Natural and sponsored child

[zumaro]

How would I interpret this birth record for William Gracie?

Gracie John Miner in Dalry and Marion Townsend had their natural son named William. Born 31st May 1836 and baptized 9th December 1839. The mother being sponsor.

I know natural versus lawful is probably referring to William being illegitimate, but I am not sure how this interacts with the description of Marion being sponsor. And why such a large delay in being baptised?
I think I have Marion's death record in 1861 in Dalry, where she is described as single (this would agree with William's marriage record in 1867 to Esther Shannon, where she is described as deceased), but I can't find anything about John Gracie (he is probably alive in 1867 according to William's marriage record).

[zumaro]

My ancestry page for William is here:
https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/102124726/person/240013223505/facts

[Forfarian]

You're right. 'Natural', in this context, means illegitimate, as opposed to 'lawful'.

In order to have an illegitimate child baptised, the Kirk required a sponsor. I'm not 100% certain exactly what the sponsor was letting themself in for, but probably they gave an undertaking that the child would not become a charge on the parish poors fund, and that it would be brought up as a good member of the Kirk.

As for John Gracie, there could be something about him in the minutes of Dalry Kirk Session. You can view these in the Virtual Volumes at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk