least a week, shall be given before a child is brought to the church to be baptized. ... No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, providing that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents are observed. If the minister shall refuse or unduly delay to baptize any such infant, the parents or guardians may apply to the bishop of the diocese who shall, after consultation with the minister, give such directions as he thinks fit.
The minister, before proceeding to the Baptism, shall have satisfied himself that the child presented to him has not already been baptized.
So nothing there about not baptizing in Lent, either.
In Chapter III of the title Baptism ("The Times of Publick Baptism") Gibson first offers a constitution of Otho of 1237, the full text of which is in Latin, the English marginal note to which reads "The Feasts of Easter and Whitsuntide, being the two Solemn times of Baptizing, the People shall be exhorted to bring their Children to be baptized accordingly".
So this constitution creates a preference for Easter or Whitsun baptisms, but no obligation, and certainly no prohibition on baptism in Lent.
[continues in next post]
-
This is followed by a canon of Othobon of 1268, again in Latin, the English marginal note to which reads "Baptism being the Gate and Entrance to all the other Sacraments, - the foregoing Constitution was highly necessary; - Exception being made to cases of necessary"
After this, Gibson offers a canon of John Peccham of 1281, also in Latin, the English marginal note to which reads "Children born 8 days before Easter or Whitsuntide shall not be completely baptized til then, - but being born at other times they may be baptized presently.
So this canon suggested an 8 day moratorium before Easter (but not for the whole 40 days of Lent) and Whitsuntide; but the exception for cases of necessity will nevertheless have continued to apply.
Finally, Gibson sets out the statutory text of 2 & 5 Edw. VI and 13, 14 Car. II (unfortunately, no chapter numbers are offered; but you can deduce that this was part of the Reformation legislation of Edward VI, which was expressly re-enacted following the Restoration of Charles II) as follows:
IT appeareth by auncient Wryters, that the Sacramente of Baptisme in the olde time was not commonlye ministered, but at two times in the yeare ar Easter and Whytsontyde. At which times, it was openly ministred in the presence of all the Congregacion. Whiche Custom (now being growen out of use) although it cannot for many consideracions be well restored againe, yet it is thought good to follow the same, as nere as conveniently may be.
Wherefore the people are to be admionished, that it is most conveniente, that Baptisme should not be administered but upon Sundayes and other Holy-dayes when the most number of People may come together; as well for that the Congregacion there present may testifie the receiving of them that be newly Baptised, into the number of Christ's Church, as also because in the Baptisme of Infants, every Man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession made to God in his Baptism. For which cause also, it is expedient, that Baptism be ministered in the English tongue. Neverthelesse (if necessity so require) Children may be Baptized upon any other day.
Now this text may be your minister's justification for the mass-baptism at Easter, in that he was doing what was "thought good", namely, seeking to restore the tradition of baptizing only at Easter and Whitsun "as nere as conveniently may be".
One presumes he also took note of the text from a statute of 2 Edw. VI set out on page 444 of volume 1 of Gibson's Codex:
When there are many to be Baptized, this ordre of Demaunding, Baptizing, puttying on the Crisome, and Enoynting, shall be used severallye with every Chylde. Those that be first Baptized departing from the Font, and remaining in some convenyente place within the Churche, untyll all be Baptized. At the laste ende, the Prieste calling the Godfathers and Godmothers together, shall say this short Exhortacion following.
Forasmuch as this Child - etc.
With a canonical requirement for three godparents for each child, and the parents present as well, one can imagine that the churchwardens and sidesmen must have had a fair task in ensuring that the children havin gdeparted from the font all remained in some convenyente place within the church! Have you visited the church, and tried to envisage it filled with that number of children, plus two parents and three godparents for each child?
-
Burn's Ecclesiastical Law (sixth edition, 1797) also resides on the shelf in my study. This is much more succinct, ignoring all the pre-reformation material. Against the side-note "When", it reads:
2. Rubr The people are to be admonished, that it is most convenient that baptism shall not be administered but upon sundays and other holidays, when the most number of people come together; as well for that the congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the number of Christ's church; as also because in the baptism of infants, every man present may be put to remembrance of his own profession made to God in baptism. Nevertheless, if necessity so require, children may be baptized upon any other day.
And by Can. 68. No minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child according to the form of the book of common prayer, that is brought to the church to him upon sundays and holidays to be christened (convenient wanring being given to him before). And if he shall refuse so to do; he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocese, from his ministry, by the space of three months.
There is nothing whatever in Burn about any period when baptisms shall not be carried out; and certainly no mention of the desirability of restoring, as near as may conveniently be, the old custom (now disused) of baptizing only at Easter and Whitsun. We may therefore conclude that your minister's work of reference for English canon law was Gibson's Codex, and not Burn's Ecclesiastical Law.
-
I also have on my study shelf the third edition of William Cripps' A Practical Treatise on the law relating to the Church and Clergy. This was published in 1857 and so post-dates your mass baptism ... but not by nearly as much as the Roman Catholic revised code of canon law of 1983!!!
This one merely quotes the passage (which we have seen twice already) beginning "the people are to be admonished" and ending "nevertheless, if necessity so require, children may be baptized on any other day."
However, Cripps goes on to note:
"The above direction is positive; so that it appears that a curate who administers public baptism, whether of infants or of adults, at any other time than as above directed [i.e. except in cases of necessity, on Sundays and Holidays only], is acting in defiance of the laws of the realm, and renders himself liable to be proceeded against in the ecclesiastical courts; but custom appears to have sanctioned a very frequent departure from the strict rubrical directions in this respect."
So there it is ... the Anglican canon law on times of baptism, as set out in two very well respected works in 1713 and 1797, and one slightly lesser work (but probably far more readily available to country parsons) of 1857.
-
It must have been like a production line!!!
Working an eight-hour day with no breaks, that would be roughly 4.4 minutes per baptism. It seems a bit perfunctory but perhaps many of the parents didn't put much store in it anyway and only complied so that their kids could register for school or whatever.
-
Would have only needed thirty seconds per child to use the oils etc probably ;-)
I expect the rest was done as a general service. Most wouldn't have been at school then, as I think you had to pay and it wasn't compulsory til later in the century (I think?)
-
On 17 April 1827 the vicar of St Andrew's, Halstead carried out 110 baptisms; is this a record for one day?
I believe 17.04.1827 was the Tuesday after Easter Sunday, can anyone offer an explanation for so many baptisms on that particular day?
Mark
Hi Mark,
In the baptism registers of St Peter ad Vincular (C of E) Coggeshall Essex there is more than one instance of "mass baptisms", whether or not they exceed 110 in 1 day I can't recall but there were a tidy few. One reason I've been told is that Coggeshall was a "hot bed" of non-conformism so that many people were resistant to the established church (C of E), I'm not sure how big a part that played in matters though.
I have an idea that the church may have told people, that for the C of E to marry or bury people they would need to be baptised C of E, I'm sure someone on RootsChat can correct that if it's not 100% correct.
I have seen the "mass baptism" in St Peter ad Vincular's registers, quite a few of my ancestors were Coggeshall people under about nine different surnames.
Regards
-
Morning Derek
I missed your post.
From what I've read the Quakers were very big in Coggeshall in C19
Mark
-
Could it have been a mass recording of baptisms rather than all done on the same day?
-
Could it have been a mass recording of baptisms rather than all done on the same day?
I would think they were all baptised on the same day otherwise different dates would be noted but perhaps not, the mind boggles when thinking how the rector would have organised such an operation, perhaps he did them in batches throughout the day.
-
Hi Mark,
In the baptism registers of St Peter ad Vincular (C of E) Coggeshall Essex there is more than one instance of "mass baptisms", whether or not they exceed 110 in 1 day I can't recall but there were a tidy few. One reason I've been told is that Coggeshall was a "hot bed" of non-conformism so that many people were resistant to the established church (C of E), I'm not sure how big a part that played in matters though.
I have an idea that the church may have told people, that for the C of E to marry or bury people they would need to be baptised C of E, I'm sure someone on RootsChat can correct that if it's not 100% correct.
Marriage and Burial cannot be denied to parishioners on the grounds of their not having been baptized. Nor could they in the past. However, the unbaptized might not be buried in consecrated ground.
My Coggeshall ancestors were nonconformists, and they were buried in the unconsecrated part of the grave yard. I even know the plot numbers. Unfortunately, no record of the location of the plot numbers survives, so this information does not assist me any ...