ACC ~ Acts 19 v5

THE TRUE BAPTISM IS CHRIST’S. AUGUSTINE: Did he baptize after a heretic had baptized? Or, if perhaps you dare to say that the friend of the bridegroomwas 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. LETTER 93.

BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. BEDE: A question is often put forward as to whether those should be rebaptized who, perhaps through ignorance, were baptized by others who, though correct in faith, were not baptized. I think this is explained in the chapters under discussion. For what difference does it make whether one was baptized at that time, before the inauguration of Christ’s baptism, or at this time, apart from the succession [of those baptized with Christ’s baptism], since even John himself proclaimed that those should be rebaptized whom he had baptized in faith and in the name of the Christ who was to come. He said, “I baptize you in water; he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” Now if, as some have taught, at the present time a sharing in the body and blood of Christ can, by itself, suffice as a remedy for such as these, so also at that time those whom John had baptized with water could have been confirmed by participation in his blood alone, and it would not have been necessary for them to be baptized by Christ’s disciples. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 19.5.

IN THE SPIRIT AND HAVING THE SPIRIT. AMMONIUS: 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. CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 19.5.

INVOKING THE SPIRIT. ORIGEN: 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. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.3.2.

Acts