----- Original Message ----- From: "Gavin Bell" <g.bell@which.net> To: <abruce@madasafish.com>; <angus@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:40 PM 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. 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 > >