A49258:283
A treatise of effectual calling and election In XVI. sermons, on 2 Peter 1.10.…
A treatise of effectual calling and election In XVI. sermons, on 2 Peter 1.10. Wherein a Christian may discern, whether yet he be effectually called and elected. And what course he ought to take that he may attain the assurance thereof. Preached by that faithful servant of Christ, Mr. Christopher Love, late minister of Laurence Jury, London.A treatise of effectual calling and election In XVI. sermons, on 2 Peter 1.10. Wherein a Christian may discern, whether yet he be effectually called and elected. And what course he ought to take that he may attain the assurance thereof. Preached by that faithfull servant of Christ, Mr. Christopher Love, late minister of Laurence Jury, London.
London: printed for John Rothwell, 1655
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Lastly, They may relieve the necessities of the godly, yet not be effectually called. Now here are high expressions of love, yet it is evident, all these may be, where calling is not.
But now its true, in some cases love to the people of God, may prove a good evidence of ones effectual call; to wit, if it have these four qualifications.
1. If you love the people of God under this notion, because godly, it is an evidence of your effectual call, because there is good in them, more then because you receive good from them. Hence it is John tells us wicked men may love a godly man, because they have good from him. 2 John 1. To the elect Lady, whom I love in the truth, for the truths sake dwelling in her. John did not love the Lady, because she was a Lady, or because she was a goodly woman, but for the riuths sake that dwelt in her. Whereas wicked men they love a godly man, but not as godly, under that notion. Therefore you shall see the difference between Johns love to a godly person, and Claudius Lysias a man unconverted. Acts 23.27. Claudius Lysias tells you there, that Paul was in danger of his life, and with an Army I rescued him. Now why was it he did so? did he love Paul because a godly man? no, for mark the next words: With ⟨p. 83⟩an Army I rescued him, because it was told me he was a Roman. He loved Paul for his Nation, not for his conversion: had he loved Paul as Paul, Paul as a Christian, this were an Argument of grace; but to love Paul as a Roman, because of Country and Nation sake, this was no evidence of his call. So