because it is Scriptural, to asserting that they receive it in so far as it is Scriptural. A relaxing of the formula beyond such limits as secure strict acceptance of the Creed in its essential meaning as Scriptural and true, is simply breaking down all barriers and demitting the whole function of the Church as guardian of the truth.
3. It may easily be inferred from what I have just said that I do not think our present formula a lax one. It is a liberal one; as liberal as it ought to be; as liberal as it is safe to be; as liberal as is consistent with the Church's witness to and guardianship over the truth of God. But it is in no sense a lax formula. It is, on the contrary, a binding formula—a strict formula—in the use of which no man can honestly accept our Confession of Faith and not be a sound Calvinist. And I need not say that this is just what I think it ought to be.
4. But I think it very important that we should not allow our minds to be confused as to what it is to which this strict formula so strictly binds us. What this is, is to be settled not by our preferences, but by its own terms. What the ordainee is required "sincerely to receive and adopt" is "the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures" (Form of Government, xv.). This is not the same as requiring him to receive the Confession of Faith in its ipsissima verba, or in all its forms of statement. That would scarcely be a liberal formula. Nor is it the same as merely requiring the reception of the Confession for substance of doctrine. That would not be a safe formula. What is "nominated in the bond" is "system of doctrine"; and that is historically what has always been understood by it. As such, it is both a liberal and a safe formula. Liberal, because it does not bind to the mere letter; safe, because it strictly holds the ordainee to the system of doc-
