The Antipaedobaptists raise the objection that many who receive the Sacrament of Baptism as infants, when they grow to manhood and womanhood, live lives of infidelity and godlessness. We do not deny this fact; nevertheless, such objection rebounds with renewed force against the Antipaedobaptist; as many in their community who have received the rite of Baptism as adults have violated their solemn vows, and in their godlessness cast reflections on the Antipaedobaptists, who make much of the term, "Believer's Baptism," implying, of course, that they only baptise "Believers." It is quite evident that such Antipaedobaptists are indifferent to the implications of such terms, as we shall see later.

The parents, who bring their children for baptism in the Reformed Church are required to give a credible confession of faith, and so far as it is known, their conduct is in keeping with such a profession. Beyond this, the Reformed Church will not go, as her ministers repudiate any claim to a Divine revelation as to the spiritual state of the parents.

The objection of the Antipaedobaptists to Infant Baptism on the ground that some will depart from the faith in later life, gives no assurance that those baptised as adults will hold fast to the faith "once delivered to the saints." The term, "Believer's Baptism," which we meet with so often in Antipaedobaptist's circles, is indeed most presumptive in the light of the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8: 13), and the rebuke administered by the Apostle Peter (Acts 8: 20-23). We ask, Would the Antipaedobaptist refuse to baptise Simon the Sorcerer, and on what ground? Do they presume to have a deeper spiritual insight than Philip, and those present on that occasion? It is evident that Simon the Sorcerer was destitute of true faith, and his profession at his baptism was hypocrisy.

The Antipaedobaptists, who put so much emphasis upon their presumptive term "Believer's Baptism," imply that they possess a power of spiritual penetration that was denied Philip and the Apostles. The Holy Scripture makes it very clear that others besides Simon the Sorcerer received the Sacrament of Baptism by false profession (1st John 2: 19), "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." We, therefore, submit that the objection that some baptised in infancy may in later life fall away, is really no objection at all: but rather a condemning statement against the Antipaedobaptists, who use terms that imply that all they baptise are believers, when even the Apostles could not make such a claim.

Little children are embraced in the Covenant of Grace; otherwise infants would not be redeemed. To refuse the right of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ to little children is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. Our Lord was "much displeased" with those who would prevent parents bringing their little children to Him, and said, "Suffer little children to come to Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10: 14-16). The Scriptures teach plainly enough that children of believing parents, dying in infancy, or before reaching a state of conscious experience, are saved, therefore regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Their salvation being wholly dependent upon the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The reference to little children in Rom. 5: 14 - "Who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," nevertheless death reigned over them, although they had not been guilty of actual sin, Christ's sacrificial death met the penalty of their inherited sin. The reference to David, after death, being re-united with his infant son (2nd Samuel 12: 23) "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." Our Lord's reception of the little children already referred to (Mark 10: 14-16), and the inspired statement of the Apostle in 1st Cor. 7: 14. The unbelieving partner in marriage being sanctified by the believing partner, "else were your children unclean; but now they are holy." These, with many other references that could be made, are our Scriptural warrant that little children are members of Christ's Church, and no mere man should deny to them the right to receive the Sacrament of Baptism as a sign and seal of their membership in the Church.

Provided the Church assumes her responsibilities, in Worship, Government and Discipline, and the parents fulfil their solemn obligations, the children of such parents, baptised in such a Church, the efficacy of Baptism will be applied "and conferred by the Holy Ghost according to the counsel of God's own will in His appointed time." (see "Confession of Faith," chapter 28). In this matter we make no concessions to the Antipaedobaptists. God the Holy Spirit determines the occasion of His own activity, and as parents, earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, we have a holy confidence in the promises of God to our children. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." God's sovereignty will not permit the promise embodied in the Sacrament of Baptism administered to our children to be cancelled.

The efficacy of Infant Baptism is not resolved by human reason, but by revelation. When parents brought their children to Christ while He was on earth, Christ received them and said, of "such is the kingdom of God." Shall the Lord Jesus refuse the parents of this generation who bring their little ones to Him in faith ? When the inspired Apostle states that the children of one believing parent are holy, are such children less holy in our day? Does the Antipaedobaptist maintain that there are varying degrees of possibility in God's promises?

The efficacy of Baptism does not depend upon the water that is sprinkled or the formula pronounced by the minister, but upon the Holy Spirit that honours the promise contained in the formula; and the operations of the Spirit are made known by revelation, not human reason (Jn. 3: 8). We are wholly in agreement with Fotheringham when he writes "Not for a moment do we ascribe any potency to consecrated water; but the Holy Spirit has chosen this as the means and occasion of His own activity. His operation does not submit itself to any of the senses; it does not come within the sphere of consciousness at all, but we have the assurance of God's promise, which faith rests upon, that the two factors in the Sacrament are inseparably joined together, so that the part we see is a testimony to the reality of the operation which we cannot perceive. The mystery cannot be eliminated without destroying the sacramental character of the ordinance" (Princeton Review).

That there are those who after being baptised live godlessly to the end of their days, we know; but we also know that the promises of God have not been broken in His rejection of them.

The objection that some in later life live godlessly, is no objection to Infant Baptism at all. The objection rather exposes the shallowness of the Antipaedobaptist's presumption in the use of the term "Believer's Baptism," when so many have received so-called "Believer's Baptism" by false profession. This statement is supported by the fact that Dr. T. T. Shields, perhaps the most outspoken Antipaedobaptist in the world today, has withdrawn from the regular Baptist community and formed an independent Baptist Church in Canada? Why?

Baptism is a Sacrament, ordained by Christ for admission to the membership of the Church, as a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, regeneration, and the remission of sins. Seeing that it has already been established from the Holy Scriptures that infants are capable and actually have received these blessings, the Antipaedobaptists, in refusing little children the right to membership in His Church, do so against the explicit direction of our Lord and the practice of the Apostolic Church.