When did it become common or at least acceptable to not be baptised?

[Stanwix England]

I'm looking through a part of my tree at the moment where children are being born in the 1890s, and failing to find baptisms for them.

It occurred to me that they might simply not have been baptised. I've begun to realise there is something suspicious about the parentage of these children which might by one factor behind it.

Anyway, it got me thinking, I know lots of people who were never baptised and who have not baptised their own children today. But it must have been a bit rarer in the past, especially before official registration of births. So when did it become more common?

I do recall reading in a women's diary written in the 1800s that she has a male servant who she believes was not baptised and she is quite concerned about it. So that makes me think that at that point in history at least it was rare.

I was wondering if there was a point where that became more normal?

[barryd]

Depends what religion the child was born into. If C of E possibly 1950's was a time baptisms became less frequent. I am sitting on the fence for this one.

[ThrelfallYorky]

Baptists believe in adult baptism - the person making their own commitment when they are old enough to think about it.
Not all private baptisms, usually done when a newborn child is very sickly, when any Christain can perform it, were followed up by a church / chapel baptism, or recorded.
And some people never get baptised - my own Aunt kept putting off, and putting off the time for her to attend mine, and I never "got done"
TY

[iluleah]

It occurred to me that they might simply not have been baptised. I've begun to realise there is something suspicious about the parentage of these children which might by one factor behind it.

When it started I don't know however the church at one time dominated society, so nothing happened in society unless the church was involved

Having read many parish records and seen many derogitory remarks about illegitamate children being baptised and other nasty added comments about the mother my personal opinion is the lack of/reducing baptisms is likely down to the church clerk/vicar and that will depend on how 'superior' they still thought they were, which maybe is also certainlly one of the reasons why in many areas of the UK church attendance failed/is failing.

Certainly in the mid part of last century churches refused to baptise if the family didn't attend church and many refused to marry people if they were not already baptised, leading to more civil marriages and further lack of church attendance.

[Gan Yam]

One of my families were Quakers going back to late 1600's/early 1700's.  There is plenty of evidence of the family births, who was present at the births etc, but as is normal with Quakers there were no baptism.  As the later families drifted away from Quakerism in the early 1800's, they still didn't feel the need to have their children baptised.

One branch of a different family, had 9 girls (1870's/90's) but didn't have any of them baptised until one their daughters had a child and then their two youngest girls were baptised at the same time as their grandchild.  They, themselves, had both been baptised, but they must just not felt the need for their children to be.

[Jebber]

Have you looked for Roman Catholic. Independent, Methodist, Congregational baptisms etc?

[Top-of-the-hill]

  I would say that for working class people it became less common to have children baptised when they began to move from the country into towns. On the whole they were not particularly religious anyway and in town they were no longer under the eye of the parson.

[Stanwix England]

Hi Jebber, yes unfortunately it's brought me no joy.

Thank you for all those interesting viewpoints. I've learnt quite a lot from this.

[Old Bristolian]

Before the New Poor Law was introduced, poor relief was dependent on the parish, so if you needed it, you had to prove you were born or had a settlement there. A baptism record gave this and explains why clergy were so concerned at recording illegitimate births, as these were considered more likely to mean a demand for relief later on. If not you were required to return to your parish of settlement. After the law came into being (1840s I think) there was no requirement to enter the new workhouses, and so the practice of baptism fell in non-religious families.. This coincided with the advent of civil registration, proving birth, and the drift into cities from the countryside which Top-of-the-hill mentions,

Steve