Two Baptisms?

I believe I may have an ancestor who was baptised twice, once at birth in 1814 in Hampshire and again in 1829 in Lambeth with his brothers shortly before his father married a second time. Is this possible? Would appreciate any thoughts. Humpty.

 

I have an ancestor who was baptised as a baby as normal, and later in life joined and became a regular member of a Baptist chapel. He was required to undergo an 'adult' fully immersed baptism and so he too had a record of two baptisms. Were your ancestors Baptist by any chance as often all regular Chapel attendees were required to be baptised in the Baptist faith regardless of any previous baptisms?

Although I and my sisters received standard Anglican Church baptisms, as children we were required to attend the local Baptist Sunday School. I know those who 'taught' the Scriptures all had to undergo a fully immersed baptism (the small immersion pool was in the chapel and covered over with boards). Likewise all full time adult members of the congregation received baptisms in the same way. Baptism Services were conducted by the Chapel Elder at special Baptism Services.

Perhaps similar 'second' baptisms were required in other non-conformist faiths?

 

I am sure that Bob is right regarding infant baptism and believers (adult) baptism.
However, I have similar re-baptisms in my expanded family and rather suspect that it was less to do with theology and more to do with getting the family together for the event. Who would let a minor detail such as the fact that the baby had already been christened spoil the occasion? (Well, the clergyman would probably object, but you could just go to another church....)

 

I have a family where all the children were baptized at birth at Trinity, Ely (1832 -1 838), then the family moved to Stretham Parish where the children were baptized again in 1844. The 2nd baptism for the oldest child (age 10) includes "Sarah dau of William & Harriett brickmaker admitted into the church", whereas the others do not include "admitted into the church" -- perhaps that refers to the parents being admitted into their new church?

 

Thank you Bob, the first baptism was at Portsea St Mary Hampshire the second at St John the Evangelist Lambeth. I have not been able to find any trace of non-conformist religions although some family members burial was found in the Non-Conformist and Non-Parochial Registers. Humpty

 

I can think of a couple more scenarios, consistent with CoE practices, as well as the ones outlined above:

1. The first baptism was a private baptism (not necessarily done by a clergyman, often done in a hurry at home if the child was expected to die) and the second baptism is a receiving into the church. It's often noted in the parish register if it was a private baptism with the word 'private' or a capital 'P'
2. The father may not have been sure if or when his children had been baptised (or been able to prove it), and so the clergyman in the new town insisted on doing the whole family as part of the arrangements for the wedding

I have one ancestor who was definitely baptised twice and in the same church, once close to birth and the second time aged about 12-18 months. It took me some time to figure out that it was probably because his father had been in prison for the first baptism.

 

Yes Suzanne both scenarios ring true, although I had not heard of a private baptism even less not being done by a clergyman but given the circumstance you outline, quite understandable. I was speaking about a second baptism with my wife who not being into Genealogy said surely a christening comes first to name a child? I agreed but reminded that all christenings are baptisms anyway, but a second baptism almost always will be to 'confirm' someone into a church as an adult. Not sure about baptising the whole family but perhaps this can be explained with another tale on the home front.

Apparently my Gran (who had an Irish mother and was baptised into the RC faith) mislaid my father's christening/baptismal certificate and having moved found the new Priest required that he be (re-)confirmed into the faith; and whilst at it his two brothers. The family story goes that my Grandfather refused this request and explains why my father and his sole remaining brother (and of course me and my sisters and cousins) were all brought up as C of E. The exception of course being my Gran who was a staunch catholic to the end.

 

Thank you all, I now feel much happier that indeed it is the same person, who for some reason we can only guess at was baptised twice. I have been trying to reconcile why the parents were married in Lambeth, had their first child in Portsmouth and returned to Southwark where other siblings were baptised - four on the same day, it appears the other siblings were born in Southwark. I appreciate the help. Humpty

 

My great grandfather and his sister were baptised twice, with a gap of a few years between baptisms. The second baptism was on the same day when they were 8 and 5 years old, respectively. The first baptisms were in Bridewell Chapel and the second in St Bride's Fleet Street. That seems clear enough, but it's actually a bit odd because six of their siblings were also baptised in Bridewell Chapel, once and nowhere else a second time (at least not that I've found). The remaining two children, the first and last in the family, have a different pattern in that the first was baptised once and once only in St Dunstan in the West and the last, no. 10, in St Mary Hornsey the first time and Bridewell Chapel the second. Great grandpapa lived in the same place the whole time.

 

More food for thought, thank you for your help. Humpty.

 

Yes, that's right - in theory - Peter. However, here in Finland, the Catholic church is very broadminded about that and other things that would be frowned upon elsewhere.

 

From recent (2006) experience, that is still a requirement if the marriage is to take place in a Roman Catholic church.

 

Most certainly, but my understanding is that to be married in a RC church both parties need to be of RC faith. That often means one party needs to convert to the faith as happened with a work colleague way back. He had to attend regular initiation lessons given by the Priest before he was accepted in the RC faith. Of course it went without saying that any children of the marriage had to be baptised and brought up as Catholics.

I have no experience of today's practices but historically I thought -as per Peter's posting - being allowed to 'marry out' -as I think happened in my paternal grandparents' case where the bride was Catholic and the Groom not - meant both participants had to 'Pledge' any children would be brought up in the faith and choose at least one Godparent who was a practicing catholic. Such agreement was important for the marrying Catholic in order to receive the Church's blessing and continue to practice his/her faith. To refuse risked possible excommunication or perhaps a lesser stigmatization, neither of which would go down well in the family or with catholic friends.

What mattered for the RC church was it set the foundation for continuation of the faith through the baptising of children. That such future children might not wish to continue in the faith (perhaps going again parental or god-parental advice) was another matter. Then you just became a lapsed Catholic which I think applied with my father and his brother and none of their resulting children, yours truly included, were brought up as Catholics.

 

That was not the case in 2006. However, the baptism of the first child was at the grandparents church because of some problem (possibly refusal to convert) with the local priest.

 

No, that isn't so, Bob. My husband wasn't a Catholic when we were married in a Catholic church in Bath, Somerset, not in broad-minded Finland (as I mentioned earlier). All he had to do was a short course on Catholic teaching and promise our children would be brought up Catholics. That they, now all middle aged, no longer think of themselves as Catholics certainly isn't his fault. The amusing thing is that several years after we were married, the priest himself married and so had to give up the priesthood.

 

Thank you Gillian, that information is quite pertinent to me as I am on a quest to find out why my father and his brother were not brought up as Catholics. Although I am going back in time to 1901 to my Grandparent's wedding, I thought a wedding in a RC church meant both parties were of the RC faith, with one converting to bring this about (especially as I recall two different couples of my acquaintance who did just that). Now you raise doubts that this may not always have applied (as does PhilGee relating to more recent time). If this viewpoint existed back then, perhaps my grandparents also wed in a catholic church whilst only my Grandmother being RC. This knocks on the head my understanding of 'marrying out' because I clearly did not think it applied if the wedding took place in a RC church, whilst it would be an obvious term if the marriage took place in an Anglican church.

Although I cannot put my hands on my father's baptismal certificate (1910) my cousin, whilst also not in possession of a baptismal certificate, knows her father was baptised (1902) as a catholic. She also tells me he was later re-baptised in an Anglican church (she cannot recall why) and married as an Anglican. I remember my mother commenting that Dad had been baptised as a catholic and although unlike his brother he was not re-baptised, they still were able to marry in 1937 in an Anglican church as Dad had not been a practising catholic.

At least I know my Grandmother kept her promise to her church and had the children baptised in the faith, and was likely disappointed when both sons went their separate ways.