3. And to the third, his title condition to the benefits of baptism hath two degrees: 1. That he be really dedicated to God by the heart consent of his parent as aforesaid. And, 2. That his parent express this by the solemn engaging him to God in baptism; the first being necessary as a means sine qua non, and the second being necessary as a duty without which he sinneth, (when it is possible,) and as a means coram ecclesia to the privileges of the visible church.
The sum of all is, that our mere natural interest in our children is not their title condition to baptism or to salvation, but only that presupposed state which enableth us by God's consent to covenant for them; but their title condition to baptism and salvation, is our covenanting for them, or voluntary dedicating them to God; which we do, 1. Virtually, when we dedicate ourselves, and all that we have or shall have. 2. Actually, when our hearts consent particularly for them, and actually devote them to God, before baptism. 3. Sacramentally, when we express this in our solemn baptismal covenanting and dedication.
Consider exactly of this again; and if you loathe distinguishing, confess ingenuously that you loathe the truth, or the necessary means of knowing it.
Quest. XXXIX. What is the true meaning of sponsors, patrimi, or godfathers as we call them? And is it lawful to make use of them?
Answ. I. To the first question; all men have not the same thoughts either of their original, or of their present use.
1. Some think that they were sponsors or sureties for the parents rather than the child at first; and that when many in times of persecution, heresy, and apostasy, did baptize their children this month or year, and the next month or year apostatize and deny Christ themselves, that the sponsors were only credible christians witnessing that they believed that the parents were credible, firm believers, and not like to apostatize. 2. Others think that they were undertakers, that if the parents did apostatize or die, they would see to the christian education of the child themselves. 3. Others think that they did both these together; (which is my opinion;) viz. that they witnessed the probability of the parents' fidelity; but promised that if they should either apostatize or die, they would see that the children were piously educated. 4. Others think that they were absolute undertakers that the children should be piously educated, whether the parents died or apostatized or not; so that they went joint undertakers with the parents in their lifetime. 5. And I have lately met with some that maintain that the godfathers and godmothers become proprietors, and adopt the child, and take him for their own, and that this is the sense of the church of England. But I believe them not for these reasons.
1. There is no such word in the liturgy, doctrine, or canons of the church of England: and that is not to be feigned and fathered on them, which they never said.
2. It would be against the law of nature to force all parents to give the sole propriety, or joint propriety, in their children to others. Nature hath given the propriety to themselves, and we cannot rob them of it.
3. It would be heinously injurious to the children of noble and learned persons, if they must be forced to give them up to the propriety and education of others, even of such as perhaps are lower and more unfit for it than themselves.
4. It would be more heinously injurious to all godfathers and godmothers, who must all make other men's children their own, and therefore must use them as their own.