Baptism is not a mere church rite, but a divine ordinance (institutio divina), which is to be in force till the end of time and must be observed by all Christians, Mark 16, 15. 16; Matt. 28, 19. 20. The command to baptize was given by Christ as emphatically as was that of preaching the Gospel, a fact which the apostles duly recognized, Acts 2, 38; 10, 48. This must be maintained despite the fact that it was St. Paul's special mission to evangelize rather than to baptize, 1 Cor. 1, 14. 15; for throughout his epistles he teaches both the necessity and the efficacy of Baptism, Rom. 6, 3. 4; Gal. 3, 27; Titus 3, 4-7; etc. Hence, if Quakers, the Salvation Army, and other enthusiasts reject Baptism as a mere "ceremony, which is not binding on the conscience," they reject God's own institution and ordinance. However, their rejection of Holy Baptism is only a corollary to their repudiation of the doctrine of the means of grace in general.
Modern rationalistic theologians (Holtzmann) deny the divine institution of Holy Baptism, though they admit that Baptism was a common practise in the early Christian Church. But all their arguments (Paul baptized only in exceptional cases, 1 Cor. 1, 14; Peter himself did not baptize, Acts 10, 48; Jesus did not baptize, but only taught, John 3, 22; 4, 2) cannot overthrow the clear words of Matt. 28, 19. 20 and Mark 16, 15. 16, where the divine institution of Holy Baptism is unmistakably taught.
Modern rationalizing theologians of a more conservative tendency indeed admit the divine institution of Baptism, but object to the so-called "legalistic character" of this ordinance. In reply to this rather vague argument we say that the Church's obligation to baptize is no more "legalistic" than is its duty to proclaim the Gospel. If men can be saved without Baptism, the reason is not that Baptism is "more legalistic" than is the proclamation of the Gospel, but that God in His infinite grace offers to the sinner already through the Word of the Gospel His entire grace with complete pardon. However, this fact does not make Baptism superfluous; for God, who is "superabundantly rich in His grace," wishes to give us "counsel and aid against sin not merely in one way" Smalcald Art., Part III, Art. IV. Assuredly, our blessed Lord, who has instituted Baptism, does not want us to despise this holy and salutary Sacrament, Luke 7, 30.
The divine command to baptize always calls for water as the visible element that should be used in this Sacrament, John 3, 23; Acts 8, 36, so that the employment of any substitute renders Baptism invalid. All those of whose baptism we can obtain no reliable proof must be regarded as not having been baptized. (Cf. Luther, St. L., X, 2128 ff.)
While the use of water in Baptism is necessary, the manner in which it is applied (modus applicandi) is optional, since the Greek verb βαπτίζειν means not only to immerse, but also to wash (cf. Luke 11, 38; Mark 7, 3, where βαπτίζεσθαι means as much as νίπτεσθαι, or wash). Therefore our Lutheran Catechism rightly holds that to baptize means to "apply water by washing, pouring, sprinkling, or immersing." To those who insist that Baptism must be by immersion because it symbolizes burial into death, Rom. 6, 3. 4, our dogmaticians reply that Baptism signifies not only burial, but also the washing away of sins, Acts 22, 16, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, Titus 3, 5. 6, and the sprinkling with the blood of Christ, Heb. 10, 22, cp. with Ex. 24, 8; Heb. 9, 19; 1 Cor. 10, 2, so that any one of the different modes of applying the water symbolizes its meaning.
If the objection is made that immersion is necessary because the entire person must be cleansed by Baptism, we answer that the cleansing power of Baptism does not lie in the amount of water used, but in the Sacrament itself, so that whoever receives it in any form is completely cleansed, John 13, 9. 10.
In passing, we may remind the reader that usually those who insist upon immersion because "Baptism must symbolize the burial into death" deny the very efficacy of the Sacrament to bury the baptized into Christ's death, that is, to secure for him the benefits of Christ's vicarious death. While they insist upon the form, they reject the essential part of Baptism; they retain the shell, but discard the kernel.
All objections to the divine institution of Holy Baptism have their source in man's conceited, unbelieving reason, which wilfully sets aside Holy Scripture as the only source and rule of faith. When men declare that Baptism is superfluous - just as are all the means of grace - because only the "baptism of the Spirit and fire" is required (Quakers); or because it is a "Jewish ceremony" (Salvation Army); or because Baptism is a mere church rite (Modernists; rationalistic theologians); or because it was meant only for the primitive Church (Socinians); or because the Trinitarian formula of Matt. 28, 19 is an interpolation, since the concept of the Trinity, as expressed in this passage, was foreign to the mind of the primitive Church (modernistic theologians; cp. 2 Cor. 13, 14; Titus 3, 4-7; 1 Pet. 1, 10-12); or because the account of St. Matthew is unhistorical, since Christ did not rise from the dead; or because, in view of 1 Cor. 1, 14; John 3, 22; 4, 2, the passage Matt. 28, 19 cannot be regarded as a baptismal command issued by Christ, they prove that they wilfully set themselves against Holy Scripture and exalt their blind reason above the Word of God.