Mr. Groves has referred to the effects of system. One of the most important of these 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.
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, its efficacy, as a motive to grateful returns, is limited to those who recognize and value it. A patriot has delivered millions of ignorant, suspicious, ungrateful countrymen. His services are to be used as an argument for joining in some effort for his honour; and those who acknowledge and bless his exertions are especially addressed, and reminded that "he loved _you_, laboured for _you_, achieved happiness for _you_." Would this contain even an insinuation, that they were the exclusive objects of his disinterested ardour? In such an address not only would the common benefit be mentioned peculiarly as a good bestowed on themselves; but their acknowledgment of it, and their distinguishing susceptibility to the feeling of its worth, would be referred and appealed to, as reasons why that was looked for and demanded of them, which from others might be as justly asked, but not so naturally expected. Such appeals are the apostolic epistles to the churches, as contrasted with their proclamation of Christ to the world.