[3] Plus any others who, though they had not heard the gospel, lived up to the light they had--though this point need not concern us here.
[4] Westminster Confession, x. 1.
[5] Granted, it was Charles Wesley who wrote this; but it is one of the many passages in his hymns which make one ask, with "Rabbi" Duncan, "Where's your Arminianism now, friend"
[7] C.H. Spurgeon was thus abundantly right when he declared: "I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel... unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called." ("Spurgeon's Autobiography," vol I, Ch. XVI, p 172.)
[11] "Life of John Owen," p. 38 (Works, ed. Goold, 1).
[12] Compare this, from C.H. Spurgeon: "We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say "No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if"--and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."
[13] See pp. (199-204, 292-8) inf.
[14] "What, I pray, is it according to Scripture, for a man to he assured that Christ died for him in particular? Is it not the very highest improvement of faith? doth it not include a sense of the spiritual love of God shed abroad in our hearts? Is it not the top of the apostle's consolation, Rom. viii. 34, and the bottom of all his joyful assurance, Gal. ii. 20?" (p. 297 inf.).
[20] Opening words, "To the Reader".
[23] Owen indicates more than once that for a complete statement of the case against universal redemption he would need to write a further book, dealing with "the other part of the controversy, concerning the cause of sending Christ" (pp 133, 283 inf.). Its main thesis, apparently, would have been that "the fountain and cause of God's sending Christ, is his eternal love to his elect, and to them alone" (p 119, inf.), and it would have contained "a more large explication of God's purpose of election and reprobation, showing how the death of Christ was a means set apart and appointed for the saving of his elect, and not at all undergone or suffered for those which, in his eternal counsel, he did determine should perish for their sins" (p 133). It looks, therefore, as if it would have included the "clearing of our doctrine of reprobation, and of the administration of God's providence towards the reprobates, and over all their actions", which Owen promised in the epistle prefixed to A Display of Arminianism (Works, x. 9.), but never wrote. However, we can understand his concluding that it was really needless to slaughter the same adversary twice.
[24] Davenant's Duae Dissertationes, one of which defends universal redemption on Amyraldean lines, came out posthumously in 1650. Owen was not impressed and wrote of it: "I undertake to demonstrate that the main foundation of the whole dissertation about the death of Christ, with many inferences from thence, are neither found in nor founded on the word; but that the several parts therein are mutually conflicting and destructive of each other" (Works, x. 433 (1650).
Baxter wrote a formal disputation defending universal redemption but never printed it; it was published after his death, however, in 1694.
[25] "Prefatory Note" in Works, x. 140.