CHR and BAP

[Peter Goodey]

Ken
It's probably worth mentioning another anomaly in that this Act was repealed in 1794 yet the examples shown are for 1799.

I would guess that for this sort of period the register would be a combined baptism and burial book.

Perhaps Jespa would confirm what the register is and what parish it relates to and then perhaps someone else may be in a position to cast a fresh eye over it.

[Guy Etchells]

This is exactly why I keep bleating on about “experts” in family history simply repeating like sheep myths perpetuated by books and other experienced family historians who should know better.
The problem is one so called expert will give their opinion and then this is written in a book and copied ad nausea until it is taken to be the truth.

The correct answer is there is a difference between christening and baptism, the confusion occurs because both ceremonies are usually performed at the one time.

Christening is the naming of a person
Baptism is the admission into the church

It is very easily shown by use of parish registers

Bottesford register
Sarah, daughter of William Ravell(by Hannah his Wife) born Septr. 18th, baptized 7th Octr. 1797 at Long Bennington, and Christened at Bottesford April 12th. 1798

One can see from the dates of the above this was not a private baptism in case the infant died (it actually occurred in Long Bennington church, St. Swithin).

The following entries are the more common

Zebedee, son of William & Elizabeth Hallam, born April 4th, baptized and christened April 29th

Elizabeth Daughter of WM. And Frances Pyket (of Easthorpe) born June 25th, baptised and christened July 15th

I could show hundreds of other examples from parish registers from various different counties in England.
Cheers
Guy

[Peter Goodey]

The correct answer is there is a difference between christening and baptism

Can you please provide a reference to these two ceremonies in the Book of Common Prayer?

Here are a few references:

Oxford English Dictionary: Christening: The action or ceremony of baptizing, baptism.

Example: "1712 Act 10 Anne in Lond. Gaz. No. 4981/3 The Register-Books for Christnings belonging to the respective Parishes"

I don't own a copy and don't have a reference to hand but I recall that David Cressy's book "Birth, marriage, and death: ritual, religion, and the life-cycle in Tudor and Stuart England" offers no support for baptism and christening being separate things.

From the Catechism (1662 version)

Catechist What is your Name?
Answer N. or M.
Question Who gave you this Name?
Answer My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.

[Guy Etchells]

But Peter the Book of Common Prayer is a guide book not a book of rules it is like the difference between an Act of Parliament which sets the law regulating road users (i.e. The Road Traffic Act 1988) and the Highway Code.
The Highway Code is simply a dumbed down guide for the proletariat.

What seems to be forgotten in “modern times” is that in the past no one was baptised as an infant, one was always baptised as an adult.
As the popularity of infant baptism grew so did the incident of naming and baptising at the same time.

The early form of Christening was more like the present service of thanksgiving for the gift of a child.
Cheers
Guy

[jespa]

Gosh, I thought this was going to be an easy question for some one to answer. Little did I know.
It is from the register for Births and Christenings. Those that were only ever christened appeared to have died before being baptised.
I have since found (but now can not re-find) an article that referred to the Christening ceremony of an infant and said something like, ‘be it given a name in the way of Christ.’ For baptism it referred to ‘ablutions or immersion’.

Now I have totally confused my-self and I need a headache pill. I will have to concede that there is a difference but I will never know what and those who did know, are long since dead.
Thank-you all for your help and links.

I have just seen your reply Guy. Thank-You I am with you, I love you (just don't tell my husband)

[arthurk]

But Peter the Book of Common Prayer is a guide book not a book of rules .....

What seems to be forgotten in “modern times” is that in the past no one was baptised as an infant, one was always baptised as an adult.
As the popularity of infant baptism grew so did the incident of naming and baptising at the same time.

The early form of Christening was more like the present service of thanksgiving for the gift of a child.
Cheers
Guy

I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for sources for these rather rash assertions, Guy. The BCP arose in a period of intense religious turmoil as the foundation document of the C of E, and as such it was intended to bear witness to the faith of that church. There was no place for dumbing down - nor, as Peter has implied, is there any definition of a difference between baptism and christening.

"In the past no one was baptised as an infant" - yes, if you go back long before the C of E was established, but infant baptism had become the norm by the 16th century, and was continued by the C of E.

I agree that there is some sloppiness and confusion when it comes to parish registers. Some seem to use baptism and christening as interchangeable terms - when there is a change of minister (or clerk) you sometimes find the page headings change from one to the other. Or the page might be headed "Christenings" and each entry says "Baptised".

There are others, as you say, where the entries say "baptised and christened", which implies that those ministers were making some kind of distinction. However, I have not come across any contemporary references which make clear exactly what they meant, and it may be only modern supposition which equates christening with the modern thanksgiving service.

Theologically, baptism has only ever meant the wetting of a person by dipping, sprinkling or immersion; christening was sometimes used to mean the same, and sometimes not. And to add to the confusion, in modern times some non-Anglicans and/or FH programs seem to reserve christening for infant baptism in order to distinguish it from adult baptism.

Arthur

[Ken Boyce]

Guy put up a convincing point of view that caused me to do more homework
The sacraments and ceremonies of the C of E (and RC) are, as I’ve always believed, carried out according to Cannon Law As far as I could determine from browsing the net whilst much is documented regarding Cannon Law for baptisms and marriages for RC and C of E I did not come across a single reference relating Cannon Law to christenings.
I then somehow moved on to the topic of church dominance over the population and found much relating to church control over BMBs and their revenues. The gist of my understanding of baptisms v christenings is now briefly as follows
In the 18C the C of E was attempting to maintain its dominance over the population and the revenue this generated in baptisms, marriages and burial fees. Cannon Law and the Common Book of Prayer specifically required Baptisms and Marriages (Burials? I lost my references) to take place inside Churches and was backed up by Civil Law, at least for marriages. However around the time of the American Revolution more and more people were ignoring the church edicts hence the proliferation of child naming parties (Christenings) and clandestine marriages particularly in the Colonies to the point where the Civil Government saw fit to start collecting revenues from these activities
Subsequently between c1785 and c1850 Clandestine Marriages were made illegal, the church lost control over the marriage and burial process and it seems that baby naming ceremonies (christenings) became a reality but not a sacrament
Interesting to note that during this exercise I discovered that according to C of E Cannon Law I was not qualified to be a Godfather to my 1962 Godchild I hope that she can sort that out with St Peter when attempting to enter the Pearly Gates!

[Guy Etchells]

Basic history.


The Book of Common Prayer came into being in 1549 as the King Edw. VI.’s first Service Book published by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, it was to be revised with an edition in 1552 but this was never published.
A further edition was cobbled together in 1559 then a further edition in 1662 (the one used today).
It could be argued that his Book of Homilies (1547) was a more accurate account of biblical worship than the Book of Common Prayer.

In essence the Book of Common Prayer was a watering down of Catholic doctrines to apply to the Church of England due to the reformation.
It was part of the move away from the Mass being celebrated by the priest alone and the expediency of using it as Cranmer states “such speech as the people may understand”.
It was also in part a way of quelling the rebellion against the changes in worship caused by the break from the Catholic Church.
It was as much political expedience as doctrine.
Cheers
Guy

[Peter Goodey]

The situation seems to be that...

• The Oxford English Dictionary
• The Book of Common Prayer
• The Catechism
• Cressy's "Birth, marriage, and death..."
• The Official Website of the Church of England
• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

...all indicate that "christening" and "baptism" mean precisely the same thing.

It's also interesting that those bilingual dictionaries that I can lay my hands on translate "christening" and "baptism" in exactly the same way.

Incidentally, the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also notes that infant baptism dates from at least the 3rd century. It was not until the 16th or 17th centuries that dissenters started to reject the practice. It most certainly does not support the claim that "in the past no one was baptised as an infant".

The Book of Common Prayer is the prescribed liturgy of the Church of England. Opposition to this was one of the issues uniting the forces of Parliament in the Civil War.

[Guy Etchells]

Which brings us back to my original point that “experts” and compilers of books often simply copy other books in the field. As was the case in the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer.

What source was used for the OED very likely the Book of Common Prayer(BoCP), Cressy certainly used the BoCP as he refers to it on page 175.
The Catechism comes from the same source as the BoCP and the Concise OED the same as the OED.

I do not know where the Official Website of the Church of England got its information but a pound to a penny says the BoCP.

Cheers
Guy