The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…

L. 1. How prove you that the Parents may not be prime covenanters, or Sponsors for their own Children? Are not they obliged to get Godfathers and Godmothers for them? who are supposed to come by their procurement? And doth not that signify their own consent, to what these are to undertake. ⟨p. 59⟩M. It signifieth only that the Law constraineth them to let their Children be baptized, to avoid their own punishment, and to get others to enter them into the Christian Covenant. But not that they either are Christians, or consent to that Covenant themselves, either for themselves, or Children. For 1. Known Atheists, Infidels, and Sadducees that deny Christianity, are bound by the Law to get Godfathers for their Children's Baptism, as well as Christians; and such cannot be supposed to covenant for them with Christ themselves. The Sixty eight and Sixty nine Canons command Ministers to refuse no Child that is brought, nor to refuse or delay to baptize in private in case of danger who ever desireth him to do it. 2. The Twenty nine Canon saith [No Parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child: Nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other answer or speech than by the Book of Common-Prayer is prescribed in that behalf] The Parent may say what he will to God in secret. But at the Christening of his Child, if he should but say [I believe God's promise to the faithful and their seed: I do devote my Child to Christ, and engage him in his Covenant: or I promise to educate him to Christianity] he breaketh the Canon, and goeth against the Churches Law. I did before the Bishops at the Savoy, 1661. put the case to them, thus without fiction: An Infidel of my Parish that useth openly to talk against the Scripture and Life to come, to avoid inconveniences, resolveth to send his Child to be baptized; and I must not refuse it by the Law: Hath the Child right to Baptism, and is it undoubtedly saved? Dr. Sanderson in the Chair answered, nemime contradicente, that if he brought him with Godfathers according to the Church of England, I need not doubt it. But there were but two in the Parish that openly declared themselves to be of his opinion, and those two being his familiars are likest to be the Godfathers. If the Child have not Right for Infidel Parents sake, how can Infidel neighbours, called Godfathers, give him right.

L. 1. How prove you that the Parents may not be prime covenanters, or Sponsors for their own Children? Are not they obliged to get Godfathers and Godmothers for them? who are supposed to come by their procurement? And doth not that signifie their own consent, to what these are to undertake.