John Calvin Commentary Acts 19:5

"And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." — Acts 19:5 (ASV)

When they heard these things. Because the people of old had formed an opinion that the baptism of John and of Christ were different, it was not an inappropriate thing for them to be baptized again, who had only been prepared by the baptism of John. But that this diversity was falsely and wickedly believed by them appears from this: it was a pledge and sign of the same adoption, and of the same newness of life, which we have today in our baptism. Therefore, we do not read that Christ baptized again those who came from John to him.

Moreover, Christ received baptism in his own flesh, so that he might unite himself with us by that visible sign (Matthew 3:15). But if that prevailing diversity is admitted, this unique benefit will fall away and perish: that baptism is common to the Son of God and to us, or that we all have one baptism with him.

But this opinion needs no long refutation, because in order for them to persuade that these two baptisms are different, they must first show how the one differs from the other. However, a most excellent similarity is evident in both, as well as the agreement and conformity of their parts, which causes us to confess that it is all one baptism.

Now the question is whether it was lawful to repeat it; and fanatical men in our own age, relying on this testimony, attempted to introduce rebaptism. Some interpret baptism as new institution or instruction, an opinion I do not share, because, as their interpretation is too strained, so it smacks of an evasion.

Others deny that baptism was repeated, arguing that they were improperly baptized by some foolish enemy of John. But because their conjecture has no plausibility—indeed, the words of Paul rather imply that they were true and genuine disciples of John, and Luke honorably calls them disciples of Christ—I do not agree with this opinion. And yet I deny that the baptism of water was repeated, because the words of Luke imply nothing else, except that they were baptized with the Spirit.

First, it is not a new thing for the name of baptism to be applied to the gifts of the Spirit, as we saw in the first and eleventh chapters (Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:6), where Luke said that when Christ promised his apostles to send the Spirit visibly, he called it baptism.

Also, when the Spirit came down upon Cornelius, Peter remembered the words of the Lord: “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Again, we see that those visible gifts are specifically mentioned in this passage, and that they are given with baptism. And where it follows immediately that when he had laid his hands on them, the Spirit came, I take this to be added as an interpretation. For it is a way of speaking often used in Scripture: first to state something briefly, and afterwards to make it clearer.

Therefore, what was somewhat obscure due to brevity, Luke expresses better and explains more fully, saying that the Spirit was given to them by the laying on of hands. If anyone objects that when baptism stands for the gifts of the Spirit, it is not used simply, but has something added to it,

I answer that Luke’s meaning appears sufficiently from the text; and again, that Luke alludes to the baptism of which he spoke. And surely, if you understand it as the external sign, it would be an absurd thing for it to have been given to them without using any better teaching. But if you take it metaphorically as instruction, the language would still be awkward, and the narrative would not fit with the Holy Spirit coming down on them after they were taught.

Furthermore, while I acknowledge that this laying on of hands was a sacrament, I also say that those who continually imitated it fell into error through ignorance. For since everyone agrees on this—that it was a grace meant to last only for a time, which was shown by that sign—it is a perverse and ridiculous thing to retain the sign when the reality it signified has been taken away.

There is another aspect of baptism and the Lord's Supper, in which the Lord testifies that those gifts are made available to us, which the Church will enjoy even until the end of the world. Therefore, we must diligently and wisely distinguish perpetual sacraments from those that last only for a time, lest vain and frivolous appearances have a place among the sacraments.

While the people of ancient times used the laying on of hands to confirm the profession of faith in those who were adults, I do not disapprove of it, provided that no one thinks that the grace of the Spirit is attached to such a ceremony, as Jerome argued against the Luciferians.

But the Papists are worthy of no pardon, who, not being content with the ancient rite, dared to thrust in a corrupt and filthy anointing, so that it might be not only a confirmation of baptism, but also a more worthy sacrament. By this they imagine that the faithful are made perfect who were previously only half perfect—by which those are armed for battle who previously only had their sins forgiven them. For they have not been afraid to spew out these horrible blasphemies.