Imperial law permits armed resistance to the governing authority in case of flagrant injustice. At this point we said that we did not know whether the law states this. If the emperor has bound22 himself in such a way, then we will let him be bound but it would be their responsibility.23 Since we teach:24 "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,"25 and since it is the emperor's [law] that one is to resist him in case of flagrant injustice, it would not be up to us either to alter or to improve26 the emperor's law. And so the matter rested on this syllogism: Whatever the emperor or the Imperial law has ordained has to be observed; the law, however, ordains resisting the emperor in such a case;27 therefore one has to resist [the emperor], etc. Until now we have taught the major premise, [that is,] that one is to obey the sword in matters of state. We have, however, neither affirmed the minor premise, nor do we know [whether it is correct]. Therefore I would draw no conclusion; but we referred the whole matter back to the legal experts, that they might handle it. We do not wish, however, to settle [this issue], or counsel, impel, or urge anyone to do anything other than this major premise: the emperor is to be obeyed. If [the legal experts] could prove the minor premise, and this is not our task,28 then we, who have taught the major premise, cannot deny the conclusion. And then one would resist the emperor not on the basis of that dictum of natural and divine law29 "One may fight force with force," and of the others which we have discussed, but on the basis of a new law which goes beyond natural law—[that is,] on the basis of the law of state and the Imperial law, by which the emperor has renounced his law30—[for] we cannot undermine the use and efficacy of a law of state and of the Imperial law. Thus we theologians have maintained our earlier position,31 have postponed a decision on that new [legal opinion], and are awaiting the proof of the legal experts, which we have not yet seen.
Veit32 will report the rest.33 Hurriedly, Wittenberg, May 12, 1531 In connection with the sacrament of baptism, the evangelicalchurch was confronted with the custom of the papal church of conditionally baptizing children.2 This conditional baptism was used for foundlings, or if parents or midwives were not certain whether an emergency baptism had been correctly performed, or in any case in which one did not know whether a person had been correctly baptized or baptized at all. In these cases the priest was to use the regular liturgy of baptism but was to say: "I do not baptize you again, but if you have not yet been baptized, then I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, A men."3
Letter No. 240 is Luther's opinion on this practice. The letter is a reply to an inquiry made by Link4 in Nürnberg. Here, in connection with the work on the Brandenburg-Nürnberg Church Ordinance, 5 a controversy on the practice of conditional baptism had developed.6 On the one side stood Link and others who either openly rejected the practice or did not wish to adopt a precise statement on it; on the other side stood Andrew Osiander7 who advocated the retention of the practice.
Luther categorically rejects the practice of conditional baptism,8 and then develops a detailed argumentation for his position. His main reason is that conditional baptism turns the sacrament of baptism into a matter of uncertainty, while baptism is and should be the most certain assurance of a man's salvation. Concluding his argumentation, Luther briefly discusses Numbers 5:19–20, a passage which Osiander had used to substantiate his position. In the last paragraph of the letter Luther thanks Link for some oranges; he also inquires whether Link had intended him to have a small washbasin and a two-arm candelabrum, both of which had arrived with the oranges.
On Wenceslas Link, see LW 48, 169 f.
Text in Latin: WA, Br 6, 96–97.
Regarding the question of conditional baptism, which you have presented to me in your recent letter, my Wenceslas, I have consulted with Master9 Philip,10 and after carefully considering the issue, we arrived at the following decision: Conditional baptism must be abolished in the church. In case one either doubts11 or