Baptism comment to decipher

[Janet Waterhouse]

Hi,

I'm struggling to complete the comment on the following baptism entry:

The public reception only being formately? baptised [? fered.

Lofthouse, Christ Church, baptism 1867, page 90, entry 716.

Any help appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to look.

Regards,

Janet

[Karen McDonald]

I can't help but see only being privately baptized, but I don't think that makes much sense. 

[josey]

There are quite a few threads with this topic - the child was welcomed into the church if it had been baptised privately - at home if it was thought to be at risk of dying - it wouldn't have had a second baptism. There is a comma after the 'only'.

[Maiden Stone]

Karen, "only being privately baptised" does make sense. May have been baptised at home and the ceremony on 7th April was a public one in church. There were 2 entries in register for 7th April.
Is the word in brackets above part of the phrase?
Which religious denomination and country?

Added. Just seen josey's post. A search for terms such as "baptised twice", "second baptism" "two baptisms" on the forum should turn up similar threads on the topic.

[Janet Waterhouse]

Thank you for your help.

It now reads, and makes sense:

The public reception only, being privately baptized.

The only word unread is after the [bracket.

Janet

[Bookbox]

The only word unread is after the bracket.

elsewhere

[josey]

Oh that makes sense! Thanks BB.

[Janet Waterhouse]

Thank you all for the speedy replies.

Note, in the GRO Index (1862-1867) George Henry Nettleton is not recorded, but, curiously a George Henry Nettleship is.

Mar 1867 Wakefield, 9c. 11.

Regards,

Janet