If this be merely a question about the propriety
of applying the term Calvinism to any system
which does not comprise all the tenets espoused
by Calvin^ it is a mere '^ strife of words," and
undeserving of further discussion. Only let it bcf
observed/ that Dr. Tomline ^s not justified in this
case by the common use of terms of this descrip-
tion. It may be questioned whether it is in his
lordship's power to specify a single instance of
an appellation derived from the name of any
eminent writer^ especially a voluminous one^ and
used to denote a theological system^ which in its
common acceptation includes every sentiment
maintained by the theologian whose napie it
bears. »

If this be necessary to constitute Calvinism, it
is easy to show a confession of faith framed by
Calvin himself which cannot be denominated
Calvinistic-^a confession of faith drawn up by
that reformer to ,be presented to the French
King oh behalf of the Protestants of Paris.
But in writing against the modern Calvinists>
is it not extremely disingenuous i«i his lordships
to attribute to them tenets which he knows they
disavow^ to represent Ihem as responsible for con«
elusions which they abhor^ and to argue on the
supposition of their holding principles which
were never held by Calvin himself> or by any



persdtis called by his name ? Can this mode of
proceeding be justified by his lordship's bare as-
sertion, that "Calvinism ^ill not admit of par*
*^ tial adoption ; and that if you embrace one of
'' its tenets you must embrace all ? " The absur-
dity ^ V(^ell as disingenuousness of this polemical
artifice is too evident to need further animadver-
sften.
