It's hard to imagine that Jannetie de Kleuse could plead ignorance of the customs of the DRC, living where she did. Who was she - was she Dutch? Could she possibly have been a Roman Catholic? How did Schout DeMill find out about the unauthorized baptism? The Reformed churches do not consider that baptism is for the purpose of removing original sin, as the Catholic church at least used to, but is a sign of covenant as Bob (NYHuguenot) stated. Therefore even if the child were ill, there wouldn't be the same sense of urgency about baptizing it as there used to be in the Catholic church - I'm not sure what meaning the Catholic church attaches to baptism today. I do know that my Catholic mother wouldn't take an infant out in public before it was baptized, for fear it would 'catch' something and become ill. But with the different meaning given to the sacrament in the Reformed church, it makes sense to me that the sacrament should be administered by the proper church official - and I still feel that the father being present was an acknowledgement of his acceptance of the responsibility for the care of the child. Regina Haring ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat" <pgewers@webband.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. Pat > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Hi all, >> >> You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if >> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. >> I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen >> and did not find it. >> >> Regards, >> Howard >> hswain@ix.netcom.com >> >> >> From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >> >> >>> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >>> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not that >>> her >>> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >>> parts >>> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >>> be >>> done properly. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >>> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >>> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >>> >>> >>>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when >>>> the >>>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>>> those of >>>> the Reformed religion . . " >>>> >>>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City >>>> Hall >>>> of >>>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf vs >>>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>>> of >>>> Reformed >>>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, >>>> which >>>> is a >>>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>>> religion; -- >>>> he >>>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover be >>>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>>> admits she >>>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>>> did >>>> wrong. >>>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the evil >>>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>>> therefrom, >>>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>>> Sacrament >>>> of >>>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>>> order. [RNA >>>> Vol.7:82] >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ethel

The Catholic church still regards Baptism in the same way. If there was a doubt abt a baby's chances of survival, then a baptism could be done by anyone. Jenny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Regina Haring" <rmharing@att.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > It's hard to imagine that Jannetie de Kleuse could plead ignorance of the > customs of the DRC, living where she did. Who was she - was she Dutch? > Could she possibly have been a Roman Catholic? How did Schout DeMill > find > out about the unauthorized baptism? The Reformed churches do not > consider > that baptism is for the purpose of removing original sin, as the Catholic > church at least used to, but is a sign of covenant as Bob (NYHuguenot) > stated. Therefore even if the child were ill, there wouldn't be the same > sense of urgency about baptizing it as there used to be in the Catholic > church - I'm not sure what meaning the Catholic church attaches to baptism > today. I do know that my Catholic mother wouldn't take an infant out in > public before it was baptized, for fear it would 'catch' something and > become ill. > > But with the different meaning given to the sacrament in the Reformed > church, it makes sense to me that the sacrament should be administered by > the proper church official - and I still feel that the father being > present > was an acknowledgement of his acceptance of the responsibility for the > care > of the child. > > Regina Haring > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat" <pgewers@webband.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. >> Pat >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> >> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if >>> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. >>> I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen >>> and did not find it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Howard >>> hswain@ix.netcom.com >>> >>> >>> From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM >>> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >>> >>> >>>> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >>>> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not >>>> that >>>> her >>>> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >>>> parts >>>> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >>>> be >>>> done properly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >>>> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >>>> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >>>> >>>> >>>>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when >>>>> the >>>>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>>>> those of >>>>> the Reformed religion . . " >>>>> >>>>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City >>>>> Hall >>>>> of >>>>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf >>>>> vs >>>>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>>>> of >>>>> Reformed >>>>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, >>>>> which >>>>> is a >>>>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>>>> religion; -- >>>>> he >>>>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover >>>>> be >>>>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>>>> admits she >>>>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>>>> did >>>>> wrong. >>>>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the >>>>> evil >>>>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>>>> therefrom, >>>>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>>>> Sacrament >>>>> of >>>>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>>>> order. [RNA >>>>> Vol.7:82] >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ethel > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Two of my own children were baptized in a Reformed church, so I know that the Reformed understanding of the nature of baptism is different from Lutheran and Catholic doctrine. For instance, in the Reformed church the godparents are simply called witnesses, and are not really a necessary part of the ceremony. While in the liturgical churches they are sponsors, affirming that they will see that the child is brought up with an understanding of what it means to be a Christian. It does seem odd that the churches where it is an important sacrament believe that anyone can perform a valid baptism while the churches that consider it simply a ceremony should insist on the presence of an ordained minister. One of the more intriguing stories I have heard over the years is of a local obstestrician who was Jewish but who made a point of learning what constituted a valid baptism so that if an infant were in mortal peril at birth he could baptize the child and put the parents' mind to rest as to the fate of the infant's soul. The point here is that in some churches it REALLY doesn't matter who performs the baptism as long as it includes all the proper forms. Off the subject, but I have always found this intriguing: a necessary part of a sacramental baptism is an exorcism. No, not like in the movies. A simple statement by the candidate at an adult baptism or by the sponsors at an infant baptism that "I renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways." So depending upon the traditions of your church, you may have been exorcised and not even known it. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Regina Haring" <rmharing@att.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > It's hard to imagine that Jannetie de Kleuse could plead ignorance of the > customs of the DRC, living where she did. Who was she - was she Dutch? > Could she possibly have been a Roman Catholic? How did Schout DeMill > find > out about the unauthorized baptism? The Reformed churches do not > consider > that baptism is for the purpose of removing original sin, as the Catholic > church at least used to, but is a sign of covenant as Bob (NYHuguenot) > stated. Therefore even if the child were ill, there wouldn't be the same > sense of urgency about baptizing it as there used to be in the Catholic > church - I'm not sure what meaning the Catholic church attaches to baptism > today. I do know that my Catholic mother wouldn't take an infant out in > public before it was baptized, for fear it would 'catch' something and > become ill. > > But with the different meaning given to the sacrament in the Reformed > church, it makes sense to me that the sacrament should be administered by > the proper church official - and I still feel that the father being > present > was an acknowledgement of his acceptance of the responsibility for the > care > of the child. > > Regina Haring > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat" <pgewers@webband.com> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought > > >> Perhaps the child was near death or in danger of dying immenently. >> Pat >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Howard Swain" <hswain@ix.netcom.com> >> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> You know, I had the same thought: It almost sounds as if >>> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister. >>> I looked for this bap. in churches in NY, Brooklyn, and Bergen >>> and did not find it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Howard >>> hswain@ix.netcom.com >>> >>> >>> From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:32 AM >>> Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] another thought >>> >>> >>>> Who is Jannettie to be baptizing a child anyway? In the absence of the >>>> minister, the baptism should be performed by the church elders. Not >>>> that >>>> her >>>> baptism is necessarily invalid as longs as she included all the proper >>>> parts >>>> of the rite, but this is certainly peculiar and people liked things to >>>> be >>>> done properly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: <ETHELKK@aol.com> >>>> To: <Dutch-Colonies@rootsweb.com> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:49 PM >>>> Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Jannettie de Kleuse baptized a child!! >>>> >>>> >>>>> Would someone please explain this to me. Child was baptized "when >>>>> the >>>>> father was from home, which is a thing which can never be tolerated by >>>>> those of >>>>> the Reformed religion . . " >>>>> >>>>> At a Court of Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, holden in the City >>>>> Hall >>>>> of >>>>> the City N:Orange on the first of May 1674. Schout De Mill, pltf >>>>> vs >>>>> Jannettie de Kleuse, deft. Pltf says, that the deft baptized a child >>>>> of >>>>> Reformed >>>>> parents on the 18th of April last, when the father was from home, >>>>> which >>>>> is a >>>>> thing which can never be tolerated by those of the Reformed >>>>> religion; -- >>>>> he >>>>> concludes therefore, that the deft shall be imprisoned and moreover >>>>> be >>>>> condemned in a fine of one hundred guilders zewant, with costs. Deft >>>>> admits she >>>>> baptized the child thro' ignorance; and requests forgiveness, if she >>>>> did >>>>> wrong. >>>>> The W:Court having considered the matter and likewise weighed the >>>>> evil >>>>> consequences and other inconveniences, which might result and arise >>>>> therefrom, >>>>> condemn the deft for her profanation and disrespect of the Holy >>>>> Sacrament >>>>> of >>>>> Baptism, that she shall be imprisoned and remain there until further >>>>> order. [RNA >>>>> Vol.7:82] >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ethel > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Dear Peter and Listers, Yours below, Peter, was an eye-opener. I had another eye-opener when my otherwise culturally Dutch Reformed predisposed 2nd cousin, whose branch of our shared Van family "went" Methodist, averred that my branch of the same family, who went from RDC to Congregationalist, then Presbyterian, had gone astray over the issue of Predestination. To him, this was an issue of christening versus baptism and "changing God's mind." Evidently, he felt more comfortable with the concept that various life-long ceremonies would necessarily move a person from the inevitable to the possible. Perhaps this was a basic confusion in his thinking between unstated upbringing and community expectations. Still, I cannot get away from the notion that Martin Luther's concepts played a large part in defining these differences. Frankly, the subtleties of these doctrines are beyond my comprehension, learning and cosmology. But, it was very real to my 2nd cousin and excited a basic disdain for my "mistaken" upbringing. This was perhaps an echo of the past controversies --all of which were very immediate to our forebears. Meanwhile, I have always been uneasy about the default terminology in genealogy that one was baptized rather than christened. I wonder whether this terminology might be hiding family acculturation and the basic matrilineal nature of our New Netherland/New York forebears? Richard PS to David Roberts...Your insights about these differences in doctrine would be grately received. Peter Christoph <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> wrote: Two of my own children were baptized in a Reformed church, so I know that the Reformed understanding of the nature of baptism is different from Lutheran and Catholic doctrine. For instance, in the Reformed church the godparents are simply called witnesses, and are not really a necessary part of the ceremony. While in the liturgical churches they are sponsors, affirming that they will see that the child is brought up with an understanding of what it means to be a Christian. It does seem odd that the churches where it is an important sacrament believe that anyone can perform a valid baptism while the churches that consider it simply a ceremony should insist on the presence of an ordained minister. One of the more intriguing stories I have heard over the years is of a local obstestrician who was Jewish but who made a point of learning what constituted a valid baptism so that if an infant were in mortal peril at birth he could baptize the child and put the parents' mind to rest as to the fate of the infant's soul. The point here is that in some churches it REALLY doesn't matter who performs the baptism as long as it includes all the proper forms. Off the subject, but I have always found this intriguing: a necessary part of a sacramental baptism is an exorcism. No, not like in the movies. A simple statement by the candidate at an adult baptism or by the sponsors at an infant baptism that "I renounce the devil and all his works and all his ways." So depending upon the traditions of your church, you may have been exorcised and not even known it. Peter --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Part of my research has been into a colony of French Huguenots who were granted by the MarkGraff Friedrich of Karlshure-Palmbach, in Baden German, in 1700, the right to establish a village on his land. This village was named for the MarkGraff, as Friedrichstahl and is an interesting community in Germany even today. The first church records of Friedrichstahl are in French and gradually over the years shifted to a mixture of French and German and now German. However, the traditions of the French in the community have remained strong. Within a few years of its founding, some Germans became part of the community. Today the village is a mixture of French and German ancestry. In my own case, my ancestor, Johannes Heinrich Fussler, came from Boeblingen to Friedrichstahl about 1728 as a carpenter. He married into a French family and down through the years, records for his family along with other's with German Lutheran backgrounds have been noted in the church records, as well as the French family lines. They all lived together, went to the same schools, intermarried, and worshiped as members of the same church, but especially the baptism records noted whether the parents were "Reformed" or "Evangelical". I do not know if the ceremony was any different, but they find it important to note the difference: all my Fussler ancestors were noted as Evangelical and my Gorenflo, La Croix etc. ancestors were noted as Reformed. Traditions that seemed unimportant to us today, were big items in earlier times. Also, there are notations in the records of when a child was baptized "in the home", because of weakness of the child. During the 1800's, groups from this village came to America and settled in Erie, PA, in Marion, Ohio, in Lehigh Co. PA and several other localities. Elsie Wilson Elsie H. Wilson 5620 Harris Cir. Fitchburg, WI 53575 (608) 835-6791 ehwilson@charter.net