# Durham reference to Daille's view of extent of Christ's death



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 14, 2020)

In vol. 2 of Durham on Revelation which I've started doing some pre prep work on, I ran down a reference to Dallie's view of universal extent of Christ's death and frankly have no recollection how I determined this in a large Latin work. I usually have a post to PB or FB or an email. What Durham wrote is below. The page I have referenced is at this *link*. Anyone able to confirm this is likely the spot? I may have convinced myself due to the Gal. 2 reference. See the note for why there is a question (no page is give).
A third absurdity is, that this does extend Christ’s death further and makes it more common than the scripture does. For in scripture, Christ is said to die for His People (Matt. 1:21), for His Sheep (John 10:11, 15), to gather the sons of God (John 11:52), for His own (John 17:6 with 19), and such like. And in this place, it is said to be for some of all kindreds, tongues, and nations, and not for all indifferently. Now, according to this opinion, Christ may be said not only to die for His sheep, but for all and every man, etc. There are two special objections against this; the first is that although Christ be said to die for His sheep, and to have redeemed some out of every nation, etc.; yet says a late learned abettor of this opinion (to wit, Dalleus in his Apology),[1] that it will not follow, because He died for these; therefore He died for no other; more than it will follow from Paul’s word, Galatians 2:20, He loved me, and gave Himself for me; therefore He did love and gave Himself for no other. It is sad, that learned men should so please themselves to shift arguments.​​

[1]In the first edition there is a blank left several words in length for a reference of some sort that was not filled in, which blank was only omitted in the 1799 edition, yet with still no reference data. The reference is to Jean Daille, Apologia Pro duabus Ecclesiarum in Gallia Protestantium Synodis, 2 volumes (1655), 2.1024.​


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2020)

Obviously you need to have a bit of Latin; but that is a bit more than any I have.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 15, 2020)

Albeit with many interruptions, I looked at the page and I do think you got the reference right, Chris. He's dealing with related objections in the surrounding areas, and seems to be concerned that we would limit the love of God and sending of the Son _only_ for the benefit of those who have a faith of similar strength and specificity as Paul has in Gal. 2:20.

It's possible that Daillé might address the issue of Christ dying for one person personally not in itself excluding anyone else in more detail elsewhere, but this snippet would certainly give Durham some basis to work with.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2020)

py3ak said:


> Albeit with many interruptions, I looked at the page and I do think you got the reference right, Chris. He's dealing with related objections in the surrounding areas, and seems to be concerned that we would limit the love of God and sending of the Son _only_ for the benefit of those who have a faith of similar strength and specificity as Paul has in Gal. 2:20.
> 
> It's possible that Daillé might address the issue of Christ dying for one person personally not in itself excluding anyone else in more detail elsewhere, but this snippet would certainly give Durham some basis to work with.


Thanks Ruben. But that is close to the analogy Durham adduces at the end of the paragraph; if that is not it, I found no other Gal. 2 reference by search (its a 1000 page work in 2 vols): "yet says a late learned abettor of this opinion (to wit, Dalleus in his Apology),[1] that it will not follow, because He died for these; therefore He died for no other; *more than it will follow from Paul’s word, Galatians 2:20, He loved me, and gave Himself for me; therefore He did love and gave Himself for no other*.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2020)

Maybe it's in volume 1 somewhere or in a vindication. The only other Gal. 2 20 references I can find are here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ocs8tDEijaQC&pg=PA363#v=onepage&q=gal. 2.&f=false in the vindication


----------



## py3ak (Apr 15, 2020)

No, it has to be volume 2; while the other reference is still about the death of Christ, it's in context of being dead with Christ.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2020)

py3ak said:


> No, it has to be volume 2; while the other reference is still about the death of Christ, it's in context of being dead with Christ.


One would think it would be near the only reference to 2:20. I will have to comb through it. I've tried search with Latin of 2:20.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 15, 2020)

What I meant was that your first reference to 2.1024 has to be right, rather than the reference in volume 1. I only found 5 references to Galatians in v.2, and none of the others were to chapter 2, let alone v.20.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2020)

Looked after 1024 and before so far to here, and it is the only other reference I've found so far: https://books.google.com/books?id=lCdBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA825#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## py3ak (Apr 15, 2020)

That one is more oblique -- it's about the Father delivering the Son, the Son delivering himself, Judas and etc., delivering Christ to be crucified. There is a reference to the Father handing Christ over for the salvation of the world, but Gal. 2:20 is cited in the margin to support the idea that Christ delivered himself, and not with reference to the extent of the atonement.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2020)

py3ak said:


> That one is more oblique -- it's about the Father delivering the Son, the Son delivering himself, Judas and etc., delivering Christ to be crucified. There is a reference to the Father handing Christ over for the salvation of the world, but Gal. 2:20 is cited in the margin to support the idea that Christ delivered himself, and not with reference to the extent of the atonement.


Okay; so it is your thought then that page 1024 has to be what Durham had in mind even though maybe not as clear to you it says what he says it says? I appreciate the time you put into this Ruben.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 15, 2020)

Yes, I think p.1024 is clearly the place to mention. I think Durham is paraphrasing, or maybe lumping Daillé in with someone else, but the idea that you can't use Gal. 2:20 to prove that Christ died only with reference to Paul is present.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 16, 2020)

py3ak said:


> Yes, I think p.1024 is clearly the place to mention. I think Durham is paraphrasing, or maybe lumping Daillé in with someone else, but the idea that you can't use Gal. 2:20 to prove that Christ died only with reference to Paul is present.


Thanks Ruben!


----------



## py3ak (Apr 16, 2020)

It's always fun to look into the puzzles you propose!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 16, 2020)

py3ak said:


> It's always fun to look into the puzzles you propose!


My motto; "it is a shame not to know the whole of a small thing." I discovered this statement in an apology of a long description of Geneva in an early 18th century travelog when I was research creation views of Westminster divines for David Hall's presentation to PCA GA, I think in 1998. I don't know if I identified with the statement or morphed to conform to it over subsequent years.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

