under the other, and truly say, Take your choice! What! the same system amid so much diversity? Undoubtedly. Perhaps no single sentence would be found expressed in identically the same words in any two of these works; certainly there are great variations to be found in them in forms of statement, even in conception, even (within limits) in doctrine itself. But the system abides in all. And it so abides in all as to be just as easily identifiable and just as strict a conception, as the special mode of statement of any one of the works separately. Why, one might as well say that he has no clear conception of a horse apart from one special horse, as that he has no strict conception of "the system of doctrine" apart from any one expression of it. No, the conception of the "system" is as clear as that of the ipsissima verba; and therefore subscription for system of doctrine is strict subscription. But it is also liberal subscription, which subscription to the ipsissima verba would not be.
All this being so, is it not a fair argument against revision that, if we still remain Calvinists, there is no call for revision of our Confession in order to relieve the consciences of our office-bearers? There may be other reasons why we desire revision—though good and sufficient reasons have not been published to the world as yet; but since we sign only for system of doctrine, there cannot be any stringent necessity for revision arising out of wounded consciences, provided those consciences be Calvinistic, and heartily believe the system of doctrine which lies expressed in our Confession.
