Engraving of a 17th century baptism, by Wenceslas Hollar, © The Trustees of the British Museum
Baptism is as a rite of central importance within the Christian religion. Deriving from the Gospels, it was one of only two of the original seven Catholic sacraments retained by English Protestants. In late-sixteenth and seventeenth century England, with high birth rates, and everyone required to attend church by law, it was a very familiar ritual, commonly performed before the congregation on a Sunday. It also generated much controversy, over its precise theological meaning, as well as the way, time and place in which it should be conducted. During the English Civil Wars of the 1640s, many of the existing practices of the English Church was challenged and reformed, including baptism. Godparents were banned, as was making of the sign of the cross in baptism, a change which puritans had long sought after. Fonts, where baptisms had always been carried out, and which were often the oldest surviving parts of their churches, were ripped out, or their use discontinued. Some clergy and religious groups wanted to take things further, refusing to baptise illegitimate children or the infants of people who had not signed-up to an agreement binding members of the congregation, or even to baptise children at all, considering that only adult believers should be baptised. As you can imagine, in a world in which many believed that unbaptised infants would be consigned to a special circle of hell called limbo, this caused consternation. In her recent chapter entitled ‘“The Child’s Blood should lye at his door”: local divisions over baptismal rites during the English Civil War and the Interregnum’ published in a volume of Studies in Church History devoted to religious rites of passage, Dr Fiona McCall shows how this led to violent conflicts in churches between those who those who advocated reforms to the rite, and those who wanted to retain the existing rituals. Discord over a rite that was meant to draw members of parish communities together, served instead to emphasise the extent to which these communities had become fractured and divided.
Thank you for this concise piece, and I wonder if any readers may have the knowledge to shed light on something for me. The English settlers that made up the Massachusetts Bay Company (most coming from East Anglian counties, and virtually all Puritan) began their churches quickly after settling in the various towns created by the General Court. In the beginning they were all Congregational; joining the church was a prerequisite for becoming a “freeman” (flull-fledged voting citizen). The most famous early pastor was the famous John Cotton, who, as I understand it, was not at all in agreement with the Anabaptists when it came to adult baptisms. The church records show evidence of its requirement of infant baptism. Yet, in 1646, one adult man was baptized, with no explanation. (He is my 9th great grandfather). By then there was clearly a number of Anabaptists in New England, but virtually all were driven out of Massachusetts to other settlements. What would make the early Congregational Church, “First Church of Boston” allow an adult baptism when they were persecuting Baptists?? Conversion from another religion? A profession of faith if he hadn’t been baptized as a child back in England?? This question has perplexed New England historians, but maybe it’s time to ask a broader audience.
Dear Katie, What was your grandfather’s name? Could he have been from another country like Scotland for instance? Who did the baptism? Did they have certain non-baptist credentials? Could your grandfather have been an anabaptist converting to congregationalism? Baptist ideas were having a moment at that time in England, supported by members of the army; even Anglican Bishop Jeremy Taylor was held with suspicion because he was inflected a bit with it. But as in the US, other people often treated anabaptists with horror – there’s a great description of a riot in Leicester when someone invites a baptist to preach. History is full of these interesting mysteries.
Hi Fiona. Thanks so much for the prompt reply. I’ve been asked by my family not to post his name (can we just call him Thomas?) but what I can say is that he had been a member of the trade guilds of London so famous for their brand of passionate and fiery Puritan thought – there were developing sects like the levelers, Anabaptists, etc, but they were not yet well defined . Whether or not he took part in any of the famous London riots leading up to the English Civil Wars like many of his kind I cannot say but I believe he was permanently residing in Massachusetts by 1640, so didn’t actually fight against the Anglican and Catholic supporters of King Charles alongside his guild member associates when war broke out 2 years later. If I had to guess the baptism was performed by one of Cotton’s unnamed junior pastors at the First Church of Boston; doing the baptisms might have been too routine for Cotton. I found a passage in the Cambridge Platform of 1648 that Cotton helped write, on p. 125, that says “ The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time where it is administered, yet not withstanding, by the right of use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belong us unto, according to the council of God’s own will in his appointed time. baptism is but once to be administered to any person.” So I’m thinking John could have been baptized “of age” as member of another sect, but I doubt it (he had a godfather, which was a no-no amongst reformers, right?). I suppose it’s possible he was baptized as a crypto catholic, which wasn’t all that uncommon, but I believe Cotton and the Cambridge Platform considered a Catholic baptism valid, right?