Cunningham:

There is no doubt that all the most eminent Calvinistic divines hold the infinite worth, or value of Christ’s atonement, its full sufficiency for expiating all the sins of all men.

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has been often adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect,–suffcienter pro omnibus, eficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion,–and Calvin himself among the rest,–admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefitting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement whether originally so intended or not–was so expressed as to suggest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ–viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design–was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit ; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement,–namely, that He died sufficiently for all,–seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death. The attempt made by some defenders of universal atonement to prove, that a denial of the universality of the atonement necessarily implies a denial of its universal intrinsic sufficiency, has nothing to do with the settlement of the state of the question, but only with the arguments by which the opposite side may be defended: and, therefore, I need not advert to it.

William Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:331-332.

Walker:

1) But further, and more particularly, in regard to the EXTENT of Redemption, or the extent of the merits of Redemption. It is implied in what has been already said, that Christ, in some altogether peculiar sense, was the Saviour of His people. But was there no other (improper) sense in which He might have been said to die also for others? Well, the subject is largely discussed. It is discussed by Rutherford, and Brown, and Durham, and Dickson, and Gillespie; and I think there can be no doubt that they hold, that in whatsoever sense Christ died for any of our race, in that same sense He died for all for whom He died. They held, indeed, the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death to save the world or worlds; but that was altogether irrespective of Christ’s purpose, or Christ’s accomplishment. The phrase that Christ died sufficiently for all was not approved, because the “For” seemed to imply some reality of actual substitution. Yet the Scottish theological mind was evidently greatly exercised upon the subject in many aspects, and once and again we have discussions in connection with it, which are little known, and not without their interest. James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland: Chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888),79-80. [Underlining mine.]

2) Durham has an essay, in which he considers whether any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, may be said to be the proper fruit of, or purchase of, Christ’s death. And he answers decisively in the negative. The native fruits of Christ’s death, he says, are not divided, but they all go together. So that for whom He satisfied and for whom He purchased anything in any respect, He did so in respect of everything. There may be certain consequences of Christ’s death of an advantageous kind which reach wicked men. But that is a mere accident. Nay, to the wicked there may be given common gifts, by which the Church is edified and the glory of the Lord advanced; but these belong to the covenant redemption, as promised blessings to God’s people. It is argued further, that it is very doubtful whether, looked at in every point of view, it can well be said that it is a blessing to men who yet reject the Son of God, that they have the morally purifying influences of Christianity, and are more or less affected by them in their character, or by any such blessing as can be said to fall from the tree of life. So, too, thought Gillespie, and so thought Rutherford. James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland: Chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 83-84. [Underlining mine.]

Berkhof:

5. THE WIDER BEARING OF THE ATONEMENT. The question may be raised, whether the atonement wrought by Christ for the salvation of the elect, and of the elect only, has any wider bearing. The question is often discussed in Scottish theology, whether Christ did not die, in some other than a saving sense, also for the non-elect. It was discussed by several of the older theologians such as Rutherford, Brown, Durham, and Dickson, but was answered by them in the negative. “They held, indeed,” says Walker, “the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s death to save the world, or worlds; but that was altogether irrespective of Christ’s purpose, or Christ’s accomplishment. The phrase that Christ died sufficiently for all was not approved, because the ‘for’ seemed to imply some reality of actual substitution.” Durham denied that any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, could be said to be the proper fruit of, or the purchase of, Christ’s death; but at the same time maintained that certain consequences of Christ’s death of an advantageous kind must reach wicked men, though it is doubtful whether these can be regarded as a blessing for them. This was also the position taken by Rutherford and Gillespie. The Marrow-men of Scotland, while holding that Christ died for the purpose of saving only the elect, concluded from the universal offer of salvation that the work of Christ also had a wider bearing, and that, to use their own words, “God the Father, moved by nothing but His free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all men of His Son Jesus Christ.” According to them all sinners are legatees under Christ’s testament, not indeed in the essence but in the administration of the covenant of grace, but the testament becomes effectual only in the case of the elect. Their position was condemned by the Church of Scotland. Several Reformed theologians hold that, though Christ suffered and died only for the purpose of saving the elect, many benefits of the cross of Christ do actually–and that also according to the plan of God–accrue to the benefit of those who do not accept Christ by faith. They believe that the blessings of common grace also result from the atoning work of Christ.

Louis Berkhof, Systmatic Theology, 398-399.

Turretin:

1) IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follows creatures, called “love of the creature” (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called “love of man” philoanthropia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called “he love of the elect“ (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect . and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroen) of divine love!, Hence although love considered effectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase and diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others. Trruetin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:241.

2) VII. (2) The question is not whether God is borne by a general love and philanthropy (philanthopia) towards men as his creatures, and also bestows upon them various temporal benefits pertaining to the things of this life (ta biotika). We do not deny that God has never left himself without witness (amartyron) with regard to this (Acts 14:17). And we readily grant that there is no one who does not owe some gratitude to God and who, whatever he is or can do, is not bound to give thanks to his Creator. But the question concerns the special and saving love which tends to spiritual benefits, and by which God willed to have mercy upon them to salvation. We thing this is particular to the elect alone, not universal and common to all. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:396-397.

3) XVI. Second, not more happily is the love of God here distinguished into comparative and absolute. Is it maintained that Paul, when he speaks of the love of Jacob and the hatred of Esau, wishes only to intimate that God loved the former more and preferred him to the latter (just as the word meaning “to hate” is often put in the Scripture for “to love less,” Gen. 29:31). Although God may be said to have embraced some with a peculiar love (so as to give faith to them), it does not follow that he was unwilling to save others. For various degrees in the love of God towards men can be conceived no less than towards other creatures. We answer as follows: although we readily grant that sometimes hatred is put for a diminished love among men, yet we deny that with Paul God’s hatred towards Esau can be thus understood. It is opposed to his loved Jacob, which is said to be according to election (kat’ eklogen). Therefore this love necessarily includes the purpose of having mercy upon and saving Jacob; the hatred denies it and marks the purpose of reprobation by which he was freely passed over and excluded from salvation (so that thus far the Reformed theologians have uniformly held it) Nor if, in the effects of God’s general love and the common providence by which he is borne to all his creatures (according to the variety of subjects distinguished by a greater or less excellence of nature), there are degrees, does it forthwith follow that there are degrees affectively in God’s special and saving love. Since his love cannot be vain and inefficacious, those whom he loves unto salvation he ought to love fully and even unto the end (Jn. 13:1) Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:400.

4) II. The reasons are (1) saving faith differs from temporary faith in origin and foundation. The former flows from the special grace of election when it is called “the faith of the elect” (Tit. 1:l); which is given only to those who are called according to his purpose (kata prothesin), Rom.8:28) and were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). On the contrary, the latter depends upon common grace which bestows even on the reprobate certain blessings: not only external and temporal, but also spiritual and initial gifts (although not saving) as a testification of a certain general love and to increase their guilt on the supposition of their contumacy. Hence Paul , speaking of the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, says, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), i.e., not on this account does the faith of true believers waver, being built upon the immovable foundation of the election of God. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:588.