Acts 19:1–8

"And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came," etc. While Apollo was at Corinth, it came to pass that Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, where, having found certain disciples, he asked if they had received the grace of the Holy Ghost when they were baptized. They declared that they were entirely ignorant of that name, but had been consecrated in John's baptism. Paul baptized them while invoking the Trinity, and the Holy Ghost came upon them, making them able to prophesize in various tongues. Paul, staying there for three months, preached about the Lord Christ in his customary manner.

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper coasts" - meaning what we have read as to Caesarea and the other places - "came to Ephesus, and having found certain disciples." But whence had those, being in Ephesus, the baptism of John? Probably they had been on a visit at Jerusalem at the time of John's preaching, and did not even know Jesus.

Knowing only John's baptism. It is worth asking how, if he knew only John's baptism, he nevertheless possessed the Spirit; for the Spirit was not given in that way. And if those who came after him needed the baptism of Christ, much more would he have needed it. What then is one to say? For he did not simply set both side by side. It seems, therefore, that he was one of the one hundred and twenty who were baptized after the apostles. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostles, we find that men who had "John's baptism" had not received the Holy Spirit, whom they knew not even by hearing. That, then, was no celestial thing which furnished no celestial (endowments): whereas the very thing which was celestial in John-the Spirit of prophecy-so completely failed, after the transfer of the whole Spirit to the Lord, that he presently sent to inquire whether He whom he had himself preached, whom he had pointed out when coming to him, were "HE.

These, from among "certain disciples," who did not even know that there is a Holy Spirit, differed greatly from the other disciples, because from the words "that they should believe in Him who was coming after him" it is evident that they did not believe in Christ either. He did not say that the baptism of John was nothing, but that it was incomplete. How then, being in Ephesus, did they receive the baptism of John? Perhaps they were traveling to Jerusalem at that time and returned from there without even receiving information about Christ. He does not say to them, "Do you believe in Jesus?" But what does he say? "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" Paul knew that they did not have the Holy Spirit, but he had the desire to speak in such a way that, having learned what they were lacking, they themselves would request it.

And he said to them: Did you receive the Holy Spirit upon believing? This means, Did you receive the laying on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is usually given, after baptism?

Christ, then, did not need baptism—not John's or any other's; rather, baptism was needful of the power of Christ. In fact, that which was lacking was the chief of all blessings, namely, for the baptized to be deemed worthy of the Spirit. Therefore, [Paul] added this valuable gift of the Spirit when he came.

"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." He does not say to them, Do ye believe in Jesus? but what? "Have ye received the Holy Ghost?" He knew that they had not, but wishes themselves to say it, that having learnt what they lack, they may ask.

"And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." For that they did not even believe in Christ is plain from his saying, "that they should believe on Him that was to come after him." And he did not say, The baptism of John is nothing, but, It is incomplete. Nor does he add this (in so many words), but he taught them, and many received the Holy Ghost. From the baptism itself he (John) prophesies: and he leads them (to see) that this is the meaning of John's baptism. "That they should believe on Him that was to come:" on what kind (of Person)? "I indeed baptize you with water, but He that cometh after me, shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." (Matt. iii. 11.)

John baptized with the baptism of repentance. This baptism, he says, could not grant the remission of sins but could teach only repentance. For just as the sign of circumcision was a seal of the faith which they carried in the patriarchs, so this washing was accepted by the repentant people as a singular sign of their devotion: Yet this same thing was figuratively showing also the baptism of Christ, by which remission would be granted.

From John's baptism he prophesies, and he leads them to understand that this was John's baptism. From this point it is shown that John's baptism was incomplete. For he did not say that it was forgiveness, but that it was of repentance. [AMMONIUS]

John's baptism had already raised the question, which our Lord himself posed for the Pharisees, whether it was something heavenly or just from earth. They, clearly not understanding because of their unbelief, could not come to a definite answer. We, however, having only a slight understanding that accords with our slight faith, can still judge that John's baptism was, on the one hand, divine in that God commanded it, but on the other, it was not divine in its power. We read that John had been sent by the Lord for this purpose, which was still human in nature, for he, established as a preacher of repentance, which is a question of a person's will, was offering nothing heavenly but was making way for the heavenly. Therefore, the scribes and the Pharisees who were unwilling to believe were also unwilling to undergo repentance. But if repentance is something human, then it must be that the baptism was of the very same nature, for had it been heavenly it would have given both the Holy Spirit and remission from sins. But no one forgives sins or grants the Holy Spirit but God alone. Besides, the Lord himself said that the Spirit would otherwise not descend unless he first should ascend to the Father. And so what the master would not yet give, the slave would surely not be able to offer. And again, later, in the Acts of the Apostles we find that those who had received John's baptism had not received the Holy Spirit of whom they had never even been told. Therefoe, it was not of heaven because it offered nothing heavenly.

" And so "the baptism of repentance" was dealt with as if it were a candidate for the remission and sanctification shortly about to follow in Christ: for in that John used to preach "baptism for the remission of sins," the declaration was made with reference to future remission; if it be true, (as it is, ) that repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is "preparing the way.

Therefore the baptism of John was an exhortation to repentance only, but it did not provide a purification from sins. This, then, is the difference between the baptism of John and that of the faithful: the baptism of the faithful gives the gift of the remission of sins. While baptizing, John said, "I baptize you for the one coming after me, and I ask you to believe in him, because he is the Lamb of God." Now the one who faithfully baptizes says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," so that you may believe in the consubstantial Trinity. He washes the baptized thoroughly, strips away his previously existing superstition, and re-clothes him with Christ, as he purely proclaims the true faith. Furthermore, it must be noted first that after baptism into Christ, the Holy Spirit descends upon those baptized when the one baptizing lays his hands on them, and second that those baptized with the baptism of John did not possess the Holy Spirit. How then did Apollos, who had only been baptized with John's baptism, burn with the Spirit? Even if Apollos burned with the Spirit, it is not said that he possessed the Holy Spirit. In fact, he neither was speaking in tongues nor prophesying. Therefore, it is one thing to burn with the Spirit and another to possess the Holy Spirit. Whoever possessed the Holy Spirit had it dwelling within him, and the Spirit itself spoke from within. Many of these things are referred to previously, as when the Spirit spoke to Philip, to Peter, to the apostles and to Paul and his companions, when he ordered them either to speak or not speak the word in certain cities. Whoever burned with the Spirit did this or that through an external illumination and impulse, as one led by the Spirit, just as someone might be led or protected by an angel. Now, do not say to me, "How is it possible for one who does not share in the Spirit to burn with the Spirit?" For it is necessary to establish what is unseen on the basis of what is seen. If the sun and fire, being outside of us, by drawing near to our bodies or also to be at a small distance, as is the case with fire, warm our bodies, what should we say about the divine Spirit that is truly hot and sets our interior person on fire, even if the Spirit does not live within but is without? It is possible, in the way that everything is possible to God, that someone be set on fire, even if the heat is not dwelling within.

Did he baptize after a heretic had baptized? Or, if perhaps you dare to say that the friend of the bridegroom was a heretic and was not in the unity of the church, I wish you would write that also. But, if it is complete madness either to think or to say that, then it is the duty of your prudence to reflect on the reason why the apostle Paul baptized after John. If he baptized after an equal, all of you ought to baptize after yourselves; if after a superior, you ought to baptize after Rogatus; if after an inferior, Rogatus should have baptized after you, because you baptized as a priest. On the other hand, if the baptism that is now given is equally valid to those who receive it in spite of the unequal merit of those who give it, because it is the baptism of Christ, not of those by whom it is administered, I think you now understand that Paul gave to some the baptism of Christ for the reason that they had received the baptism of John but not that of Christ.

Having heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. A question is frequently discussed, whether those who, perhaps due to ignorance, were baptized by some who were not themselves baptized, yet were of the right faith, ought to be baptized again; which matter, I think, is explained in this chapter. For what difference does it make whether someone is baptized before the beginning of Christ's baptism or now without its succession, since even John himself, whom he baptized in faith and in the name of Christ, though it was to come, had baptized, said they should be baptized again, saying: "I baptize you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Matt. III)? For if now, such people could be remedied sufficiently by participation in the body and blood of Christ alone, as some assert, it might have sufficed then too; nor would it have been necessary for those whom John baptized with water to be baptized by Christ's disciples, but merely to be confirmed by sharing in the blood.

"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." The gift is twofold: tongues and prophesyings. Hence is shown an important doctrine, that the baptism of John is incomplete. And he does not say, "Baptism" of forgiveness, but, "of repentance." So that it was likely they had the Spirit, but it did not appear until Paul had laid his hands upon them: then they spake with tongues, etc.

Then, having been baptized into the name of the Lord, he says that by the laying on of Paul's hands they immediately receive the Spirit. But this he did not see; for it is invisible. Yet grace gave some perceptible proof of that operation. And one spoke in the Persian tongue, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other such language; he uttered speech. And this was revealed to those outside, that the Spirit was in the one who uttered, God showing that this is of the highest authority. [AMMONIUS]

Of the existence of the Holy Spirit … we are taught in many passages of Scripture. For instance, David says in the fiftieth psalm, "And take not your Holy Spirit from me," and in Daniel it is said, "The Holy Spirit, who is in you." But in the New Testament we have proofs in abundance, as when the Holy Spirit is related to have descended upon Christ, and when the Lord breathed on his apostles after the resurrection and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," and the angel said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you," and Paul teaches us that "no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except in the Holy Spirit," and in the Acts of the Apostles "through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given" in baptism. From all of which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit is of so great authority and dignity that saving baptism is not complete except when performed with the authority of the whole most excellent Trinity, that is, by naming the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That we must not grieve the Holy Spirit, whom we have received. Paul the apostle to the Ephesians: "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in which ye were sealed in the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be taken away from you."

Wherefore, then, my brethren, let us struggle with all earnestness, knowing that the contest is [in our case] close at hand, and that many undertake long voyages to strive for a corruptible reward; yet all are not crowned, but those only that have laboured hard and striven gloriously. Let us therefore so strive, that we may all be crowned. Let us run the straight course, even the race that is incorruptible; and let us in great numbers set out for it, and strive that we may be crowned. And should we not all be able to obtain the crown, let us at least come near to it. We must remember that he who strives in the corruptible contest, if he be found acting unfairly, is taken away and scourged, and cast forth from the lists. What then think ye? If one does anything unseemly in the incorruptible contest, what shall he have to bear? For of those who do not preserve the seal [unbroken], [the Scripture] says, "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh." [Isaiah 66:24]

They did not see the Spirit, because He is invisible; but a certain sensible proof of His presence was offered by the gift of tongues: one spoke in Persian, another in Roman, a third in some other language; and by these outward signs it was evident that the Spirit was speaking in each one.

All the men were about twelve, etc. But the judgments of God are a great abyss. Behold, recently deemed unworthy of the visitation of the apostles, Asia is now consecrated by the Apostolic number and elevated by the prophetic gift. And it should be noted that the Holy Spirit also here showed the signs of his coming upon the twelve disciples, and above upon the one hundred and twenty, which is the number twelve multiplied by ten, that sign in Jerusalem, this in Ephesus, which is a city of the Greeks. I believe to show that whether a person believes from among the Jews or the Gentiles, they only who communicate with the unity of the Catholic and Apostolic Church are fulfilled.

See him in every place forcing his way into the synagogue, and in this manner departing thence. For in every place, he wished to have the occasion given him by them. He wished to separate the disciples thence, and to have the beginning for ceasing to assemble with them, given by the Jews themselves. He was henceforth "provoking them to jealousy." For both the Gentiles readily received him, and the Jews, upon the Gentiles receiving him, repented. This is why he continually made a stir among them, "for three months arguing and persuading concerning the kingdom of God": for you must not suppose because you hear of his "speaking boldly," that there was any harshness: it was of good things that he discoursed, of a kingdom: who would not have heard him?

"And having entered in to the synagogue," etc. But why did he speak boldly? It means, he was ready to confront dangers, and disputed more openly, not veiling the doctrines. "But when some were hardened, and spake evil of the way, having departed from them, he separated the disciples." He put a stop, it means, to their evil-speaking: he did not wish to kindle their envy, nor to bring them into more contention. Hence let us also learn not to put ourselves in the way of evil-speaking men, but to depart from them: he did not speak evil, when himself evil spoken of. "He disputed daily," and by this gained the many, that, being evil intreated and evil spoken of, he did not utterly break away from them, and keep aloof. The evil-speakers are defeated. They calumniated the doctrine itself; therefore so as neither to rouse the disciples to wrath, nor disturb them, he withdrew, showing that everywhere alike they repel salvation from them.

What does "boldly" mean? He exposed himself to dangers or began to speak even more clearly, without obscuring his teaching. Look: everywhere Paul enters the synagogues and always comes out the same way, since everywhere he wished to take advantage of the opportunity.