Age at Baptism

[Elaine168]

I have been looking through Baptisms at St Patrick's Colleyhurst today. My gx 2 grandfather William Hodson, appears to have been baptised on March 5 1837 having been born on March 4. I assumed he had been baptised as an emergency, ie not expected to live.

Then I looked at his sister's record, Alice, she was born March 6 1835 and baptised on March 8.

Does anyone know why there was this haste?

A further factor could be that their father Hugh Hodson was not a Catholic but his wife Mary Worton was. All the surnames are mis spelt. Might it be possible that someone alse presented the baby for baptism and did so quickly before poor Hugh could arrange an Anglican baptism? Or am I way off beam?? Can't imagine Mary was able to leave her bed and charge off to church with the child!

Any comments gratefully received.
Elaine
Elaine

[willow154]

Elaine,
I can only speak from the reasearch I've done myself, but many of the baptisms of the family I'm researching were just two or three days after birth (High Pavement Chapel, Nottingham).
The babies who were too sick, and not expected to live had 'baptised privately' by their baptisms.
Now I know non-conformist situations were slightly different, and although some early non-conformists were not always buried in anglican churchyards, many were. So the following applies, to anglicans and most of the others, too:
From book on baptisms:
Baptism mattered far more to most of our ancestors than it does to many people today because most clergymen would not permit an unbaptised person(including a new-born infant) to be buried in consecrated ground. Great efforts were therefore made to ensure that babies were baptised as soon as possible, especially if there was a likelihood that they would not survive. Baptism by a minister was preferable, but, in an emergency, a private baptism could be performed by the midwife or any other "competent person".
However, not all cases followed this. Some parents had their children baptised in a group, at a later date.  But this probably does not apply in the case you are talking about, and I think my post is probably long enough already!
Hope this helps a little.
Kind regards,
Paulene.

[toni*]

although baptisims were supposd to happen on the first Sunday after birth or on the next Sunday thereafter in the few instances where date of birth was given this rarely happened weeks, months or years might first elapse.

the eldest child was often baptised in the mothers home church

where two entries were written in the regsters about children who had been 'privately baptised' and who might later be 'receievd into the church' of 'publicly baptised' a home baptisim by a licensed midwife, doctor or priest was indicated such infants might have been premature sickly and not expected to live long after birth

some of the public baptisims before the 18thc involved roman catholics the registrations conformed to law and ensured legal proof of parentage and age at a time when they were subject to civil persecution.

[Elaine168]

Thanks Willow and Tony.
Most of the other babies being baptised were older. Neither William nor Alice were listed as privately baptised.

St Patrick's wasn't the mother's church as she was Irish from County Carlow.

If baptism followed so rapidly after birth, presumably the mother wasn't present then?

I also remember from my childhood women being 'churched' after chidbirth and didn't socialize until they had been.
Elaine

[toni*]

I also remember from my childhood women being 'churched' after chidbirth and didn't socialize until they had been.
Elaine

yes i remember that too

[Aulus]

"churched"  

[Canuc]

Churched:

You have to go back to your Adam and Eve story. Women became "unclean" as a result. I think also there is some superstition to do with menstruation (did you ever see the film Carrie, her mad mother made her go through some quasi religious ritual when the poor girl first menstruated, in the shower after games).
Then you get the virgin birth issues and all tied up in Medieval ignorance (when one understands what the Muslim scholars knew about the body at that same time period the Catholic church does not come out in a favorable light)

The churching bit was originally a purification rite.

My Missal says it is a ceremony of thanksgiving and blessing for the safe delivery of a child. Child birth being a risky business even as recently as fifty/sixty years ago.

Does that help?
Canuc

[willow154]

Hi everyone,
 Strange that this should come up, as I only read this a few days ago:
"Blood is of the utmost significance in Israel and is the symbol of life. So anything to do with loss of blood, such as giving birth, provokes a cautious reaction. By declaring new mothers 'ceremonially unclean' these regulations aren't saying that sex is dirty, but rather that women need protection before they can resume their normal place in society".
Just another interpretation.
Hope it helps,
kind regards,
Paulene.

[Elaine168]

Hi All

Growing up in the 50's in Salford, I can remember neighbours having baibies and then saying to my Mum, 'No I won't come in, ( to the house) I haven't been churched yet'

I would have been ayoung girl at that time, about 8 or 9. So about 1960.  My Mum explained this to me in terms of women going to church after child birth to give thanksgiving for a safe delivery.

I raise this notion vis a vie the question about baptism. Surely mothers of day old children would not have been rushing them off to church for immediate baptism, ESPECIALLY given the notion of churching.

So who took these children away to be baptised? Godmothers perhaps??