Grace and peace! On the question which you have proposed to me in your last letter regarding conditional baptism,my dear Wenceslaus, I have spoken with Master Philip and after struggling carefully with the matter we have come to the conclusion that the conditional-way of baptism should absolutely be done away with and if one is not certain whether one has been baptized or not, or does not know, he should simply be baptized without condition as though he had never been baptized. And our basis is that a conditional-way of baptizing expresses nothing neither denying nor affirming,neither granting or taking away. Thus assume someone were conditionally baptized he would afterward be forced to say: Now I know just as little and am just as uncertain as before whether I was baptized as must anyone who baptized me. Since if the earlier baptism were valid (this is not known to me whether I want it to be or not) then the later (because it was done in the conditional manner) is nothing. Now if the earlier baptism was not valid (which necessarily I do not know) then the later baptism is nothing because it is uncertain and must be so long as the first is uncertain because it is grounded on the condition that the first which is uncertain and for this reason both remain always uncertain. However, it must be granted that the first is certain at least for the baptizer who afterwards set aside the witness of the church. It would be safer in these cases to make the mistake of baptizing again (wiedertaufen =anabaptism)if in any circumstance a mistake were made (which we do not believe) than through the offer of an uncertain baptism which actually would be sinful because then it would not truly be a repeated baptism (Wiederfaufe) but an uncertain re-baptism, that is, a true and certain baptism,we oppose to an uncertain baptism. In this way we do not become raging Anabaptists. Since they,as you know, condemn openly the certain first baptism and do not want it to be called a baptism. We,moreover, would let the fate of the uncertain baptism be left to God's judgment and offer a certain baptism. This we believe is to to act confidently and rightly. Further when someone baptizes with an altered formula, as you write, : in the name of the Father and of the Son and of Saint Michael we are certain that it is absolutely not a baptism and also not a conditional one.
With the condition-manner of the jealousy law (Numbers 5) that is a different matter. The Law and the Gospel are different things. The Gospel is a promise of God which must be certain. The Law deals with matters of our works and can be let go or held to and easily permits a condition. Then also the Law addressed the hearts of men which we cannot discern. However, the Gospel offers quite simply the things of God, whether we discern them or not, that men may benefit, though we may know or are not certain whether men have sinned against the Law.
Since I am busy I have written confusingly and hastily : you will put it in order and make the best to be brought together out this inept forest of my writing.
I thank you for the gift of oranges. There was a little wash basin included together with a two-armed light which I am not sure you have given as you did not indicate anything. Be it well with you and pray for me. Wittenberg on May 12,1531. Your Martin Luther.
NOTES: There you have the whole letter. Maybe the underlying assumption of the Church then was that to rebaptize was sinful somehow?
According to ML Nuernberg, "the eyes and ears of the world", has everything including the best oranges. I think the first spring-loaded pocket watch was invented there at St. Aegidius monastery and one given to ML several years previously
by the inventor of logrithms and ill-fated predictor of the end of the world for 1534 whose name I am trying to recall but maybe long-time readers will remember.
No comments:
Post a Comment