Hello Cordelia, On the basis that this baptism was according to the rites of the Church of England, the Nicene creed said by the congregation at all holy communion services throughout the history of the Book of Common Prayer from 1559 to the 1662 version still used in many churches today and including the 1928 edition with its additions and deviations (never put in use) has consistently included the words "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins" If two baptisms are recorded then one would not have been a true baptism. This could have been because the first baptism was a private baptism and when the parents were questioned by the priest in charge at the following presentation of the child to the congregation it emerges that the form and matter of the ceremony did not comply with that in use at the time, then the priest would have baptized the child himself immediately prior to the presentation to the congregation. It is not difficult to see that the recording of the event in the registers could be the subject of some confusion if the parties, including possibly a lay person such as a midwife, at the original "baptism" were not in close and frequent contact with each other and with the clerk, recorder, curate or priest or whoever whose duty it was to write the entry in the registers. Properly done and to avoid confusion any second entry should refer simply to the presentation of the child to the congregation. There can be little doubt that it was not always "properly done", so that you and many others over the years are presented with a guessing game !! Enjoy it ! Jim Halsey

Thanks Jim On the basis of your response, my 'guess' would be that James Heasman was born on 10 Feb 1840, but was sickly and not expected to survive so he was baptised privately on 13 Feb. When he DID defy the odds and survive, he was then presented to the congregation on 10 May 1840. My perpetual calendar tells me 10 May 1840 was a Sunday (a good day to present to a congregation !!), whereas 10 Feb was a Monday and 13 Feb a Thursday, all of which adds weight to your notion. When the parish clerk needed to add a birthdate for the 10 May 'baptism' / presentation, someone 'guessed' James was born the day before his real (first) baptism and said 12 Feb, which was the second birthdate that was recorded. This will be my 'story' of the events anyway. :-) Thanks so much for your help. Cordelia 14526 On 23 March 2015 at 00:21, JH via <sfhg@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello Cordelia, > On the basis that this baptism was according to the rites of the > Church of England, the Nicene creed said by the congregation at all > holy communion services throughout the history of the Book of Common > Prayer > from 1559 to the 1662 version still used in many churches today and > including the 1928 edition with its additions and deviations (never > put in use) has consistently included the words "I acknowledge one > Baptism for the remission of sins" If two baptisms are recorded then > one would not have been a true baptism. This could have been because > the first baptism was a private baptism and when the parents were > questioned by the priest in charge at the following presentation of > the child to the congregation it emerges that the form and matter of > the ceremony did not comply with that in use at the time, then the > priest would have baptized the child himself immediately prior to the > presentation to the congregation. > > It is not difficult to see that the recording of the event in the > registers could be the subject of some confusion if the parties, > including possibly a lay person such as a midwife, at the original > "baptism" were not in close and frequent contact with each other and > with the clerk, recorder, curate or priest or whoever whose duty it > was to write the entry in the registers. > > Properly done and to avoid confusion any second entry should refer > simply to the presentation of the child to the congregation. There > can be little doubt that it was not always "properly done", so that > you and many others over the years are presented with a guessing game > !! > > Enjoy it ! > > Jim Halsey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >