As I have hitherto troubled the Reader with little Quotation, and it being now so necessary to let us into the _true Spirit_ of the Doctor's Belief, notwithstanding any seeming Appearance to the contrary, I hope to be pardoned. You perceive here, that all are called, but the _greatest Part_, in such a weak and imperfect Manner, that is out of _their Power_ to embrace the Call, and so they perish as _unavoidably_ and _unjustly_, as though no such Call were extended. The Distinction, which is here made between moral and natural Necessity, the Doctor thinks sufficient to silence all Objections, _Page_ 285. I have endeavour'd to shew the contrary, and I hope with better Success. Again, what the Doctor observes, _Page_ 245, is worthy of Notice,--"Though there must be a _very good Sense_, in which _Christ_ may be said to die for all Men, because the Scripture uses this Language; yet it does not follow, that the Doctrine of Universal Redemption is found there: I cannot find that Scripture once asserts that _Christ_ redeemed all Men, or _died_ to redeem them all." This is, I think, manifestly a _Contradiction_, and the Doctor, it seems, believes it, only because the Scripture, as he thinks, reveals it. Where is the Difference between _dying to save all Men_, and, _dying to redeem all Men?_ And yet _Jesus Christ_, it seems, did the one, but not the other. According to him (the Doctor) the Scripture assures us, that is, the Word of God assures us, both that _Christ did_, and that he _did not_ die to redeem all Mankind; which is a flat Contradiction. In what good Sense, I should be glad to know, could _Christ_ be said to _die_ for _all Men_, when God purposely, and peremptorily, _with-holds_ proper Assistances to restore the _greatest Part?_ If this be to die for _all Men_, it is certainly not in a good, but in a very bad Sense. But, perhaps, the _Doctor_ means, _that Man, consider'd in his primitive Rectitude, has Power sufficient to obey the Gospel as proposed to Sinners, and that_ Adam's _Posterity, consider'd as fallen in him, are under the same Obligation to keep the Law, as_ Adam _was_. But of this I have already taken due Notice, and therefore I need only put the Doctor in mind of a few Words of his, drop'd _Page_ 340, in his _Consideration of the State of dying Infants_. He thinks, "it would be by no Means agreeable, to have them condemned to a wretched Resurrection and eternal Misery, only because they were born of _Adam_, the original Transgressor." This is a rational Sentiment, and I wish it were well improved; for it is better to suppose them entering on a new State of Trial, or downright Annihilation to be their Portion: But what Havock does this Concession make with the Doctor's other Doctrines, of _Christ's dying for all Men in a good Sense, of considering us in point of Obligation to keep the Law inviolable, the same as Adam was before his Fall;_ of God's either granting _no Aids_ to enable us to _do this_, or such _as are too