Knox:

But leaving thee, I return to those whom gladly I wold instruct, and to them I say, that the wordes of David and of Iaaiah do speake of that rich and inestimable mercie which God laieth up in store for his chosen children, to whom althogh God somtymes shew himself severe and angry, yet indureth that but for a short space; but his mercie is everlasting, and his goodnes infinit, by the which he marieth his chosen children to himself for ever; and whether that them wordes be onely spoken to the Elect, or els that they be generally spoken to all, let the Holie Ghost decyde the controversie. After that David had affirmed that God is liberall, mercifull, patient, and of great gentilnes; and also, that he is good to all, and that his mercie is over all his workes [Psal. 145.]; that the eies of all creatures look upon him, and that he is just in all his workes: By which sentences he praiseth the goodnes, the mercie, and the providence of God in the regiment and government of his universall creation; which goodnee end mercie do so abounde, that the innumerable iniquities of mankind and his detestable ingratitude can not utterly hinder the same from the creatures. After these oommon mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his riche mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect, saying, "The Lord is nigh to all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in veritie; he doeth the will of those that fear him, and he heareth their crie and saveth them.

Note the plain
difference

The Lord kepeth all those that love him, but he destroieth all the wicked." Such as willingly delite not in blindnes may clerely see that the Holie Ghost maketh a plaine difference betwixt the graces and mercies which be common to all and that soveraign mercie which is immutably reserved to the chosen children; and further, that the Lord himself shall destroy the wicked, albeit his mercie be over all his workes. And so that mercie by the which God pronounceth to gather his Church is everlasting, and is not common to the reprobate, but is onely proper to the flocke of Christ Jesus.

John Knox, “An Answere to a Great Nvmber of Blasphemovs Cavilations Written by an Anabaptist, and Aduersarie to Gods Eternall Predestination,” in The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1851), 5:86-87. [Spelling original; marginal notes cited inline; and underlining mine.]

Letham:

Thirdly, controversy raged over the extent of the atonement. Martinius, one of the Bremen delegation, as well as Davenant and Ward of the English delegation wished to stress the universal significance of Christ’s death. Their language proved unacceptable to many and the resultant disagreement threatened to stall the Synod’s progress and even to destroy its hopes of success. The English delegation made hasty consultation with the authorities at home. Eventually, they were instrumental in encouraging agreement and effecting an ingenious compromise that did justice to the universal sufficiency of Christ’s death in a way calculated to win the support of Martinius, Ward and Davenant, while at the same time safe-guarding the orthodox concern for the particularity and efficacy of the intent of the atonement.¹³ Consequently, in the second head of doctrine, the Canons devote four sections to the universal significance of Christ’s death. It is an atonement abundantly sufficient for the sins of the whole world.¹⁴ The value of Christ’s death is infinite both because of who he is and what he endured.¹⁵ Therefore, the promise of the gospel, as it focuses on Christ and his death, should be proclaimed to all men without exception.¹⁶ The unbelief of man is attributable in no way to any supposed defect or limitation in the death of Christ but is fully man’s own responsibility.¹⁷ Only then do the Canons move on briefly to refer to the intent of the atonement. God intends that the efficacy of Christ’s death should be extended to the elect.¹⁸ God’s purpose will be accomplished and the elect will receive salvation.¹⁹ Such a statement is nothing if not eirenic. Its balance leans, if anything, in the opposite direction from popular caricatures of limited atonement. Together with the statements on infralapsarianism, Dort is faced by an extreme hard-line option and firmly rejects it, choosing instead a moderate course acceptable to the bulk of international Reformed opinion.²⁰

Robert Letham, “Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed Theology: Zwingli to the Synod of Dort,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 1979), 1:326-327 [Footnotes: 2:168-169.] [Letham’s original underlining converted to italics, footnote and numbers original; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

_______________________

¹³See Godfrey, pp. 135-269.

¹⁴Canons 2, 3 in Schaff, Creeds, 3:561.

¹⁵Canons 2, 4 in Ibid.

¹⁶Canons 2, 5 in Ibid.

¹⁷Canons 2, 6 in Schaff, Creeds, 3:562.

¹⁸Canons 2, 8 in Ibid.

¹⁹Canons 2, 9, in Ibid.

²⁰Kendall’s characterization of Dort as rubber-stamping Bezan theology is misguided. Beza was a thoroughgoing supralapsarian; Dort is, almost to a man, infralapsarian. Beza disliked the distinction between the universal sufficiency and limited efficacy of the atonement because he thought it weakened the emphasis on the particularity of redemption; Dort stresses the universal scope of the atonement. See Kendall, pp. 175-177.