And [Paul] does not ask them, Do you believe in Jesus? but Did you receive the Holy Spirit? For he knew that they had not. And he wished them to acknowledge this, so that they might learn what they lacked and ask for it. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, it says, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. The baptism itself led to their giving prophecies. John’s baptism did not have this effect and was therefore incomplete. Rather, it prepared them beforehand so that they would be deemed worthy of such things. So this was the intent of John’s baptism, that they should believe in the one who was to come after him. Here is shown an important doctrine, that the baptized are completely cleansed of their sins. For if they were not cleansed, they could not have received the Spirit and be immediately deemed worthy of such gifts. And look, the gift was twofold: tongues and the ability to prophesy. Paul spoke well when he said John’s baptism was of repentance and not of forgiveness. He led them forward, persuading them that John’s baptism lacked the latter. For forgiveness was the work of the one who was given afterwards. And how is it that they who received the Spirit did not teach, but Apollos did when he had not yet received the Spirit? Because they were not so fervent or even so instructed. He, on the other hand, was instructed and very fervent. It seems to me that great was the man’s boldness. But even if he taught the things concerning Jesus accurately, [Apollos] still needed more accurate teaching. So, though he did not know everything, by his enthusiasm he drew to himself the Holy Spirit, as did Cornelius and his companions.

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.

That is: After baptism did you receive the imposition of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is ordinarily given?

This baptism, he says, could not grant the remission of sins but only teach repentance. For just as the sign of circumcision among the patriarchs had been a mark of the faith that they lived by, so also repentant people received this washing as a singular mark of their devotion. Nevertheless, it also figuratively pointed to Christ’s baptism, by which remission of sins would be given.

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.^[1] 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. Therefore, it was not of heaven because it offered nothing heavenly.

Did he baptize after a heretic had baptized? Or, if perhaps you dare to say that the friend of the bridegroom^[1] 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;^[2] 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.

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.^[1] 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.

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.^[1] 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.

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,^[1] and in Daniel it is said, The Holy Spirit, who is in you.^[2] But in the New Testament we have proofs in abundance, as when the Holy Spirit is related to have descended upon Christ,^[3] and when the Lord breathed on his apostles after the resurrection and said, Receive the Holy Spirit,^[4] and the angel said to Mary, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you,^[5] and Paul teaches us that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except in the Holy Spirit,^[6] and in the Acts of the Apostles through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given^[7] 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.^[8]

See here is fulfilled the saying the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.^[1] Look, he is the last of the apostles, in respect to his calling, and that very thing John did not give in his baptism, those being baptized receive through the hands of Paul.

Truly, the judgments of God [are like] mighty depths.^[1] Behold, Asia, which not long before was unworthy to be visited by the apostles,^[2] now consecrated by the apostolic number [i.e., twelve] and exalted by a prophetic gift! And it should be noted that the Holy Spirit showed signs of his coming, both here in the twelve disciples, and earlier in the hundred and twenty^[3] (which is the number twelve multiplied ten times). I believe that the former [manifestation occurred] in Jerusalem, and this one in Ephesus, which is a Greek city, to show that whether the one who believes is from the Jews or the Gentiles, he [the Spirit] fills only those who share in the unity of the catholic and apostolic church.

He withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him. That is, [Paul] put a stop to their evil speaking. This he did and withdrew, since he did not wish to kindle their envy or to lead them to greater strife. . . . From this let us learn not to meet the evil-speaking people but to withdraw from them. He did not speak evil, though he himself was spoken ill of. Instead, he argued daily and gained many friends especially because of this, that he neither turned away nor separated himself though he was spoken ill of. . . . Thus by withdrawing from them, he defeats those who maligned and spoke evil of the doctrine (for this is what he called the Way). He himself withdrew so as not to force the disciples to go back or to rouse their anger, thereby revealing his opponents to be pushing away salvation on every occasion. Here he does not even defend his actions before them, since the Gentiles everywhere have believed.

Fittingly do they call this the way, as it truly was the way that leads to the kingdom of heaven. Or the Scripture is saying that Christ is the way, as he is called the way, or it is speaking of the true faith, that which is proclaimed through Paul, by which any wayfarer arrives at the kingdom of heaven.

See how much separating oneself accomplishes: both the Jews and Hellenes came to listen. He teaches those who believe in the Son of God to separate themselves from those who blaspheme him.

What Christ is saying is this, Whoever believes in me will, in my name, do greater signs than I have done.^[1] And these are the greater signs that they did: their shadows raised the dead. Thus was the power of Christ especially proclaimed, since it was not so marvelous that he performed miracles while living, as it was that, when he had died, others were able to do greater than [Christ] in his own name. This itself was the most irrefutable demonstration of the resurrection. He would not, even had he been seen, have been believed to such an extent, since they could have said that he was a phantasm, but should someone see greater signs occur from the mere mention of his name—even when he was among humankind in the flesh—that one, unless terribly shameless, would not have refused to believe.

Look, they had no intention to believe but wished to cast out demons by the name. . . . Therefore in secret they did this, but their weakness was then paraded in public. . . . So the name has no power unless it is spoken by faith. . . . Look how they turned their weapons against themselves. . . . So far were they from thinking of Jesus as something great that they added Paul as well, because they thought that he was something great here. One may justly wonder at this point why the demon did not cooperate with the exorcists’ deception but refuted them completely and exposed their stage act. It seems to me that he was very angry, just as if he were someone in the gravest danger, who is being refuted by a pitiful wretch and wants to vent all his rage against him. For, to prevent any slight on the name of Jesus, he first acknowledges him and takes this acknowledgment as permission.

Josephus reports that King Solomon devised and taught to his people methods of exorcism by which unclean spirits which were driven out of a person would not dare to return anymore.^[1] This happens sometimes, even through the agency of those who are reprehensible, either for the condemnation of those who do it or for the benefit of those who see and hear, so that although people may despise those performing the signs, they may nevertheless honor God, through whose invocation such great miracles are done.

But here, as if the demon did not know him, the exorcists added, I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches. For the reply he gave shows that he knew. The exorcists said simply Jesus, when they should have said, the savior of the world, he who rose again. They did not wish to acknowledge his glory. For this reason, the demon censures them. He leaps on them and says, Jesus I know, and Paul I know. It is as if he had said, You do not believe, but you abuse the name when you say this. Therefore the temple is desolate, the vessel easy to overcome. You are not preachers, but you are mine. Great was the demon’s anger. The apostles had the power to do this to them, but they did not do it as of yet. For the apostles, who had power over the demons who did this to people, had even greater power over the people themselves.

Therefore, since Satan himself disguises himself as an angel of light,^[1] [Satan] has no fear of covering his ministers as well with the same false appearance. It is customary to represent the gifts of the Holy Spirit by the number seven. As a figure of this, the Lord after his resurrection took food with seven disciples,^[2] and seven of the brothers came to preach the gospel to Cornelius, who was to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.^[3] Hence the sons of Sceva, as men who would drive out evil spirits, are reckoned as seven in number. Because they called upon the name of Christ and the apostles not out of belief in them but to put them to the test, they were rightly condemned for the cunning deceitfulness, not only by God but also by the demons themselves. Thus they were called sons of Sceva, which means a yelping little fox.^[4] This animal, which is very shrewd with respect to deceit and craftiness, represents one, whether Jew, Gentile or heretic, who is always plotting against the church of God, and, as it were, continuously making a racket with their babbling voices. Concerning them the command is given to the guardians of the church, Catch for us the tiny foxes that are wrecking the vineyards.^[5]

There may be someone among you who, on hearing this, wishes he were in possession of this power, so that the demons should not be able to look him in the face, and he considers those holy men fortunate because they had such power. But let him listen to Christ, who says, Do not rejoice because the demons are subject to you.^[1] He knew that all people especially rejoice in this because of vainglory. For if you seek what pleases God and what is for the common good, another road is greater. For to free people from a demon is not so great as to rescue them from sin. It is not demons that prevent one from attaining to the kingdom of heaven. On the contrary, they assist, albeit unwillingly, by making him who has the demon more sensible. Sin, on the other hand, expels him. But perhaps someone will say, God forbid it should befall me to be sensible in this way! I, too, do not wish this for you, but rather that you should do everything because of something else, namely, the love of Christ. But if, God forbid, this should happen, I would comfort you with this. If the demon does not leave, but sin does, to free one of the latter is a greater good deed.

As one confessing God in word alone, he denies him with his deeds. This is knowing Jesus according to mere opinion. Therefore, it is no paradox if the evil spirit says to the Jewish exorcists, I know Jesus and the following, just as other demons used to say, with a loud cry, to Jesus himself, I know who you are, the Holy One of God.^[1] To these you can add the passage, even demons believe and they tremble,^[2] for it provides no evidence that evil spirits have faith accounted as righteousness. We must also say with regard to our current passage that just as those who receive cures from Jesus do so according to their faith, so those calling on Jesus for the expulsion of a demon or for another cure accomplish this in accord with the faith they have. Here, however, the evil spirit says, Who are you that call on Jesus, for I do not perceive the power that I have often experienced when his name is called.