Vermigli:

“They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that “Christ died for us all” and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it might be sufficient for all the world’s sinners. Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually.” Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, trans., by Frank A. James, (Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 2003), 8:62.

[Note: It may be objected that because the translation reads that the death might be sufficient for all, Vermigli was speaking merely of a hypothetical sufficiency. However, the following things need to be considered. 1), “might” in old English more often denoted ‘should.’ For example, to cite the KJV John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. The original Geneva translation: GNV John 3:17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world, that he should condemne the world, but that the world through him might be saued. In the original translation of the Common Places of Vermigli, many times “might” has this signification. Thus, when the ideas are brought together, Vermigli is granting that Christ did die for all with regard to the sufficiency of his death so that the death of Christ should be sufficient for all sinners. 2), from within the quotation itself, it is not all that credible that Vermigli would identify this alleged hypothetical sufficiency with the Scholastic doctrine that Christ had actually redeemed all men sufficiently. 3), the allegation also ignores Vermigli’s clear affirmations of universal redemption and ransom. 4), It has already been conceded by Cunningham, AA Hodge, et al, that it was not until the time Dort, and after, that the formula underwent its fundamental revision. It would be anachronistic to retroject the later revision into Vermigli.]

Amyraut:

All of the New Testament from beginning to end teaches this to us. Christ, notably, does so in these beautiful passages: ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so also it is necessary that the Son of Man be lifted up, so that whoever believes in him should not perish, but should have eternal life. For God has so loved the world that he has given his only Son, so that whoever believes in him might not perish, but have eternal life . For God has not sent his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world be saved by him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already. For he has not believed on the name of the only Son of God.’ (John 3:14-16) Furthermore, ‘Whoever believes in me has life eternal, and whoever does not believe, the wrath of God abides on him.’ (John 3:36) And there is no need for more proofs in a thing so clear and uncontested. His beloved disciple uses a most emphatic expression. ‘If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. For this is the witness of God, of which he has testified of his Son, that God has given us eternal life and that this life is in his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the witness of God in him, whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, for he has not believed the testimony that God has given of his own Son.’ (I John 5:9, 10 ) So that in not receiving Christ as Saviour one rejects the only means of obtaining salvation, and beside the sin that there is in despising so great a grace as God has offered there is, moreover, this crime also of accusing God of falsehood in not believing the testimony which he has given concerning his Son. Thus, if you consider the care that God has taken to procure the salvation of the human race by sending his Son in to the world and the things that he has done and suffered to this end, the grace is universal and presented to all men. But if you consider the condition which he has necessarily established- to believe in his Son-, you will find that while this compassion of giving men a Redeemer proceeds from a marvelous love toward the human race, nevertheless this love does not exceed this limit- to give salvation to men, provided that they do not refuse it. If they refuse it, he deprives then of hope and they by their unbelief aggravate their condemnation. Consequently these words, ‘God desires the salvation of a ll men,’ (I Tim 2:4) receive this necessary limitation, providing that they believe.’ If they do not believe, he does not desire it. This will to make the grace of salvation universal and common to all men is in this way conditional, that without the accomplishing of the condition, it is entirely in effectual. Let us see therefore on what the fulfilling of condition, and consequently the particular efficacy of universal grace, depends.

Moyse Amyraut, Brief Treatise on Predestination and its Dependent Principles, trans., by Richard Lum (Th.D. diss, 1986), 42-44.

[Note, on ‘conditional willing’ see Calvin on Ezekiel 18:23, 31-32 and 33:11; on John 3:16, see John Calvin on John 3:16; on the language of ‘universal grace’ see Wolfgang Musculus on the Redemption of Mankind. Amyraut is using an older vocabulary which was more common in its own day.]

Thomas Aquinas:

1) I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q 48.2.

2) The very least one of sufferings was sufficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, it sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q 46.5.

3) 1 John 2:22 He is the propitiation for our sins, for some efficaciously, but for all sufficiently, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all: but it has no efficacy except for the elect because of an impediment.  Thomas Aquina, “Commentaria 1 Tim. 2:1-6a,” in Omnes D. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas Commentaria. (Liege: H. Dessain, 1858), 3:68. [Personal translation, Marty Foord.]

David Paraeus citing Aquinas:

4) Thomas writes: “The merit of Christ, as to its sufficiency, extends equally to all, but not as to its efficacy, which happens partly on account of free will, and partly on account of the election of God, through which the effects of the merits of Christ are mercifully bestowed upon some, and withheld from others according to the just judgment of God.”   [Source: Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 224.]

5) Of the redemption purchased by the passion of Christ we may speak in a double sense & signification, either respecting the sufficiency thereof; & so his passion redeemed all because as concerning himself he delivered all.   [Source: David Paraeus]

John Davenant quoting the same:

6) Aquinas also observes (Quest. disp. de grat. Christi. art. 7, reap. ad 4,) The merit of Christ as to its sufficiency equally regards all men, but not as to its efficacy; which arises partly from free-will, partly from the election of God, through which the effect of the merits of Christ is mercifully conferred upon some, but is by his just judgment withdrawn from others.    [Source: John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 543.]

Kimedoncius citing Aquinas:

7) Hereupon Thomas in 1 Tim. 2. says: “Christ is the propitiation for our sins: for some effectually, for but for all sufficiently, because of the price of his blood is sufficient to save all, but it has not effect but in the elect, because of an impediment.”  And more clearly upon 5. Apoc. he says: “We speak of the Lord’s passion two manner of ways. Either according to the sufficiency, and so his passion redeemed all: for it is sufficient to redeem and save all, although there were even more worlds, as Anselm says, lib. 2. Cur Deus &c., homo. cap. 14. Or according to efficiency and so not all are redeemed by his passion, because all cleave not to the redeemer, and therefore not all have the efficacy of redemption.” The same man says: “The merit of Christ as touching the sufficiency is alike to all, but not as touching the efficiency: which happens partly through freewill, partly through God’s election, by which the effect of Christ’s merit is bestowed upon some mercy, but it is withdrawn fro others by the just judgment of God [Idem summa de veritate materia 26. quest. 7.].

Against the Gentiles, lib. 4. cap. 55, he alleges this cause of the foresaid distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. “The death of Christ” (says he), “is as a certain universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man was as it were the universal cause of damnation. But the universal cause must be applied to everyone particularly, that he may receive the effect of the universal cause. The effect of the sin of our first parents comes to everyone by our fleshly birth. But the effect of death of Christ comes to everyone by spiritual regeneration, whereby man is after a sort joined unto Christ, and incorporated unto him.” Other testimonies of this author we have before alleged.   [Source: Iacob Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston for Hvmfrey Lownes, 1598), 235. ]   [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal comments cited inline.]