In the following excerpt from Sedgewick (one of the WCF divines), we see a reference to a hypothetical covenant. In this section, Sedgewick does not condemn the doctrine, nor specifically endorse it. In the Tables, though, he says:

There is an absolute Covenant,
And an Hypothetical Covenant,

From my searching of this work so far, it is not apparent that Sedgewick later develops this idea in this work.

Sedgewick:

Of the Covenant in special.

I shall now descend to something more special, to show unto you, what that Covenant which God makes between himself and his people.

There are those who distinguish of a twofold Covenant.

1. There is Foedus absolutum, which is such a promise of God, as takes in no stipulation or condition at all, that runs altogether upon absolute terms; such a Covenant was that which God made with Noah, that he would never down the world any more. Gen 9.11. and such a kind of Covenant is that, when God promises to give faith and perseverance unto his elect, Heb. 8.10, &c. Both these Covenants are absolute, and without any condition; there is nothing in them but what is folded up in the promises themselves.

2. Foedus Hypotheticum, which is a gracious promise on God’s part, with an obligation to duty; for although it be natural to God, to recompense any good, as it is to punish any evil; And although man does owe unto God whatsoever God covenants with him for; yet it so pleases his Divine Will thus to deal with us, that in binding of us to duty unto himself, he binds himself in reward unto us, and promises such and such a recompence, upon the condition of such and such a performance.

Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (Printed by Edmund Mottershed, for Adoniram Byfield, and are to be sold by Joseph Cranford, at the Sign of the Castle and Lyon in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1661), 6. [I should note, that by posting this comment from Sedgewick, I am not suggesting that Sedgewick was an Amyraldian or even sympathetic to hypothetical universalism.]

James Saurin on God’s Will for the Salvation of Sinners¹

1) St. Peter, as we said before, St. Peter meant to refute the odious objections of some profane persons of his own time, who pretended to make the doctrine of a universal judgment doubtful, and who said, in order to obscure its truth, or enervate its evidence, “Where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep all things remain as they were?” 2 Pet. iii. 4. I am aware that this comment is disputed, and some have thought that the destruction of Jerusalem was the subject of this whole chapter, and not the end of the world; but, however averse we are to the decisive tone, we will venture to demonstrate that the apostle had far greater objects in view than the fatal catastrophes of the Jewish nation. This I think clearly appears,

1. By the nature of the objection which libertines made. “Where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep all things remain as they were?” These libertines did not mean that from the beginning of the world the commonwealth of Israel had suffer ed no considerable alteration; they did not mean from that false principle, to draw this false consequence, that Jerusalem would al ways remain as it then was. How could they be such novices in the history of their nation, as not to know the sad vicissitudes, the banishments and the plunderings, which the Jews had undergone? They meant, that though some particular changes had happened in some parts of the world, the generality of creatures had always remained in the same state; thence they pretended to conclude that they would always remain so.

This appears further by the manner in which the apostle answers them in the verses preceding the text. He alleges against them the example of the deluge, “This,” says he, “they are willingly ignorant of, that the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished,” ver. 5, 6. To this he adds, “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the things that are therein, shall be burnt up,” ver. 10. On which we reason thus: The world that was formerly destroyed with water, is the same which shall be destroyed by fire; but the world that was destroyed with water, was not the Jewish nation only: St. Peter then predicts a destruction more general than that of the Jews.

3. This appears further by this consideration. The people to whom St. Peter wrote, did not live in Judea, but were dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. These people could have but little to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. Whether Jesus Christ terminated the duration of that city suddenly or slowly, was a question that regarded them indirectly only; but the day of which St. Peter speaks, interests all Christians, and St. Peter exhorts all Christians to prepare for it, as being personally concerned in it.

Read the rest of this entry »

God desires to save men:

1) For which cause Paul also willing to confirm the old law, forbids us to “bear the yoke with unbelievers.” Also it behooves us to mark the goodness of God, which suffered the word of the Gospel, whereby life and salvation is offered unto man, to be preached unto those that were polluted with such filthy lust. He is therefore truly that God which desires to have men saved, and wills not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should repent and live. Hereunto belong many examples of the Gospel, wherein we read that Christ of a certain singular favor and familiarity, offered salvation unto Publicans and Harlots. Radulpe Gualthere, An Hundred, threescore and fifteen Sermons, uppon the Acts of the Apostles, trans., by Iohn Bridges, (London: no publ, 1572), 828.

2) The first thing we have to note, is how Christ commanded Paul now friendly to arise and to stand up on his feet, whom erewhile he had horribly thrown down as his enemy, and persecuted. But this thing happened not, (as we have other-wheres heard) before his heart was pulled down, and that he humbly inquired what the will of God was, and acknowledged him to be his Lord. Which thing yet he would never have done, but that he felt in his mind and affections working of the Spirit of Christ. This truly is a notable example of God’s goodness, which even then evidently declares itself, when he seemed to be angry. For he will not be chiding with us, but forasmuch as he desires to have men saved, he observes this scope and end in his judgements, that he will have men rather instructed to salvation, than destroyed. Neither will he draw forth his whips and scourges, until he see he cannot prevail by his words. Neither yet does he beat us for any other end, than to have us convert unto him, and to trust to be saved: whereof we have both testimonies and examples everywhere in the Scriptures, wherewith we may confirm our wavering faith in all troubles and adversities. Radulpe Gualthere, An Hundred, threescore and fifteen Sermons, uppon the Acts of the Apostles, trans., by Iohn Bridges, (London: no publ, 1572), 858-859.

Read the rest of this entry »

Manton:

The love of John 3:16 antecedent to electing love:^1:

1) The ground of all that love God beareth to us is for Christ’s sake. There is indeed an antecedent love showed in giving us to Christ, and Christ to us: John iii. 16, ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son That whoso ever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ The first cause of Christ’s love to us was obedience to the Father ; the Son loved us, because the Father required it ; though after wards God loved us because Christ merited it. All consequent benefits are procured by the merit of Christ. The Father, that is first in order of persons, is first in order of working, and can have no higher cause than his own will and purpose. And besides, there is an obligation established to every person. Absolute elective love is the Father’s property and personal operation; but then his eternal purpose is brought to pass in and through Jesus Christ. Thomas Manton, “Sermon 40″ in Works 11:76.

The love of John 3:16 is the love of benevolence:

1) Strictly, it is taken for our complacency and delight in God. Divines distinguish of a twofold love; a love of benevolence and a love of complacency. The love of benevolence is the desiring of the felicity of another; the love of complacency is the well-pleasedness of the soul in a suitable good. God loveth us both these ways; with the love of benevolence: ‘For so God loved the world. &c., John iii. 16 ; with the love of complacency, and so ‘ The upright in the way are his delight.’ But we love God with but one of these, not with the love of benevolence; for he is above our injuries and benefits, and needeth nothing from us to add to his felicity ; therefore we cannot be said to love him with the love of benevolence, unless very improperly, when we desire his glory; but we love him with a love of complacency when the soul is well pleased in God, or delights in him, which is begun here, and perfected hereafter. This is spoken of, Ps. xxxvii. 4, ‘Delight thyself in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.’ And it is seen in this, when we count his favour and presence our chiefest happiness, and value an interest in him above all the world, Ps. xvi. 6. 7, and Ps. iv. 6, 7 ; and when we delight in other things, as they belong to God : Ps. cxix. 14, ‘ I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved.’ Thomas Manton, Sermons on 2 Corinthians 5, in Works, 13:141.

The love of John 3:16 is a love to the creature:

3) There fore, ‘herein is love;’ that is, this is the highest expression of God’s love to the creature, not only that ever was, but can be; for in love only God acteth to the uttermost: he never showed so much of his power and wisdom, but he can show more; of his wrath, but he can show more; but he hath no greater thing to give than himself, than his Christ. At what a dear rate hath the Lord bought our hearts I He needed not; he might have made nobler creatures than the present race of men, and dealt with us as he did with the sinning angels; he would not enter into treaty with them, but the execution was as quick as the sin; so the Lord might utterly have cast us off, and made a new race of men to glorify his grace, leaving Adam to propagate the world to glorify his justice; or, at least, he might have redeemed us in another way, for I suppose it is a free dispensation, opus liberi consilii. But, John iii. 16, ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.” He took this way, that we might love Christ as well as believe in him. God might have redeemed us so much in another way, but he could not oblige us so much in another way; he would not only satisfy his justice, but show his love. It was the Lord’s design, by his love, to deserve ours, and so for ever to shame the creature, if they should not now love him. Oh ! think much of this glorious instance, the love of God in giving Christ, and the love of Christ in giving himself. Thomas Manton, “An Exposition with Notes, Upon the Epistle of Jude,” in Works 5:80-81.

Read the rest of this entry »