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.]