e is, that opposite systems lead men to take such
opposite views of the evidence itself by which the truth of the
conflicting opinions must be tried. Of this he here furnishes an
instance, in saying so strongly that the "sovereignty of God's
government, and the individuality of God's election," are "represented
by the Apostles as the most overwhelming reasons for unlimited
devotion to his service, who has thus chosen us." Many of the very
passages, doubtless, to which he would turn for the establishment of
this assertion, would be enjoyed by others, as proofs how available
is the general "kindness of God our Saviour towards _man_," as an
argument for loving and serving him. When Paul persuades the Ephesians
to "walk in love as Christ also hath loved _us_, and hath given
himself for _us_;"[44] when Peter recommends to his brethren patient
meekness in suffering, by the consideration that "Christ also suffered
for _us_, the just for the unjust,"[45] the power of this over the
mind of one man depends on his understanding by "_us_" the fallen
world; and of another, on its reminding him only of distinguishing
personal obligations to sovereign election. Now, suasives to holiness,
or what are felt as such, as they continually recur in Scripture,
produce on a devout mind a much deeper conviction of the truth of the
doctrines from which they are derived, than a formal assertion can.
When, by the same expressions, one man is habitually carried to this,
another to that, view of the Divine character, and each experiences,
that in what he sees, there is a practical tendency towards the state
of the heart and form of life at which he aims as good: this becomes
to each, as instances accumulate, a far stronger reason than bare
propositions, could be for growing in confidence, that the belief
which thus impresses him is indeed the truth of God.

[44] Eph. v. 2.

[45] 1 Pet. ii. 21.

And one accustomed to observe the effects of system will not wonder
that expressions like those above cited, still less that those in
which Christ is spoken of as having "loved _the church_ and given
himself for _it_," should thus come to be regarded as containing an
argument for a selective atonement. It is by such a doctrine being
perceived in them, that they practically impress the feelings of many.
And yet, in truth, how are they inconsistent with the universal love
of God and propitiation of Christ? Of course, where a common benefit
is received,