We can almost see with our eyes, and feel with our hands, that this man here intended to oppose the belief of the common Romanists. He makes use of two special arguments, with which he sufficiently denies, yea, refutes, the Roman infant baptism. His first argument opposes the belief of those who were wont to tie salvation to the elementary water of baptism, and, consequently, to save them, as it were, baptized the infants; in opposition to which he averred that the element of water without the word of God is merely an element, and no sacrament; but that the water becomes a sacrament through the word of God, not because the latter is spoken, but because it is believed. And thus he removes with his first argument also another error of the Romanists, who imagined that in baptism, through the saying of a few words, the water was consecrated and made a means of salvation; which he refutes, however, by the declaration that the consecration is not effected by the speaking of the word, but because it is believed.
If then, in baptism, the water is ineffectual without the word, and the word has no virtue unless it is believed, as Albinus declares, he flatly opposes infant baptism, since there the water only is used, without the instructing word, and without the latter being believed by the infants.
His second argument is a sufficient refutation of those who administered baptism to infants, without regard as to whether they had intelligent minds, true faith, and the fruits of God’s Spirit, or not; for, this belief he opposes when he says that in baptism there must be not only three visible things, 1. the body, 2. the water, 3. the teacher, but also three invisible things, 1. the soul [mind], (that is, an intelligent soul, for otherwise the soul cannot properly be so called); 2. faith (that is, that which consists in a sure confidence, for this is peculiar to true faith, Hebr. 11:1); 3. the Spirit of God (that is, that which is fruitful in virtues), for the Spirit of God is known by its fruits, Gal. 5:22. But who has ever been found that was able to discover such works of the soul, of faith, and of the Spirit, in infants? without which, indeed, baptism has no virtue, as conclusively follows from the arguments of Albinus, which are in accordance with the teachings of the holy word of God. How this harmonizes with infant baptism, the impartial may judge.
Of regeneration, Albinus, in the 7th penitential psalm (_page 510_), says: “Thou art my God; thou hast created me. I can be re-created by no one but thee, by whom I have been created. Thou hast created me by thy Word, which, O God, abideth with thee. Thou createst me again by the Word, which has become flesh for our sakes.”
The Romanists were accustomed sometimes to call baptism, by which they meant infant baptism, a regeneration, without respect to newness of life, merely on account of the water, which, with the speaking of a few words, was administered to the infants. But Albinus here declares that as he was created by the word, even so he is re-created and regenerated by the word. He says nothing at all about the water; not to depreciate the outward administration of water baptism, but to show that recreation or regeneration does not lie in it; for, that the same must be effected by the word, whereupon the administration of water baptism follows, as a sign of it, seems to be the burden of his whole argument.
Moreover, it is also deserving of notice, that in the above passage, touching the incarnation of Jesus Christ, he says, that the Word (namely, by which all things were made) became flesh for our sakes, which accords with our confession, and also agrees with John 1:14.