pp.96, 110. sqq. 132), since the writers wished to persuade themselves that their views did not derogate from Baptism, they sometimes speak of its benefits, although whenever they explain what they thereby mean, it is the sealing only of benefits before received.
The Liturgy (if one may so call it) of Zuingli was adopted almost verbally in Belgium; the Service framed by Calvin was introduced by Beza into France, and was adopted, with scarcely verbal alterations, by Polanus among the German refugees settled at Glastonbury in Edward Sixth's time, and afterwards at Frankfort and Strasburg: the form of the English at Geneva, afterwards adopted in Scotland, is longer in its exposition, and briefer in its prayer, than that of Calvin; but in substance is borrowed from it. The Scotch Directory (1645) contains no form at all, but only a sketch of the topics to be used in exposition, prayer, or thanksgiving, expressing throughout the theory invented by Zuingli and transmitted through Calvin. The Service which Alasco drew up for the German Protestants settled under Edward VI. in London is more peculiar in character, and appears to be independent: he seems to have acted, more than the rest, upon the view of rendering Baptism beneficial to the by-standers, since on this theory it had ceased to be so to the child. Hence, instead of the ordinary "reformed" expression that "Baptism belonged not only to us but to our seed," it sets forth that it "belongs not only to their children, but to the whole Church;" the prayer, accordingly, previous to the Baptism of the child, is mainly for "those who look on the ministry of Baptism," and hardly and but incidentally for the child.
As in the Confessions then, so also in the Services, there are two forms of language, Calvin speaking out much less openly than Zuingli. Hence the French Liturgy was even claimed by some who held that "regeneration was ordinarily conferred on Elect Infants at Baptism," as expressing their views (ap. Witsius de efficacia Baptismi § 42.) One would hardly argue against this with Witsius (l.c. § 49.) that "those accounted as the most consummate Theologians in France understood it otherwise, and held that elect infants were only visibly initiated by Baptism, and had previously received saving grace:" for it is well known how readily such a document is bent to persons' previous views, as even our own Service has been held not to contain the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. But, in truth, enough of the language of Beza's service is sufficiently clear, although he speaks ambiguously of the "fruit and efficacy of Baptism." For one who prays God to confirm the grace given to the child about to be baptized, "and to declare that He is His God and Saviour," evidently must hold that this grace was given before the use of the Sacrament, which is the "reformed" theory, as opposed to the doctrine of the old Church, that grace was given through it. Thus in our own Baptismal service, we pray God to "increase in us
