Baptismal records are important to a genealogist. The significance of these records varies by church denomination and the information to be found in the records may have a different meaning, especially when comparisons among churches are made. John T. Humphrey, who is an active speaker at conferences, has written a fascinating book called " Understanding and Using Baptismal Records ", from which these and some following comments are made. John has also compiled books of baptismal records, especially in Pennsylvania. I will look at the views of the different churches and at the implications for us.
The base position for comparisons is the Catholic Church, which had evolved a procedure and a meaning over many centuries. By the time of the Reformation these views had matured, and they changed very little as a result of the Reformation. This Church believed that all who died without baptism, even infants, were denied admission into heaven. This view is held so firmly that a priest is permitted to baptize an unborn infant. Thus the appearance of a name in a baptismal record cannot be taken as proof that the baby was even born. More typically, in times past, the infant is born and is baptized on the day of birth, or on the day following. To the Church, the day of birth is not important, but the day of baptism is more important to record. Thus we have often to substitute the baptismal date for the missing birth date but the difference is usually small.
Baptism in the Catholic Church is open to all and parental membership in the church is not even required. If an infant is in danger of its life, parent consent is not even required. For a healthy baby, the consent of one parent is required. In eighteenth century America, the appearance of a name in the Catholic baptismal records (as the subject of the baptism) cannot be taken as proof that the parents were Catholics. Sometimes the priests noted that the parents were Protestants or other non-Catholics, but there was no requirement that they do so.
The presence of sponsors at baptisms was ratified in 1563 by the Council of Trent, but the Council reduced the number from three to one or, at the most, two sponsors. At the same time, it was noted the presence of a sponsor was not essential to the administration of the rite.
The information that was to be recorded included the name of the person being baptized, the officiating minister, the parents, the sponsors, and the place and day on which the baptism was performed. The name of the officiating person and the place were often omitted in the specific record and relegated to a statement recorded at the start of a minister's service in the church.
The life of the baby was often in danger and, with no priest available, an emergency baptism could be performed by laymen, say a parent or a midwife. Such baptisms, recognized as valid, usually did not find their way into the baptismal records.
We gratefully acknowledge the work of John Blankenbaker who published over 2,500 Germanna History Notes via the Germanna-L@rootsweb.com email list from 1997 to 2008. We are equally thankful to George Durman (Sgt. George) for hosting the list and republishing the notes via rootsweb.com.