RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: kerryb on Sunday 22 July 07 09:25 BST (UK)
-
Hi
I've been searching for some family members on the IGI born in the late 1700s early 1800s and have found 2 adult baptisms. Now the village I am looking at is very small and only has a parish church. I know that some other denominations do adult baptisms but why would a parish church?
I'm puzzled!
Kerry
-
Were they by any chance just before a marriage? It occurs to me that one party might not have been baptized as an infant/child, and - wanting to marry in the church - chose to be baptized before the ceremony.
JAP
-
Probably for some reason they were not baptised as children, and if they were getting married the Parish Priest insisted they got baptised. They could also have been Hypothetical baptisms (Ch. of Eng.), baptism administered to persons in respect to whom it is doubtful whether they have or have not been baptized before.
Stan
-
Not sure they were old enough to get married but then it is such a common name in the area, it might not be the ones I am hoping they are.
Thanks for the information, if I was to look at parish registers would the entrys of adult baptisms include parents names?
Kerry
-
If they were old enough to be classed as adult baptisms they would have been old enough to marry, girls could marry at 12 and boys 14 with consent.
All the adult baptisms I have seen have named the parents, but then there is always the exception.
Jebber
-
Thanks Jebber
Another one for my list of things to look for my next visit! ;D
Kerry
-
Kerry
There's always the chance that one or both were other than C of E. Some zealous vicars insisted that people be baptised according to C of E rites before they conducted a marriage.
MarieC
-
So that it could be a proper marriage no doubt ::) ::) ::)
I've just had a thought for one of the chaps, I have his marriage 20 years after this adult baptism, I wonder if the adult baptism is actually his father just before he got married. Hmmm back to the drawing board I think.
Kerry
-
For communicant members of the Church it is appropriate that they receive communion soon after their marriage. For some this may make it appropriate for the marriage to take place within the context of a Celebration of Holy Communion. Before admitting a person to communion the priest must seek evidence of baptism as baptism always precedes admission to Holy Communion.
The Book of Common Prayer states;
"It is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage"
Stan
-
Hi Stan
Thank you for your help. But what is a communicant member?
Kerry
-
A communicant is someone who has been confirmed, which is something done by the bishop. I was told (by a bishop) when questioning why there were so many bishops nowadays when two centuries ago there were half as many (approx), not to mention the assistant bishops we now have, that the Bishop of Lincoln confirmed 30,000 people in one year. I suppose these days that for one diocese to have 1,000 confirmations in a year would be a big deal, but the time spent going around doing these confirmations must have been enormously onerous.
This is all to do with the CofE practice of infant baptisms and means that when the person has reached the age whereby they can say for themselves that they want to be practising members of the church, that they get confirmed in their faith. It requires prior baptism and at most confirmation services, one or more candidates will get baptised as that has not been done before.
I do know that in my own parish 200 years ago, when the congregation numbered 250 or more, communion was only taken by 10% of this number, so clearly there were distinctions in those days and I'd be very interested if anyone can explain the whys and wherefores. I always thought it was because attendance was compulsory at the time, but I may be wrong.
-
Arr thanks for that Nick, I was brought up in the Bretheren so Adult baptism was the norm and dedications as a baby, so I am unfamiliar with the CofE ways.
Kerry ;)
-
Stan
Thanks, once again, for providing the factual background to this. I have learned so much from your posts!
Just wanted to add, though, that the enforcement of this varied widely. Some C of E churches were known to have a "two chairs, no waiting" policy where there was no detailed investigation of the religious background of the people being married. My RC ancestors found one such church, the parish church of St Marylebone in London, where they married by licence to satisfy the requirements of the law.
MarieC
-
I have two ancestors married at a very early age in Manchester Cathedral. Apparently it was very common then to do that to get around the awkward problem of parental consent. When I found this, it made an enormous difference to my tree as all the names fitted. I had been fooled because the person I thought had become a parent at 32 was in fact a grandparent at that age! Gave me another generation in my tree though.
-
Maybe that explains why I have some ancestors who went from Sussex to London to marry for no apparent reason then when they came from and returned to Sussex.
Kerry
-
Dear All
Until quite recently communion was something many people only occasionally took part in, despite being confirmed. The Book of Common Prayer requires people to take communion at least three times a year - Easter, and two others - probably Christmas would be one of them. Even in the 1970s the Vicar in my church in Burton-on-Trent was having trouble getting people to communicate regularly. I think for many people there was an issue of "unworthiness".
Regards LFS
-
Dear All
I think for many people there was an issue of "unworthiness".
Regards LFS
This may be the reason for not taking communion :o
From the Book of Common Prayer
And if any of those be on open and notorious evil liver, or have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; the Minister, having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied, which before were offended; and that he hath recompensed the parties, to whom he hath done wrong; or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.
The same order shall the Minister use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign; not suffering them to be partakers of the Lord’s Table, until he know them to be reconciled.
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1689/Communion_1689.htm
Stan
-
I don't know what books you read Stan but you are a mind of information and very interesting information at that!
Kerry :)