RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 3/3
    1. Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought
    2. Peter Christoph
    3. I think not, Edie. The Dutch understood the concept of acting in dire emergencies, and there is nothing to indicate that that was the case here. There was an office in the Dutch church, layreader, and that person could perform many of the functions of the minister. But for people to start going around on their own hook performing church rites, that was quickly quashed whenever possible whenever it occurred. There was no shortage of religious quackery (from the standpoint of the organized churches) in the colonies, it tended to incite disorder, and the civil authorities were not happy. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edith Bailes" <edieb@suscom-maine.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought > Quoth Howard:...It almost sounds as if > Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister... > - - - - > > That's what I thought. But is it not acceptable for a layperson to perform > a > baptism if the infant's life is in imminent danger and there's no minister > present to do it? I know it is in some churches. > > And if not, is this really grounds for imprisonment? May I be forgiven for > asking if a lay MAN who did the same thing would have gotten the same > treatment? It looks as if they really had it in for poor Jannette, maybe > for > some other reason. I gather she was not the baby's mother; was she perhaps > the midwife? > > Just curious. > > Edie in Maine > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

    03/08/2007 11:08:04
    1. Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought
    2. Regina Haring
    3. Does the fact that of father being there (the mother certainly wasn't always present - see Cosyn Gerritsen and Vroutje's kids' baptisms) indicate that he is ready to assume responsibility for the support of the child? The civil authorities wanted to be sure that they weren't going to have to provide for the child. Also, weren't the baptism records almost a kind of "census" of the population, and so important from that standpoint too? Still, to imprison the poor woman is terrible. Regina Haring http://www.dutchdoorgenealogy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Christoph" <pchrist1@nycap.rr.com> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought >I think not, Edie. The Dutch understood the concept of acting in dire > emergencies, and there is nothing to indicate that that was the case here. > There was an office in the Dutch church, layreader, and that person could > perform many of the functions of the minister. But for people to start > going > around on their own hook performing church rites, that was quickly quashed > whenever possible whenever it occurred. There was no shortage of religious > quackery (from the standpoint of the organized churches) in the colonies, > it > tended to incite disorder, and the civil authorities were not happy. > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edith Bailes" <edieb@suscom-maine.net> > To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:23 PM > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought > > >> Quoth Howard:...It almost sounds as if >> Jannettie did the bap. herself -- and not the minister... >> - - - - >> >> That's what I thought. But is it not acceptable for a layperson to >> perform >> a >> baptism if the infant's life is in imminent danger and there's no >> minister >> present to do it? I know it is in some churches. >> >> And if not, is this really grounds for imprisonment? May I be forgiven >> for >> asking if a lay MAN who did the same thing would have gotten the same >> treatment? It looks as if they really had it in for poor Jannette, maybe >> for >> some other reason. I gather she was not the baby's mother; was she >> perhaps >> the midwife? >> >> Just curious. >> >> Edie in Maine

    03/08/2007 11:28:46
    1. Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Another thought
    2. Edith Bailes
    3. Thanks, Peter. I'm surprised Jannette didn't know that. It sounds very harsh, from 300-and some years away. Edie in Maine

    03/08/2007 12:26:34