To Elector John Frederick and Duke John Ernst. August 26, 1542.
Grace and peace from God our Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord forever. Most Serene and Illustrious, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious and Merciful Lord. On the next Tuesday, Your Grace wrote to us that a midwife had confessed that in Kahla and elsewhere she had baptized several children in distress with the Word of God alone, without water, which Your Grace considers an abuse and contrary to holy baptism, and that we should tell Your Grace how to baptize them.
who write, how it is to be kept with the same children and otherwise, where such would possibly still occur. Thereupon we humbly tell E. G. thus: that we consider it, as E. G. from a high intellect can also well think, that the midwife or womb did not have such from herself; therefore it is highly necessary that a diligent inquisition or investigation happens, that E. G. know where this comes from: because also the woman refers to the priest at Kahla and to still another
2130 s. 64,317-319. IV. Hptst. - B. On the Sacram. of Holy Baptism esp. W. x, 2614-2617. 21Z1
confesses, such certainly comes from a false teaching.
Thirteen years ago, I was challenged by D. Pommer from Hamburg on the borders of Denmark against the sacrament abusers; since they were overcome with divine truth, one was secretly stated before the duke, who is now king of Denmark, and therefore also addressed, but also secretly, that he should have let himself be heard that one could baptize without water: but since he denied it, and such was not taught publicly in the country, I advised Sr, not to bring such a thing into the public disputation, for I considered it to be a fool's work and a fictitious thing. Now, however, I see from this woman's deeds that such erroneous teaching existed at one time; although I have not heard anything about it in the meantime, because now. It is done secretly, and the fanciers rely on denial, therefore a good inquisition is needed.
But of such baptism without water we say with E. G. that it is certainly an abuse of divine name and in addition a void thing, that is, no baptism. It is certainly a new devil's doctrine and devil's lie, which nevertheless boasts that it is God's word, so the woman says of her void baptism, is an atrocious lie. She says: I baptized without water, only with God's word, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For now, this is a mocking lie: I have baptized; and yet says: without water.
The word "baptize" implies water, because it means to bathe or immerse or wet with water. Christ commanded us to baptize with water, John 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, just as the apostles and others baptized with water, as you can see in the book of Acts. Secondly, this is the devil's lie, that she says: only with God's word. God's word in baptism is Christ's command; but Christ commanded to baptize with water; therefore this supposed baptism does not happen with God's word, but without God's word and straight against God's word, that is, Christ's command. Third, that it adds to such blasphemy and falsehood: In the name of etc., which is an abominable misuse of the name of God against the other commandment.
Therefore, my lords, let such infants be considered as not baptized nor baptized to salvation, as Christ commanded, and let them preach against such sacrilegious baptism; for such a baptism is just as much a baptism as that would be a sacrament, if I spoke God's word into the air without bread and wine: Take and eat, this is my body etc. Much unpleasantness also comes from the fact that women want to baptize their own children, whom one can well advise otherwise for salvation. To God, we offer our pater noster submissively. Christ be with E. G. forever etc. Wittenberg, Friday after Bartholomew, Aug. 26, 1542.
Martinus Luther, D.
Johann Bugenhagen Pommer, D.