John Blankenbaker's Germanna History Notes

Note 403

The choice of sponsors at baptisms at the Hebron Lutheran Church was a very serious affair.  In the constitution which they wrote in 1776 (under the guidance of Rev. Franck), the second paragraph says, "but he (the minister) also must be ready and conscientious enough to refuse the Holy Communion and the ability to be baptismal witnesses to those who, obviously, or according to credible report, are found to have committed gross sins and transgressions."  [Of course, this was all in German.]

Nowhere is it written down, but the baptismal sponsors or witnesses were nearly always drawn from relatives of the parents of the same generation.  Marriage qualified one to be considered a relative.  Thus, siblings, sibling-in-laws, cousins, or spouses of cousins constitute the big majority of the sponsors.  Friendship did not qualify one.

In the rewritten Register at the Hebron Church, there are these baptisms:

The parents are Conrad Künzle and his wife Rahel (Rachel), the child is Elisabetha, the date of birth is 2 Nov 1773, and the sponsors are Johannes Schmidt, Elisabetha Schmidt, Heinrich Berler, and Jeminy Berler.  It was customary for some of the sponsors to be his relatives and some to be her relatives but there are many cases where one of the parents had no relatives in the congregation.  In this case Conrad had no relatives and, as is typical, all of the sponsors were hers (Rachel's).  To place Rachel, we would look for where the Smith and Barlow families intersect.  This would be the family of Adam Barlow and Mary Smith.  Thus, the odds are high that Rachel is the daughter of Adam and Mary.  If so, then John Smith is her cousin; Elizabeth is John's wife; and Henry and Jemima are either siblings of Rachel, or are cousins of Rachel, or a mixture thereof.

Conrad and Rachel had Nimrod (born 18 Dec 1775) baptized with sponsors Georg Christler, Anna Christler, Heinrich Berler, and Jemimy Berler.  Anne is Rachel's cousin and George is Anne's husband.  Henry and Jemima are as before.  On another occasion, Conrad Genssle (the spelling difference is not significant) and Rachel had Ambrosious (born 13 Feb 1778) baptized (5 Apr 1778) with sponsors Georg Christler, Dieterich Hoffman, Lea Breil, Susanna Ohler.  George Crisler was Rachel's cousin's husband and Dieterich was Rachel's brother-in-law.  These are very conventional choices.  Susanna Ohler was an unmarried Aylor who was a once-removed cousin of Rachel, through the Thomas family.  I do not have any relationship for Lea Broyles but that may be just my ignorance.  Note that a Lea Berler was confirmed in 1777.

That Dieterich Hoffman was Rachel's brother-in-law is shown in the baptism (18 Aug 1777) of Enoch Barlow, the son of Adam Barlow and his wife Mary.  Two of the sponsors are Dieterich Hoffman and his wife Jemima Hoffman.  I believe this Jemima was the sponsor twice for Conrad and Rachel, who had married Dieterich since then.  Adam and Mary are the parents of Rachel and we have the reversal of the generations.  Enoch was probably the youngest of the children of Adam and Mary.  Already Rachel, who must been one of the oldest of the children of Adam and Mary, had been parent twice.  And Jemima was probably one of the older children of Adam and Mary.  She was old enough to be a sponsor for Conrad and Rachel twice before her marriage.  So Uncle Enoch was younger than his niece and nephew.

The choice of Dieterich and Jemima as sponsors for Enoch is a deviation of the same generation rule.  It does occur at times, especially for the last children in a family when some of the older children are already married.  The parents have worn out the patience of their relatives in asking them to be sponsors.

I have served on a jury for a criminal case where the evidence presented by the government was admittedly weak but the jury was asked to convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence which fit a pattern.  Several of us balked at this.  If the question of whether Rachel was a daughter of Adam and Mary Barlow were before me to decide as a criminal case, I would not have any hesitation to convict based the circumstantial evidence that I have presented.  The people at Hebron were far too regular in their practices for it to be otherwise.