Now at the time when the cock crows they are at the water. The water should be flowing, or at least running. It should be so if there is no necessity, but if there is continuous and sudden necessity use any water you can find. And they should take off their clothes. You are to baptize the infants (baptizate primum parvulos) first. All those who are able to speak for themselves should speak. With regard to those who cannot speak for themselves, their parents, or somebody who belongs to their family, should speak (21:1-4).
Hippolytus | On the Apostolic Tradition, ed. John Behr, trans. Alistair C. Stewart, Second Edition, vol. 54, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2015), 133.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
I, for my part, am grateful that we ignore that advice about taking off the clothes nowadays.
And first baptize the small children. And each one who is able to speak for themselves [sic], let them speak. But those not able to speak for themselves, let their parents or another one belonging to their family speak for them …. And when the presbyter grasps each one of those who will receive baptism, let him command him to renounce, saying, “I renounce you, Satan, with all your service and all your works.” And when he has renounced all these, let him anoint him with the oil of exorcism saying, “Let every spirit be cast far from you.” …Let the bishop put his hand on them, fervently, saying, “Lord God, as you have made these worthy to receive forgiveness of their sins for the coming age, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit…
Sections § 2.1-2, 9-11, 21, 27 in Bradshaw, P.F., Johnson, M.E., L Edward Phillips and Attridge, H.W. (2002). The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Mn: Fortress Press.
Baptism of infants/children here in the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ is connected with the forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and exorcism. This seems very different to Calvin’s view on infant baptism. Does Reformed theology regard infant baptism for the forgiveness of infants sins/original sin? Are there ever examples from the early church where baptism is not for the forgiveness of sin?
Shane,
It is challenging for us to understand the context of the early Christian church but we must try to travel back, as it were, to their world. We live in light of 2,000 of Christianity. They did not.
Hippolytus did in AD 236. He was a great defender of orthodoxy against the Montanists and others. When adult converts were baptized they were called to renounce Satan because the Gentile converts came from paganism. The use of oil was probably influenced by the Old Testament. By the early 3rd century already people were adding to the sacraments, a pattern that would come to evil eventually.
As to regeneration, the Apostolic Tradition doesn’t say that. It is the case that by the fourth baptismal regeneration did become widely held but it’s not the case that infant baptism either necessitates baptismal regeneration or assumes it. I’ve address this a few times but take a look at this essay on the language of the Nicene Creed.
As we try to put ourselves in their shoes we must be careful not to read back into the 2nd and 3rd centuries later doctrines. Regeneration in the ancient church (and even later) could mean the giving of new life but it can also mean merely sanctification.
The church in the early 3rd century isn’t the church of Calvin’s Geneva in the mid-16th century but your assumption that there are no points of connection between the context in which infant baptism was practiced in the early church and in the Reformation is to be challenged. There was a developing covenant theology in the early church, which we see in Barnabas (AD 120), Justin (AD 150), and Irenaeus (AD 180), which is virtually indistinguishable from that outlined by Bullinger in 1534 and held by Calvin regarding the continuity of the covenant of grace. Barnabas was facing Gnostic radicals and Jewish critics of Christianity who rejected the unity of the covenant so he defended it at length. Bullinger et al. were facing Anabaptists, who shared some of the same views to which Barnabas et al. were responding.
By the time we get to Augustine, the arguments made by the 2nd century covenant theologians were assumed. Augustine even alludes a pre-lapsarian covenant (of works) in City of God ch. 16.
So, there was a covenant theology that supported and gave context to the ancient Christian practice of infant baptism. Take of look at this essay where I respond at more length to the Baptist complaint that the ancient church baptized infants for the wrong reasons.
As to the “forgiveness of sins” this is the language of Acts 2:38. See the essay on the Nicene Creed.