At the outset, therefore, there is significance in this statement. Mr. Blunt, in his "Annotated Prayer-Book," says of "N. or M." in the Catechism-- "N. was anciently used as the initial of Nomen, and 'Nomen vel Nomina' was expressed by 'N. vel NN.,' the double N being afterwards corrupted into M." If this be a correct explanation, "M." must refer to cases where more than one child was brought to the priest, N. standing for an occasion where only one infant was presented. In a word, "N. or M." could not stand for "Thomas or Thomas Henry," but for "Thomas or Thomas and Henry." If this be unsatisfactory, then Mr. Blunt's explanation is unsatisfactory. Camden's sentence may be set side by side with Lord Coke's decision. In his "First Institute" (Coke upon Littleton) he says-- "And regularly it is requisite that the purchaser be named by the name of baptism, and his surname, and that special heed be taken to the name of baptism; for that a man cannot have two names of baptism, as he may have divers surnames." Again, he adds-- "If a man be baptized by the name of Thomas, and after, at his confirmation by the bishop, he is named John, he may purchase by the name of his confirmation.... And this doth agree with our ancient books, where it is holden that a man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers christian names." This is all very plain. Even in James I.'s days thousands of our countrymen had no fixed surnames, and changed them according to caprice or fancy. But the christian name was a fixture, saving in the one case of confirmation. Lord Coke is referring to an old rule laid down by Archbishop Peckham, wherein any child whose baptismal name, by accident or evil thought, had a bad significance is advised, if not compelled, to change it for one of more Christian import. The chief point of interest, however, in this decision of Lord Coke's, is the patent fact that no thought of a double christian name is present in his mind. Had it been otherwise, he would never have worded it as he has done. Archbishop Peckham's rule had evidently been infringed, and Lord Coke upholds the infringement. A child with such an orthodox name as Thomas (a name with no immoral significance) might, he lays it down, become John at confirmation. Even in such a case as this, however, John is not to be added to Thomas; it must take its place, and Thomas cease to be recognized.