1. Recently I was reading Calvin's Institutes, where he denies that Paul rebaptized the 12 disciples from Ephesus in water (Acts 19:1-7). 2. In another place, Calvin believes that the baptism of John and the Christian baptism are the same, with one exception, John baptized pointing to Jesus, while Christian baptism is in the name of Jesus (4.15.7). 3. Rather he believes that in Acts 19:1-7, the disciples were baptized with the baptism of the Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them: "But I deny that they were rebaptised (see Calv. Instruct. adv. Anabapt.). What then is meant by the words, “They were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus”? Some interpret that they were only instructed in sound doctrine by Paul; but I would rather interpret more simply, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit, were given by the laying on of hands. These are sometimes designated under the name of baptism. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the words of the Lord concerning the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. And Peter relates that the same words occurred to him when he saw these gifts poured out on Cornelius and his family and kindred. There is nothing repugnant to this interpretation in its being afterwards added, “When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19:6)." —Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.18 (Emphasis mine). 4. Calvin further observes, "For Luke does not narrate two different things, but follows the form of narrative common to the Hebrews, who first give the substance, and then explain more fully. This any one may perceive from the mere context. For he says, “When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” In this last sentence is described what the nature of the baptism was."—Institutes of the Christian Religion 5. So Acts 19:5, 6 do not relate two different acts but rather one. V. 5 is a summary and v. 6 is the explanation, so says Calvin. 6. But several commentators would disagree with him. I am also hard-pressed to see what Calvin saw. They very Greek construction of vv.5, 6 and a similar situation in chp. 8:12-17 would not allow me to agree with Calvin at this point.