Reading through the Westminster Assembly minutes (archive.org), I came across the session meetings of 520-524 where they are going over a "debate about permission of man's fall about 'the same decree.'" In there, Mr. Calamy (Edmund?) argues a following point (that is confusing): "I hold...the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all, -- absolute intention for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe,-- that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami... that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe." (Session 522, Oct. 22 1645 Wednesday Morning) Can someone help me out here? It seems Calamy is making a distinction from the Arminians as Mr. Palmer says in the minutes. Mr. Reynolds states "This opinion cannot be asserted by any that can say he is not of the Remonstrants' opinion... Upon a condition that they cannot perform, and God never intends to give." Gillespie and Rutherford also argue against this opinion. It seems that Calamy is saying all men are "savable", due to the death of Christ. That what Christ has done, has now made all men savable. At least this is what it seems. Thoughts?