Baptisms

[Shrop63]

Hi i was wondering about the proceedure when it came to baptisms say around 1780 ( its been a while since i was done!) I presume it had to be "booked" or was it in any particular order? Asking because a distant cousin was baptised at the same time as an "unknown" with the same surname. Thanks

[Gillg]

Sometimes families were baptised in a "job lot", maybe because they had been travelling around and not settled long enough to have their children baptised.  Also, if a child had been very ill at birth and had been baptised at home in case he/she didn't survive, the child would then be baptised again later in a church.

Have you been able to find the other child's name and trace his/her parents? 

[Pheno]

Sorry to be pedantic but I'm pretty sure you can't be baptised twice (not unless you fib and say you hadn't ever).

If a sick child who has been baptised privately at home survives and the parents want the church ceremony then that ceremony becomes being received into the Church, not a second baptism.

Pheno

[KGarrad]

I was told, by a vicar, that there are 2 parts; a christening (the naming of the child) and a baptism (the receiving of the child into the church).
usually, in a church, the 2 parts are performed together.

[arthurk]

I was told, by a vicar, that there are 2 parts; a christening (the naming of the child) and a baptism (the receiving of the child into the church).
usually, in a church, the 2 parts are performed together.

That's how some people like to explain it, but officially 'baptism' and 'christening' are alternative terms for the same thing. If you read through the baptism service in the Book of Common Prayer (one of the C of E's foundation documents) you'll find the two words used interchangeably; indeed, if you try to give them different meanings, it simply doesn't make sense.

[osprey]

To answer the original question in this thread, I have an old copy (1926) of the Book of Common Prayer and under 'The Ministration of Publick Baptism of Infants' it says
'When there are Children to be baptised, the Parents shall give knowledge thereof over night, or in the morning before the beginning of Morning Prayer, to the Curate. And then the Godfathers and Godmothers, and the people with the Children, must be ready at the Font, either immediately after the last Lesson at Morning Prayer, or else immediately after the last Lesson at Evening Prayer, as the Curate by his discretion shall appoint. And the priest coming to the Font, (which is then to be filled with pure Water,) and standing there, shall say
Hath this Child been already baptised, or no?'

I think we can judge from the language that this must have been custom for some time. Also, you will find more than one family baptising infants on the same day especially if it's a feast day or the saint's day for the saint the church is dedicated to.

[Shrop63]

Sometimes families were baptised in a "job lot", maybe because they had been travelling around and not settled long enough to have their children baptised.  Also, if a child had been very ill at birth and had been baptised at home in case he/she didn't survive, the child would then be baptised again later in a church.

Have you been able to find the other child's name and trace his/her parents?

Sorry for the late reply to this. Basically my GFX6 had his dau baptised at the same time as another fella ( Maurice Ellis) had his child baptised. I cant help thinking its more than coincidence? I,ve tried to tie the two together without success

[David Outner]

I think that Pheno's comment is technically correct.  The diary of Rev James Woodforde (five volumes - various editions) is a useful source for practice in the late C18.  Woodforde's actions recorded in the diary did not always correspond with what was recorded in the parish register; for example:

Feb 19 1781  "I christened two children, twins, this morning privately at my house, by names Ann and Susanna.  They are two spurious children of one Ann Lillistone ..."  But the register records them as being baptised on 18 March. Presumably this was the date of the public reception into the Church.

The parish clerk would not necessarily know of private baptisms and so might record as a baptism a later ceremony of reception into the church.  No doubt some parish clerks did not understand the difference.

[Kiltpin]

The Church of England accepts any and all Christian baptisms and as being authentic and on a par with any preformed in a church. From the Nicene Creed - "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins". 

Regards

Chas