But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Ver. 12. They were baptized both men and women] Who were admitted to baptism on this condition, that their infants also and their whole families should be consecrated to God; for so runs the covenant,Genesis 17:7. If any ask why Christ and the apostles did not set down plainly, that infants were or might be baptized it is answered that none (then) questioned the lawfulness of it, because it was generally done. Again, if when infants were brought to be baptized (as they were brought to Christ to be blessed) the apostles had rejected them, the believing Jews (and others) would have excepted, and demanded why they might not as well be baptized, as once they were circumcised? and the apostles would have given them an answer. St Peter, speaking of baptism, limiteth it thus: "Baptism sayeth, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but," &c.,1 Peter 3:21. Would not the evangelist here as well have said, men and women were baptized, only infants were not. If it be further objected, that it is in vain to give the sacrament to infants that understand not what is done to them, we answer, that the same may be said touching the sacrament of circumcision, which yet was done to infants, by God's appointment. Thus to object therefore, is to "charge God foolishly," Job 1:22. Again, were Christ's parables uttered in vain, because not presently understood? Or was it to no purpose that he laid his hands upon infants and blessed them? is it in vain to give medicine to children, fools, or mad men, that know not what we do to them?