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freewill, partly through God’s election, by which the effect of Christ’s merit is bestowed upon some mercy, but it is withdrawn fro others by the just judgment of God [Idem summa de veritate materia 26.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.]