Baptised into TWO denominations?

[MythicalMarian]

Just picking our experts' brains again here. My newly discovered Hamilton family is already causing me no end of problems, god love 'em. Bottom line is, I have Peter Hamilton, a chapman/mercer of Salford who married Margaret Holt in 1719 and went on to have a little family of which only one son survived to adulthood - Robert Hamilton who left the will I discovered in those family papers of mine at the LRO. Robert's widow Mary (nee Kenworthy) mentions quite a few bigwigs in her own will of 1792 - including many of the mercantile class in Manchester of that time - Tipping, Touchet, Greg (he of Quarry Bank Mill), Entwisle of Foxholes, Hyde of Ardwick, etc. She is also a regular at Cross Street Unitarian Chapel in Manchester, having been baptised there in 1731. The abovementioned mercantile gents are also to be found frequenting Cross Street. So, our Mary is no doubt a Unitarian.

Her husband's father Peter Hamilton would also seem to be of the same persuasion. He has his own children christened firstly at Cross Street. Now, I have been struggling with these abysmal records today at the library. The microfilm is barely legible in some parts, where the original register was obviously repaired with some sort of tape, making that which lies beneath unreadable! However, I did manage to decipher two distinct types of bap for the folks at Cross Street. The minister often writes 'baptised at his house in Deansgate' or 'at his house in Manchester' and for those baptised at the actual chapel 'baptised at ye Chapel'. It would seem that my Peter Hamilton had his children baptised at his house by the Cross Street minister.

However, a few days later in each case, he has them baptised at Salford Sacred Trinity, a high Church of England chapelry! Now, this is definitely the same Peter Hamilton - he is always down as a chapman, his wife is Margaret, and all children's names tally, and the dates are much too close (within days) of the baptisms recorded at Cross Street to be those of an entirely different family - which would be taking coincidence way too far. In both cases, Peter is the only Hamilton producing children at both churches during this period.

So - what is the reasoning for having ones children baptised at a dissenting place one minute and in the Church of England the next. Was he keeping his options open? I need to have some insight into this if I am to trace Peter's origins. The only other Hamilton to be mentioned at Sacred Trinity during the period 1709-1750 is the burial of Robert Hamilton, a dragoon in 1729. He is no doubt some relation to Peter, but this is on hold for the moment.

I should add that the little Hamilton family are buried at Sacred Trinity and not Cross Street, but Mary Hamilton (nee Kenworthy) does have to go to Cross Street to her parents' grave because she explains in her will that 'the grave at Salford Chappel is already so full'.

I confess to being at a loss to understand this religious ambiguity; or were my Hamiltons just 'ecumenical' for their time? Those of you with expertise in religious niceties of the 18th century, feel free to offer your views and suggestions. :)

[Jan1954]

So - what is the reasoning for having ones children baptised at a dissenting place one minute and in the Church of England the next.
Quite simply, it was the law.

In 1538, Cromwell ordered each parish in England and Wales to keep a register of baptisms, marriages and burials. In 1597 an Act of Parliament made the practice obligatory. This did not just apply to the recording of the event, but also to the event itself.

It did not matter that a child had been baptised as Unitarians, or any other dissenting faith such Congregationalists, Baptists or Methodists for example, the law was the law.

However, it shows the importance that your chap placed upon his own faith, by ensuring that his children were baptised into it before meeting his obligations. ;)

[Peter Goodey]

Looks as if he was keeping the kids' options open. There was still legal discrimination against dissenters. I'm no expert but Googling the Repeal of the Test and Corpration Acts (1828) should explain more.

[MythicalMarian]

Quite simply, it was the law.

In 1538, Cromwell ordered each parish in England and Wales to keep a register of baptisms, marriages and burials. In 1597 an Act of Parliament made the practice obligatory. This did not just apply to the recording of the event, but also to the event itself.

It did not matter that a child had been baptised as Unitarians, or any other dissenting faith such Congregationalists, Baptists or Methodists for example, the law was the law.

However, it shows the importance that your chap placed upon his own faith, by ensuring that his children were baptised into it before meeting his obligations. ;)

This could be it, Jan.

Interestingly - another of the mercantile families in Manchester (Tipping) had their kids done at Cross Street AND the Cathedral in a like manner.

Peter's suggestion below also sounds plausible, especially as these were quite wealthy families whose children may reasonably be expected to achieve something in trade or whatever, and a non-CofE background may have prevented them from getting on in life. Interestingly, however, Cross Street has a section within its registers for those taking first communion. It is headed 'Persons called to the Lord's Supper'. I was never aware that Unitarians took communion, so you learn something new every day. :)

I had no idea that there were still discriminatory laws against nonconformists even at this late period (1720-30). And thanks for that link, Peter - I'm downloading it for further use.

[Peter Goodey]

Sorry Jan but that is quite wrong. Check inter alia the Act of Toleration of 1689.

At the time in question it was perfectly legal to decline to have your children baptised into the C of E. If he had aspirations for his children - and he sounds upwardly mobile - he would have hedged their bets for them so that they would have been eligible for civil or military office.

[Jan1954]

You are quite correct, Peter and thank you. I knew I should have kept out of things Cromwellian. |oopsredfa

Thank you for your expertise.

However, I still think that the chap placed more importance on his own faith than the CofE by having the children baptised in that faith first.

[MythicalMarian]

You are quite correct, Peter and thank you. I knew I should have kept out of things Cromwellian. |oopsredfa

Thank you for your expertise.

Jan - I realised what you'd done with the Thomas Cromwell thing, but forebore to mention it :D I knew what you meant anyway, and in a roundabout way you were sort of on the same hymn sheet as Peter ;)

But thanks for your help, both - it has explained things. I don;t have many nonconformists among my lot, so it was new territory for me.