"Consistent With"?

I have noticed, from my familiarity with Hardshell writings, how the Hardshells will often say about the writings of Gill, or of the old confessions, that "our views are substantially the same with" those writings, or "are consistent with." What is all this but a ploy? A way to fool the simple and unlearned?

Are the writings of Gill and the old confessions "consistent with" or "substantially the same as" Hardshell views on regeneration and the means of salvation? Are they not rather just the opposite? i.e. "inconsistent with" or "substantially different" from Hardshell views?

Also, if the writings of Gill and the old confessions are about the same on the doctrine of regeneration, then why have the Hardshells declared non-fellowship with all those who agree with Gill and the confessions?