Where were Scots baptisms held? Particularly those in Church of Scotland, 1780s? Once upon a time I would have assumed "in the Church" but since I eventually found out that marriages weren't (far too frivolous, I think a lister implied), maybe I shouldn't assume. What's prompted the question is a baptism I have (actually from Caputh in Perthshire) that says "10 July <1789> Andrew Thomson in Wester Caputh had a child ... born & baptised July 17". The word "born" is an interpolation. Dates of birth are not normally seen in Caputh at this time - at least, not in the examples I have. The most logical meaning is that she was born on 10 July and baptised on 17 July - but why would the minister record the birth date? I know it happens in lots of other places - but it seems most untypical here at this time. Alternatively, in the Church of England we often find double baptisms - the first is a private baptism at home, and the second a church ceremony receiving the child into the church. This reputedly happens for sickly children who might not otherwise survive to their baptism. So an alternative is that she was, perhaps, both born and baptised on 10 July, then received into the church on 17 July. But I don't know if this happens in Scotland. Also - in Dundee I do find children in certain families clearly born and baptised the same day - and it seems unlikely that a new-born should be taken through the streets to church on the day of their birth. Grateful for any thoughts over where Scots baptisms took place. Adrian B

Adrian B wrote: >Where were Scots baptisms held? Particularly those in Church of Scotland, >1780s? > > I doubt if there can be any simple one-size-fits-all answer to this question. On the one hand, there had been, from the early days of the Kirk of Scotland, a strong presumption in favour of baptism "in the face of the congregation", but on the other, the risks of bringing a sickly child to church on poor or non-existent roads meant that there was, from equally early on, a "get-out" for home baptism if the child was poorly. And just as burial inside the Kirk building was (a) strictly forbidden, and (b) available on payment of a hefty premium, so, too, "private" baptism was often possible in exchange for a donation to the Poors' Fund. It is likely, too, that practice varied, from place to place and over time. >... > >What's prompted the question is a baptism I have (actually from Caputh in >Perthshire) that says "10 July <1789> Andrew Thomson in Wester Caputh had a >child ... born & baptised July 17". The word "born" is an interpolation. >Dates of birth are not normally seen in Caputh at this time - at least, not >in the examples I have. The most logical meaning is that she was born on 10 >July and baptised on 17 July - but why would the minister record the birth >date? I know it happens in lots of other places - but it seems most >untypical here at this time. > > Even so, I would be wary of reading too much into a single untypical entry - the Clerk may simply have muddled up the weeks. Both 10th and 17th July 1789 were Fridays, so the likelihood is that the child was not baptised in the Kirk - there was often a midweek service, as well as the main service on Sunday, but not on Fridays. >Alternatively, in the Church of England we often find double baptisms - the >first is a private baptism at home, and the second a church ceremony >receiving the child into the church. This reputedly happens for sickly >children who might not otherwise survive to their baptism. So an alternative >is that she was, perhaps, both born and baptised on 10 July, then received >into the church on 17 July. But I don't know if this happens in Scotland. > > I don't believe it did. Baptism represented the individual's entry into the Kirk, so it is hard to imagine it being repeated. Gavin Bell

Thanks Gavin. An interesting and insightful reply - no, I didn't expect there to be a single answer but I feel I have more of an expectation now. Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Bell [mailto:g.bell@which.net] Sent: Mon 20 July 2009 18:41 To: abruce@madasafish.com; angus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ANGUS] Where were Scots baptisms held? Adrian B wrote: >Where were Scots baptisms held? Particularly those in Church of >Scotland, 1780s? > > I doubt if there can be any simple one-size-fits-all answer to this question. <<snipped>>

It seems that the tradition carried on for a long time. My mother was born very prematurely in 1913 at home and was baptised almost instantly by a family member because she wasn't expected to survive. She was given the "wrong" name of Nancy, which was an abbreviation of her paternal grandmother's name, Agnes, my mother having been the second daughter. The family tried to have her name changed to Agnes, but the Kirk objected, her baptised name having apparently been recorded in heaven, and thus there was no chance of a second baptism. This premature baby lived till the ripe old age of 92, and to keep the tradition going my first name is also Nancy. No Wayne's or Charmaines in those days. Best wishes, Nancy Jill Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian B" <abruce@madasafish.com> To: <angus@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:31 PM Subject: [ANGUS] Where were Scots baptisms held? > Where were Scots baptisms held? Particularly those in Church of Scotland, > 1780s? > > Once upon a time I would have assumed "in the Church" but since I > eventually > found out that marriages weren't (far too frivolous, I think a lister > implied), maybe I shouldn't assume. > > What's prompted the question is a baptism I have (actually from Caputh in > Perthshire) that says "10 July <1789> Andrew Thomson in Wester Caputh had > a > child ... born & baptised July 17". The word "born" is an interpolation. > Dates of birth are not normally seen in Caputh at this time - at least, > not > in the examples I have. The most logical meaning is that she was born on > 10 > July and baptised on 17 July - but why would the minister record the birth > date? I know it happens in lots of other places - but it seems most > untypical here at this time. > > Alternatively, in the Church of England we often find double baptisms - > the > first is a private baptism at home, and the second a church ceremony > receiving the child into the church. This reputedly happens for sickly > children who might not otherwise survive to their baptism. So an > alternative > is that she was, perhaps, both born and baptised on 10 July, then received > into the church on 17 July. But I don't know if this happens in Scotland. > > Also - in Dundee I do find children in certain families clearly born and > baptised the same day - and it seems unlikely that a new-born should be > taken through the streets to church on the day of their birth. > > Grateful for any thoughts over where Scots baptisms took place. > > Adrian B > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ANGUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > __________ NOD32 4261 (20090720) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >

I just dowloaded one of mine for 1801 in Old Machar. Reads - James FRASER legitimate son of Hugh FRASER and Helen CRAIG was baptised on the evening of Friday the 14 th of August 1801 in his fathers house ( the next three line unreadable - a mad chook ran across the page) but the word "ill" can be seen. Following entry reads - John SMITH legitimate son of James SMITH and Elisabeth OGG living at Robplace Den was baptised in ?? fathers ?? house on the evening of Thursday the 27 of August 1801 next line and a half experienced the same chook. Maybe it was up to the minister. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian B" <abruce@madasafish.com> To: <angus@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:31 AM Subject: [ANGUS] Where were Scots baptisms held?