# Mediatorial Kingship: mediator



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 31, 2017)

Maybe the RP guys can answer this question. I understand the kingship of Christ, but in what sense is Christ mediator of the whole world? There seems to be two views on this: 1) that Christ is the mediatorial king of the church or 2) Christ is the mediatorial king of all things.

So, for the "all things" view, in what sense does Christ mediate for all things?


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 31, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> There seems to be two views on this: 1) that Christ is the mediatorial king of the church or 2) Christ is the mediatorial king of all things.


Just to provide some historical context, view 1 is usually associated with George Gillespie and with the Seceders, while view 2 is associated with the Covenanters (i. e., the Cameronians), especially William Symington. 

It was this issue that prevented a union between the Associate Presbyterians and Reformed Presbyterians in the eighteenth century; however, both views have historically been represented in the Free Church.

One last fun fact: Samuel Rutherford is one of the most debated figures when it comes to this issue. Some maintain that he was the first to articulate the Covenanter view, while others maintain that his view was not significantly different from Gillespie's.

I know that doesn't answer your question, but I thought you might appreciate an historical perspective on the issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## markkoller (Jan 31, 2017)

"There are many things under the power of Christ besides which are the immediate objects of his purchase. Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator; yet not one of these can be said to have been redeemed by his blood. There are some benefits enjoyed by the wicked of the world, which, as they result from the mediatorial economy, may be said to be, indirectly at least, the fruits of Christ’s death. Such is the case with the divine forbearance, with temporal favors, and with the outward dispensation of gospel ordinances, of which the wicked partake, but which, bur for the scheme of salvation, they could never have enjoyed."

William Symington

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 31, 2017)

Seems to me that there is maybe a misunderstanding of the role of mediator (in my opinion). How are temporal blessings a part of Christ's mediation? I think of WLC 38-40. Specifically, WLC 40 states "that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person." The works of the mediator are done "for us". Also, confession is quite particular about the definition of mediator. 

When I think of forebearance and temporal mercies, I'd typically go to Matthew 5:45. However, this passage (like many others) aren't particular to Christ as mediator. They rather seem particular to the demonstration of God's forbearance. 

What am I missing?


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2017)

I don't think there is any debate on Christ as mediator being given all power (or authority) in heaven and earth for the purpose of fulfilling His mediatorial office and bringing many sons to glory. In this sense one might say that all temporal benefits in the providential order, including those enjoyed by the reprobate, are the result of the mediatorial dominion.

But there is a categorical difference. Christ is given power over all flesh that He might give eternal life to the elect. The deliberate intention of Christ's universal power is to save the elect and bring them to glory. The nations are under His dominion as an act of nature, not of grace. Hence Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, denied that nations are under His mediatorial dominion in the proper sense. Only the church is His kingdom in the proper sense.

So far as temporal blessings are concerned, in the case of the elect they also are the fruit and purchase of Christ's work; hence they pray for all things in Jesus' name, even as all things are theirs and they are Christ's and Christ is God's. But temporal blessings to the reprobate are not the fruit and purchase of Christ's work. They are the effect of the administration of grace giving men time and opportunity to repent. Preachers command all men everywhere to repent, and in doing so they press the moral claims of Christ as mediator over all things.

Nations are moral agents and therefore come under the moral obligation to repent. The kingdom and nation that will not serve Him shall perish. This means there is a moral obligation on nations to submit to the mediatorial dominion of Christ; and it is on this fact that establishments are morally required. They are not essential to the being of the State, which continues to exercise lawful authority whether it submits to Christ or not; but establishments serve for the moral and spiritual well-being of the State.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2 | Edifying 3


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 31, 2017)

MW said:


> But there is a categorical difference. Christ is given power over all flesh that He might give eternal life to the elect. The deliberate intention of Christ's universal power is to save the elect and bring them to glory. The nations are under His dominion as an act of nature, not of grace. Hence Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, denied that nations are under His mediatorial dominion in the proper sense. Only the church is His kingdom in the proper sense.



Rev. Winzer, thank you for the feedback. Could you maybe elaborate on this particular quote?


Also, I guess I'm confused as to what distinguishes the RP guys from others. As you say, there is a proper sense of Christ's kingdom, to which I think of the confession saying the church is the kingdom of Christ. However, what is the issue? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue.



markkoller said:


> Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator; yet not one of these can be said to have been redeemed by his blood.



The Symington quotation doesn't help, in my opinion. It doesn't answer "in what sense" is Christ mediator of all things. He previously states, "There are many things under the power of Christ besides which are the immediate objects of his purchase." However, the very purpose of Christ as mediator is to mediate for his elect. I quoted this portion of the quote because he states that "Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator". Well, technically, all of these were already under Him because He is God. If all things are put under his feet so that "He might give eternal life to the elect", then I'd agree. However, what's the purpose of using "mediatorial" with His kingship in the context of all things.

Here is why I'm having trouble: the mediation done by Christ is for the elect and no one else. The confession says, "Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature." The catechism says this in regards to the two natures:


> *Q. *38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
> *A. *It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; and to satisfy God’s justice, procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.
> 
> Acts 2:24-25; Rom. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; Heb. 9:14; Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14; Heb. 7:25-28; Rom. 3:24-26; Eph. 1:6; Matt. 3:17; Titus 2:13-14; Gal. 4:6; Luke 1:68-69, 71, 74; Heb. 5:8-9; Heb. 9:11-15.
> ...



It seems that there is only one sense in which "mediatorial" can be used, and that for the church alone. 

Am I wrong? 

Thanks for bearing with me, I am trying to think through this. I personally don't care for the term "mediatorial" when it deals with "all things". I think it muddies the water.


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Could you maybe elaborate on this particular quote?



I'm not sure in what direction you wish me to elaborate. We could look at redemption, in which there is a clear distinction between the lamb's work for the elect and the nations out of which they have been redeemed: "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Revelation 5:9.

Or we could look at the church as the fulness of Him that filleth all in all, that is, that fulfils all His saving purpose. "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." Ephesians 1:22.

The universal dominion of Christ as taught in Scripture is always qualified with the special purpose of subduing His people to Himself, ruling and defending them, and restraining and conquering all His and their enemies.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Also, I guess I'm confused as to what distinguishes the RP guys from others. As you say, there is a proper sense of Christ's kingdom, to which I think of the confession saying the church is the kingdom of Christ. However, what is the issue? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue.



See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction. "Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a 'due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:' while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 31, 2017)

MW said:


> The deliberate intention of Christ's universal power is to save the elect and bring them to glory. The nations are under His dominion as an act of nature, not of grace. Hence Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, denied that nations are under His mediatorial dominion in the proper sense. Only the church is His kingdom in the proper sense.
> 
> So far as temporal blessings are concerned, in the case of the elect they also are the fruit and purchase of Christ's work; hence they pray for all things in Jesus' name, even as all things are theirs and they are Christ's and Christ is God's. But temporal blessings to the reprobate are not the fruit and purchase of Christ's work. They are the effect of the administration of grace giving men time and opportunity to repent. Preachers command all men everywhere to repent, and in doing so they press the moral claims of Christ as mediator over all things.
> 
> Nations are moral agents and therefore come under the moral obligation to repent. The kingdom and nation that will not serve Him shall perish. This means there is a moral obligation on nations to submit to the mediatorial dominion of Christ; and it is on this fact that establishments are morally required. They are not essential to the being of the State, which continues to exercise lawful authority whether it submits to Christ or not; but establishments serve for the moral and spiritual well-being of the State.



I'm trying to process this Matthew as well. Are you agreeing here with what the Seceders believe or what the Covenantors believe?



markkoller said:


> "There are many things under the power of Christ besides which are the immediate objects of his purchase. Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator; yet not one of these can be said to have been redeemed by his blood. There are some benefits enjoyed by the wicked of the world, which, as they result from the mediatorial economy, may be said to be, indirectly at least, the fruits of Christ’s death. Such is the case with the divine forbearance, with temporal favors, and with the outward dispensation of gospel ordinances, of which the wicked partake, but which, bur for the scheme of salvation, they could never have enjoyed."
> 
> William Symington



Mark, would you agree with Matthew on what he has stated in this thread and as he has stated seemingly as his own view?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> I'm trying to process this Matthew as well. Are you agreeing here with what the Seceders believe or what the Covenantors believe?



Seceders; and Seceders maintained the testimony of the covenanters. The Reformed Presbytery's Testimony was not the only view on the "covenanters." It is best to simply call the two parties of this debate the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery in order to avoid confusion.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 31, 2017)

MW said:


> The universal dominion of Christ as taught in Scripture is always qualified with the special purpose of subduing His people to Himself, ruling and defending them, and restraining and conquering all His and their enemies.



"All His and their enemies"

I think this is the point. I agree with what you are saying. I think I'm trying to understand the Reformed Presbytery portion of "mediatorial".

How are the Reformed Presbytery using "mediatorial" as "mediator" over all things? If the confession is strict in its usage, would this then be a confessional issue? Would the Reformed Presbytery be "unconfessional", so to speak? Or is this issue purely about the legitimacy of governing authorities? If so, I find that the word "mediatorial" is really being used for no purpose.

On one side, I think of Psalm 2 and kissing the Son. I don't see how the magistrate is obligated to obey by reason of Christ being mediator. I do see that the rulers must kiss the Son because he is ruler over all creation as the God-Man. I also see the catechism teaching the office of King over His church.

"*Q. *45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
*A. *Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory and their good: and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

Can Christ be King over the nations without being mediator? If not, why not? Maybe this will answer my question. My understanding is the Christ is King and Mediator of His church only. You mention Revelation in which he calls out men from every tribe, tongue, and nation. This would go with His kingly office, in which the church alone is where Christ has His mediatorial reign.

I think I'm just trying to understand the scope? I don't know. Any help will do.




MW said:


> See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction. "Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a 'due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:' while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy."



Although I'm not sure this is the direction i'm going, this is quite helpful.


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> How are the Reformed Presbytery using "mediatorial" as "mediator" over all things? If the confession is strict in its usage, would this then be a confessional issue? Would the Reformed Presbytery be "unconfessional", so to speak? Or is this issue purely about the legitimacy of governing authorities? If so, I find that the word "mediatorial" is really being used for no purpose.



I think it comes down to the question whether civil magistracy has been placed by God under the Mediator. The Secession and Disruption churches would only affirm the moral obligation of the civil magistrate to submit to the Mediator whereas Reformed Presbyterians would affirm that the civil magistracy itself has "been placed by the Father in subjection to Christ as Mediator." (Hutchison, p. 419.)

It could only be a question of consistency with the Confession since the Confession itself does not address the issue. It states "infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them." (23.4).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Jan 31, 2017)

I'm sure Herman Hoeksema's views have their own origin and internal logic, but I wonder where he would fit in this kind of discussion. I'm thinking of his sermons on the 5th Commandment (LD 39) in _The Triple Knowledge_.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2017)

py3ak said:


> I'm sure Herman Hoeksema's views have their own origin and internal logic, but I wonder where he would fit in this kind of discussion. I'm thinking of his sermons on the 5th Commandment (LD 39) in _The Triple Knowledge_.



As I understand it the Protestant Reformed Churches maintain the position of the Christian Reformed Church on article 36 of the Belgic Confession which was declared in 1910. This position basically maintains that the church is "an independent territory alongside and altogether independent of the State."

http://www.prca.org/about/official-...e-forms-of-unity/belgic-confession/article-36

In brief, this position leaves no place for the mediatorial sovereignty of Christ over all things.

The Christian Reformed Church later altered its position and revised the article.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

Here is a position declared by Pastor Phil Pockras (RPCNA) that I posted on my blog....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/

It starts off like this...



> *STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE*
> 
> God the Son, as the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is King over all things. This exalted position He holds in common with the other Persons of the Trinity. Jehovah God is King in His essential Deity. This no orthodox believer denies, at least in theory. As well, the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man Mediator, reigns as Mediatorial King over all things, for the benefit of His Church to the glory of the Father.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

Here is Dr. Blackwood's booklet 'The King and His Kingdom' on my blog on the topic.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-part-1/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-parts-2-4/

This booklet discusses the *purpose*, *extent*, and *nature* of Christ's Kingdom.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

Here is Dr. Blackwood giving a session at an Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's conference on the topic.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

I would add that this doctrine has been developed through the past centuries. Dr. William Symington probably should be credited with discussing the Purpose, Extent, and Nature of the Mediatorial Kingdom as it had developed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

I think two good passages to dwell upon are these. 

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

God commands everyone everywhere to repent from Idolatry based upon the Resurrection and Judgment of Messiah. That means everyone in all offices and stations of life are called to repent and seek the Lord. 

(Act 17:22) Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
(Act 17:23) For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
(Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
(Act 17:26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Act 17:27) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
(Act 17:28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
(Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
(Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
(Act 17:32) And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 1, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is a position declared by Pastor Phil Pockras (RPCNA) that I posted on my blog....
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com
> 
> ...



Mr. Snyder,
My understanding is that the classical view propounded by George Gillespie acknowledges no less than this by affirming that the exalted Christ rules over all things to the good of His Church for which He is Mediator and in a special manner her King. The distinctive nature of the RP view lies not in this point but rather in the question of whether the acknowledgement of Christ as King is of the essence of valid civil government (or especially Christian civil government), or whether this is a moral superadded obligation when a nation encounters the Scriptural religion, but not of the essence of civil government as the Lord has appointed it. Are modern proponents of what is called the "mediatorial kingship" view simply advancing Gillespie's view and perhaps merely lacking caution in their wording, or do they continue to maintain the historic RP view as described?

Thank you,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

Was asked a question concerning WCF 23.4. Here is the Testimony of the RPCNA as it comments on that section. The question was based upon the phrase "due obedience".



> http://reformedpresbyterian.org/downloads/constitution2013.pdf
> 
> p. A 69-A 77
> 
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 1, 2017)

au5t1n said:


> Mr. Snyder,
> My understanding is that the classical view propounded by George Gillespie acknowledges no less than this by affirming that the exalted Christ rules over all things to the good of His Church for which He is Mediator and in a special manner her King. The distinctive nature of the RP view lies not in this point but rather in the question of whether the acknowledgement of Christ as King is of the essence of valid civil government (or especially Christian civil government), or whether this is a moral superadded obligation when a nation encounters the Scriptural religion, but not of the essence of civil government as the Lord has appointed it. Are modern proponents of what is called the "mediatorial kingship" view simply advancing Gillespie's view and perhaps merely lacking caution in their wording, or do they continue to maintain the historic RP view as described?
> 
> Thank you,


I believe the doctrine was being formulated as time proceeded. In fact you may find quotes equating our position as being Popish in nature. Of course that is hogwash as the Covenanters would totally avoid the idea of a single man, who is not the LORD, being over all things. Earlier the term Mediator was limited to being only applicable to the Redeemed. I believe that Gillespie defined things in that vein as per his scope and definition of Mediatorial being limited to only those who are redeemed. That is why we discuss the *Purpose*, *Extent*, and *Nature* of the Kingdom. I do believe the doctrine began to take on a better understanding as the whole counsel of God was considered.


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 1, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe the doctrine was being formulated as time proceeded. In fact you may find quotes equating our position as being Popish in nature. Of course that is hogwash as the Covenanters would totally avoid the idea of a single man, who is not the LORD, being over all things. Earlier the term Mediator was limited to being only applicable to the Redeemed. I believe that Gillespie defined things in that vein as per his scope and definition of Mediatorial being limited to only those who are redeemed. That is why we discuss the *Purpose*, *Extent*, and *Nature* of the Kingdom. I do believe the doctrine began to take on a better understanding as the whole counsel of God was considered.



Thank you for answer.ing I hope you are correct about the development as it would mean that the modern proponents have essentially landed back where we all started, and are now only arguing with our common opponent of voluntaryism rather than fellow establishmentarians. But I am not sure the nuances of the historic debate are fully understood by all parties.


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Was asked a question concerning WCF 23.4. Here is the Testimony of the RPCNA as it comments on that section. The question was based upon the phrase "due obedience".



When was this part of the Testimony written?

The old testimony qualified the statement of the Confession. It states, "And moreover, they declare that they understand said articles, as principally relating to the condition of a people emerging out of the darkness and superstition of Paganism or Popery, &c., before that religion has obtained the sanction of civil authority; when, although the major part or bulk of a people should embrace the true religion, yet that does not dissolve or loose the relation subsisting between them and their civil rulers, prior to their conversion, agreeable to, and founded upon the just and reasonable laws of the realm."


----------



## MW (Feb 1, 2017)

In contrast to the qualification made by the Reformed Presbytery one may consult the view of John Brown of Wamphray, in his Apologetical Relation (Presbyterians Armoury, p. 195), which sets forth the original covenanter position, and which accords with the Seceder testimony:

"when the covenanters say that they are not bound to contribute their power, in their places and capacities, to promote or defend his Majesty's power and authority, when he is in a stated opposition to the work of God, and when the advancing of him to his full power and authority would certainly tend to the ruin and destruction of the cause and people of God, yet *they do not say that they are never bound to defend him but when he is actually promoting and advancing the work of God*, according to his full power and place, — *nor do they say that when he opposeth the work of God they are at liberty *to destroy his person, or *to spoil and rob him of all his just power and authority*; and, therefore, both that clause in the covenant and their proceedings may be abundantly justified without laying down any ground for the taking away of the late king's life, and without clashing with, or contradicting the confessions of protestant churches, or of their own; *for still they acknowledge that difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority*, *nor free the people from subjection*."

See also David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error, on this section of the Confession: "do not the Papists, Anabaptists, and others err, who maintain, that subjects ought not to suffer a king that's an infidel, or obey that king in his just commands, that differs from them in religion? Yes."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 2, 2017)

As a side note, it is interesting that the RPCNA testimony rejects almost the whole 3rd paragraph of chapter 23. The testimony states it like this: "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon." 

The portion after the colon is this: "yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

So, the RPCNA doesn't believe that the magistrate is to uphold both tables? or what? Does this have to do with the scope of Christ's Kingdom? Are their minutes or articles on this particular paragraph as to why they reject it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> As a side note, it is interesting that the RPCNA testimony rejects almost the whole 3rd paragraph of chapter 23. The testimony states it like this: "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon."
> 
> The portion after the colon is this: "yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."
> 
> So, the RPCNA doesn't believe that the magistrate is to uphold both tables? or what? Does this have to do with the scope of Christ's Kingdom? Are their minutes or articles on this particular paragraph as to why they reject it?


Good catch Andrew, I am not sure about your questions but I will try to find out. I believe they try to give answer to why it is rejected in this small section on page A-74. Before that section they explain the division of authorities. Maybe they believe it is too closely related and have problems with how it might be executed. I am not sure. What is strange to me is that they include Ezra 7:26 in their proof texts which seems to state the validity of the confession. But I am not all that knowledged on this topic at this time. *Ezr 7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. *

As I note above, How that suppression and punishment would look or be done might give reason as to why they reject it. I will try to find out. This is a newer version of the Testimony. It was published in 2013. But it is also stated the same way in the 2004-2010 version that I have. 

It states....


> 20. Though responsible for maintaining conditions favorable to the spread of the Gospel, civil government should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the use of force or by persecution. It should guarantee to all its subjects every human right given by God to men. It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction. 1 Tim. 2:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rom. 13: 4; Ezra 7:26; Neh. 13:17-21


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2017)

MW said:


> When was this part of the Testimony written?
> 
> The old testimony qualified the statement of the Confession. It states, "And moreover, they declare that they understand said articles, as principally relating to the condition of a people emerging out of the darkness and superstition of Paganism or Popery, &c., before that religion has obtained the sanction of civil authority; when, although the major part or bulk of a people should embrace the true religion, yet that does not dissolve or loose the relation subsisting between them and their civil rulers, prior to their conversion, agreeable to, and founded upon the just and reasonable laws of the realm."


What section is that taken from Rev. Winzer? I have the recent last two publications and I do not see that. Thank You.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 2, 2017)

I have questions about the Lecture I am posting below but I found it helpful. David McKay speaks on a topic 'From Popery to Principle'. There is also a section in the book 'The Faith once Delivered' that David Mckay writes on the topic. I read it years ago. 

Book
http://www.heritagebooks.org/produc...n-honor-of-dr-wayne-r-spear-selvaggio-ed.html

Lecture
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/...anters-and-the-kingship-of-Christ-410953.html


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 2, 2017)

Randy,

Interesting. 

I am curious as to what this means:
"It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction." If they reject the civil magistrates right to suppress blasphemy and heresy, then what is its jurisdiction?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Feb 2, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What section is that taken from Rev. Winzer? I have the recent last two publications and I do not see that. Thank You.



Randy, the old testimony is here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13200/13200.txt

It is in Part III, which testifies against the Secession as a party "who have made the most specious appearances for the Reformation," and are said to have a "loose and immoral doctrine about civil society and government." The quotation is found in section XVIII, of oaths and vows, the fourth paragraph.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Grant Van Leuven (Feb 2, 2017)

As someone who trained at RPTS for ten years (part-time), worked at RPTS for five years (full time), was a member in the RPCNA for two years (and under care of Presbytery and completing all but two exams before getting the call to the church I now serve) and who is continuing to strive to be a student of the original Westminster Standards while now in the ministry (presently having "evolved" into a full subscriptionist, hopefully not naively), I've been wrestling with these aspects of this post for a while (I think the great debates on related issues end up being more with applications by various camps in related debates, uh, discussions ). I thought I'd share a few things to contribute for consideration which I've found along my "journey" seeking wisdom in many counselors.

First, per a pondering about Hoeksema above, not that it directly answers it (at least in full). I typed this up a while ago to share with and assure my PRCA brethren with whom I was especially close and in discussions with on this topic that there is a place given to the mediatorial reign of Christ in their own dogmatics (once I came to agree with Gillespie years later I emailed them to let them know we had even more in common now on the topic).
*Herman Hoeksema, “The Kingly Office” in “The Offices of the Mediator”, in Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, 563-564:*

“The kingship of Christ as mediator may not be confused with his eternal royal power as the Son of God. These two are not the same. Royal power he possesses of himself, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, from eternity. It is called the _regnum essentiale_ or the _regnum naturale_, the essential or the natural kingship of the Son of God. _The kingship that he possess as mediator is the authority and power with which the person of the Son according to his human nature is invested by the Father for the purpose of completing his kingdom, preserving and protecting his church, and leading his people on to eternal glory. _ This is called the economical kingship (_regnum oeconomicum)_ or mediatorial kingship (_regnum donativum_), which in turn can be distinguished as the kingship of power (_regnum potentiae_) and the kingship of grace (_regnum gratiae_).

_"By Christ’s kingship of power is meant his royal power and authority over all creatures, including devils and ungodly men_. He is king over all things, even over all the powers of evil; all principalities and powers are made subject unto him. He has received a name above all names and all power in heaven and on earth. He uses his mighty power for the preservation of the elect and unto the coming of the day of his return and the establishment of his eternal kingdom in glory (Ps. 2:6-12; Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11).

_"The second aspect of his kingship is called the kingdom or rule of grace (regnum gratiae) because by it is mean his royal power over his people, whom he rules by his grace, by his Spirit and word _(Eph. 1:22). This royal power, this _regnum gratiae_, has its basis or ground in Christ’s purchasing of his people by his own blood, their redemption from sin and death. It is spiritual in character, a dominion of love, so that his people are made willing by his grace to keep his commandments. It embraces all the redeemed, the entire church; it has for its purpose the manifestation of the glory of God in the church, and it endures forever.”​
Second, something that really began to adjust my thinking and connect some dots that always seemed straying within my covenanter-influenced leanings and some Scriptures I had in mind that left me unsettled.
*J.V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights, 299-214:*

Fesko offers an intriguing analysis of the historical context of the Westminster Assembly’s on-the-floor discussion of the relation between church and state while working on chapter 23. His summary breakdown of George Gillespie’s influence to preserve Christ’s rule as Creator over civic affairs as distinct from His rule as Mediator over church affairs, and Gillespie’s influence on the Assembly to change “Christ” to “God” in three places in chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is elucidating (and for me convincing) especially with 1 Cor. 15:24-25, Col. 1:12-18, WSC 102, and WLC 191 in view. I encourage a careful reading of that section of his book. (Note: I do not agree with nor do I find logically necessary certain overlapping topical applications in the book or in greater contexts such as the idea that government should not enforce the first table of the Law -- I agree with the Confession's establishmentarianism; nor the popular "common grace" way of understanding and relating to the non-Christian world (The Standards provide more careful language for this such as "common operations of the Spirit", "general providence" (remembering the Scriptures teach we are all still the image of God, though shattered, per Gen. 9:6; James 3:9), and especially Christ's mediatorial reign as is being discussed in this post: He restrains and subdues His and our enemies so the world is not worse than it is and should be so as to preserve His elect). 

Also, the Confession’s “contemporary” commentator David Dickson explains: “ … God the creator and governor of the world is the efficient of the power of the civil magistrate … But God-Christ, our blessed Mediator and Lord of his church, is the efficient of the church particularly and of its government.” (_Truth’s Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith_, Banner of Truth, 242). His closeness to the Confession is compelling to me while considering its careful and official ecclesiastical consensus. He also has a lot of other things to say about the relation of Church and State throughout that is well worth the reading.

The important clarification would seem to be with Christ's _formal government_ over the two spheres of sovereignty, civil and ecclesiastical (I’m avoiding two-kingdom discussions here) in terms of isolating Christ’s incarnate mediatorial rule to that of the Church and that of His eternal deity to that of the Civil Magistrate (Andrew Melville's challenge to King James also comes to mind). Otherwise, Hoeksema's distinction (rather new to me here at least in terms of revisiting and digesting it) of Christ’s mediatorial reign as God-man still having something to do in terms of “power” over the world seems reasonable and helpful to me (and not contradictory to Gillespie's influence in its specific context of the Confession), but it would seem to be a distinction that is broader in scope as “general providence” than immediate or direct ruling nation-states as Christ so governs the Visible Church (Presbyterianism and specific officers are required ecclesiastical rule by Christ over His Church, but He allows various forms of civil rule over nations, whether or not many in modern Presbyterianism on certain sides of the pond want to recognize it). Hoeksema’s qualifications above of "power" and "grace" make sense to me and sound similar to what A.A. Hodge wrote, which I share next below. 

Third, something that we just studied at church this week in our Wednesday Night Prayer and Bible Study that was the impetus of my sharing here today with this post I had noticed yesterday before the study (quite timely for me!).
*A.A. Hodge, “Christ and His Kingdom”, in The Work of Christ, Issue 225 (Fall 2013), Free Grace Broadcaster (originally from “Christ the King” in Evangelical Theology, The Banner of Truth Trust.)*

“As the second Person of the Trinity, equal in power and glory to the eternal Father, the Word of God possesses an absolute, inherent sovereign dominion as King over the whole universe. This authority is intrinsic, un-derived, inalienable ...

“But in His office as Mediator, and in His entire Person after the incarnation as God-man, He was constituted a King by the authority of the entire Godhead as represented in the Father. His mediatorial sovereignty is...given to Him by the Father as the reward of His obedience and suffering ... This authority, thus bestowed upon Him by the Father, is special, having particular reference to the salvation of His own people, and, to that end, to the administration of all the provisions of the covenant of grace, of which He is the gracious executive ... A MAN sits upon the mediatorial throne of the universe ...

“Theologians have accordingly made a distinction, designed to classify the different aspects and methods of this vast administration of royal power, between Christ’s [mediatorial, GVL] kingdoms of _power_, of _grace_, and of _glory._ 

I. Christ’S KINGDOM OF POWER: This is the providential reign of the God-man over the whole universe in the interests of His mediatorial work as Redeemer of His own people. The universe in all its provinces, material and spiritual, constitutes one system. The certain attainment of any end, the absolute control of any single department, necessarily involves the control and the coordinate administration of all the parts ...

“ ... the God-man, as mediatorial King, has, during the present...world-age, brought the whole mechanism of the material universe [under His command] as means to secure the establishment of His mediatorial kingdom. He guides the marshaled hosts of heaven to that supreme result [The Revelation seems to be all about this, GVL.]. The great currents of all the world-forces are directed to that end ...

“He controls all events for the good of His people. Especially, He directs events to the end of effecting their complete discipline and education, and consequent preparation for the enjoyment of His glory. The end is the complete redemption of His people. But in order to secure this, all the members of the human family in their successive generations and in their various family and national groups must be dealt with as subjects of the same government.

“II. Christ’S KINGDOM OF GRACE. This spiritual kingdom, which is the special care of Christ, for the sake of which His government of the universe is undertaken, respects, _first_, His own spiritual people individually, and, _second_, His professed people collectively organized in the visible Church.

“He has in His inspired Word and through His ever-indwelling Spirit provided for the government of this Church through all ages. He has therein ordained the conditions of membership, the laws, and offices...

“Christ declared that His kingdom is ‘not of this world’—that is not one kingdom associated with the other kingdoms, with like organizations, laws, methods of administration, and ends. But it is a _spiritual_ kingdom, embracing and interpenetrating all others ...

III. Christ’S KINGDOM OF GLORY. During the present age Christ is set forth principally as a conquering Captain, reigning at the head of His militant host, the Captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10), the conqueror of His and our enemies, and the subduer of the world (Rev 19:11-16). But hereafter the Scriptures reveal a final consummation, when Christ’s kingdom shall be complete in all its members, and shall be developed to its perfect state—when all the redeemed shall be gathered, the crisis of judgment past, the glorified bodies of the saints reunited to their perfected spirits: then ‘shall the Son of man sit in the throne of his glory,’ and ‘there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads’ (Rev 22:3-4).”​
Fourth (_and maybe most importantly_), I highly recommend reading the chapter by *David McKay, "From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ", in The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear *(originally a lecture at RPTS I attended and didn't realize its significance at the time especially considering its print and event context until later reading it after having marinated on all this for a while; incidentally, the chapter was actually suggested by an RPCNA minister when I shared I was having Gillespie leanings after reading Fesko).

Hope this all might prove helpful for further study. It's a bit of a heady topic and while I'm not exactly just getting my feet whet on the subject I am still trying to get them grounded (Thinking through the distinctions of "power" and "grace" both under the mediatorial reign by Hoeksema especially in view of the recent study with Hodge has been helpful, which I was influenced by this post to revisit, so thanks!). May our studies further cause us all to bow lower and say more loudly that Jesus Christ is Lord as we pray and live, "Thy Kingdom Come"!

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Randy,
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> ...


Me too brother. I have some questions that I am going to seek answers for. I am fortunate that Dr. Prutow and my Pastor are good resources. I will see them Sunday and start asking questions. Maybe we can get some good solid answers. Maybe one of the RPCNA Pastors will chime in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 6, 2017)

I am in the process of trying to gain knowledge and locate the minutes concerning the Testimonies rejection of Chapter 23:3 after the colon.

On another note here is a new work on the topic by R. Andrew Myers.

*King of Nations as well as King of Saints*

http://mediatorialkingship.com/
https://view.publitas.com/p222-10242/king-of-nations-revised-november-2016/page/1


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> On another note here is a new work on the topic by R. Andrew Myers.



This is an excellent compilation on the subject of Christ's dominion over the nations and the duty of nations to Christ. The quotations may be said to support the Reformed Presbyterian position insofar as that position was held and continues to be held by all confessional presbyterians. But in the context of this discussion, where the difference between Reformed Presyterians and others is under investigation, I must disagree with the idea that these quotations support the RP distinctive, or that the RP distinctive is the original covenanter position. In many of the quotations there is no statement of the RP distinctive. Some of the quotations make it plain that Christ's kingship over the nations includes the providential order and the overruling of evil instruments for the good of His church. Even the teaching that magistrates sin by not submitting to Christ is a clear statement of the legitimacy of civil magistracy by nature. How can they sin as governors if they are not governors by nature? If nothing else the compilation might clarify that this is an important doctrine on which all confessional presbyterians may unite even though there are difference of opinion on specific points of application.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2017)

[What follows is a quotation from George Gillespie's Male Audis (p. 30), where he is discussing a quotation from Thomas Case and showing an important distinction which separates the orthodox from the Erastian position.]

One instance more of his misalleging and perverting of testimonies. In the close, he citeth a passage of Mr Case's sermon, Aug. 22, 1645. "He (Christ) is king of nations and king of saints. As king of nations he hath a temporal kingdom and government over the world," &c., "and the rule and regiment of this kingdom he hath committed to monarchies," &c. "Here is Erastianism (saith Mr Coleman, p. 38), a step higher than ever I or Erastus himself went. And I desire to know of Mr Gillespie, if he will own this as good divinity?" Yes, Sir, I own it for very good divinity; for my reverend brother, Mr Case, saith not that Christ, as Mediator, is king of nations, and hath a temporal kingdom in the world, and hath committed rule and regiment to monarchies or other lawful magistrates (which is the point that you and Mr Hussey contend for, being a great hetorodoxy in divinity), but he saith of the Son of God, that he is king of nations, and hath committed rule to monarchies, which I own with all my heart. *The distinction of the twofold kingdom of Christ, — an universal kingdom, whereby he reigneth over all things as God, and a special economical kingdom, whereby he is king to the church only, and ruleth and governeth it, — is that which, being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth, overturneth the Erastian principles.* Let Mr Coleman but own this distinction, and that which Mr Case addeth concerning the kingdom, which Christ, as king of saints (and so as Mediator), doth exercise both invisibly, in the conscience, and visibly, in the church: First, By conquering a people and visible subjects; secondly, By giving them laws distinct from all the laws and statutes of all the kingdoms and republics in the world, Isa. xxxiii. 22; thirdly, By constituting special officers in the church not only to promulgate these laws, Matt. xviii. 19, but to govern his people according to them, Acts xx. 28; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; xiv. 32; fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey these ecclesiastical officers, Heb. xiii. 7, 17; fifthly, And hath appointed censures proper to this government, Matt. xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 13: I say, let Mr Coleman *but own this doctrine of Mr Case*, which was printed by order of the honourable House of Commons as well as his was, *then we are agreed*.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 10, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Me too brother. I have some questions that I am going to seek answers for. I am fortunate that Dr. Prutow and my Pastor are good resources. I will see them Sunday and start asking questions. Maybe we can get some good solid answers. Maybe one of the RPCNA Pastors will chime in.



Did you happen to speak to these gentlemen last Lord's Day?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 14, 2017)

Yes, We emailed last week but I had more questions.... I also forgot to ask if I could quote them. So I need to do that before I post. Thanks for your patience Andrew. Some of the answer I received did have to do with separation of powers. That was what I assumed in a prior post. I have not forgotten the discussion. I also asked about the views of Gillespie and others who do not consider the Mediatorial Kingship to be over what some would note as Natural. When I was asked about that question personally I noted the situation between Balaam and Balak concerning Israel. But I am not sure about that defense. I think the best place to start is with Matthew 28, Acts 17, Philippians 2, 1 Timothy 2.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 18, 2017)

Here is a short answer I received from Ralph Joseph. I will continue seeking for clarification Andrew.



> The essence of the rejection as I understand it is a rejection of Erastianism in which the state exercises authority over the church. This was the point for which the Scottish Covenanters gave their blood in many cases. With regard to the other issues, I am going to take the liberty to forward your note to Pastor Jim Carson who is retired now but was the chairman, I think, of the most recent revision of the Testimony. Does Roy Blackwood have any recollection of the debate? I doubt there is any papers on the subject but will look when I get to the archives next week. In the meantime, look are the www.archives.org under Covenanter Witness and see if there is any discussion there. Ralph



Dr. Prutow noted this.



> Hi Randy,
> 
> 
> The query seems to me to have a two part answer derived from simply reading further in Chapter 23 of the Testimony. Paragraph 19, offers further explanation relating to the "rejection" noted in Paragraph 18. It reads:
> ...


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 18, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is a short answer I received from Ralph Joseph. I will continue seeking for clarification Andrew.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Prutow noted this.




Interesting. I think the claim that the confession is "erastian" seems far reaching, and ignores the work of the assembly. I've heard this claim before, and it doesn't hold water. So, I'm interested to see why the RP thought this.

As a side, I'm curious how they deal with such passages as 2 Chronicles 19 and 29-30.

Maybe Rev. Winzer can answer this, but it seems that having the MK of Christ over all things might be better strengthened by section three of chapter 23, not diminished. I tend to agree with the seceders on this point (after reading more on the Reformed Presbytery). The RP has a Cameronian position that I just can't accept.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 19, 2017)

MW said:


> I'm not sure in what direction you wish me to elaborate. We could look at redemption, in which there is a clear distinction between the lamb's work for the elect and the nations out of which they have been redeemed: "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Revelation 5:9.
> 
> Or we could look at the church as the fulness of Him that filleth all in all, that is, that fulfils all His saving purpose. "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." Ephesians 1:22.
> 
> ...



This might relate to the discussion. In the 5th edition of the Confessional Presbyterian you wrote an analysis of the quotations on the judicial law and Westminster. It seem like the entire section entitled "The Spheres of nature and grace" deal with this topic. In one area, you write "an infidel may exercise civil power because that power does not require submission to Christ as Mediator in order to be legitimate." (Pg. 76)

Is this what the difference is between the RP and seceders? If so, does this make the RP (at least in part) connected to Erastianism?


----------



## MW (Feb 19, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Maybe Rev. Winzer can answer this, but it seems that having the MK of Christ over all things might be better strengthened by section three of chapter 23, not diminished.



Even here the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland stated its intention in adopting the confession, and ensured that its own spiritual independence would not be invaded or inhibited though granting to the magistrate a power to call synods. Chapter 30, section 1, of the Confession must be the starting point for understanding the headship of Christ over His church as something quite distinct from the civil magistrate. Anything that is granted to the civil magistrate as a duty is thereby confined "circa sacra" (concerning sacred things) and is prohibited from intruding "in sacris" (in sacred things.)

For WCF 23.3, see the excellent treatment in William Cunningham's Discussions of Church Principles, chapter 8, The Westminster Confession on the Relation between Church and State, pp. 211ff.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (Feb 19, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Is this what the difference is between the RP and seceders? If so, does this make the RP (at least in part) connected to Erastianism?



It is probably not so clear-cut because the debate took place within the context of a covenanted kingdom. The RP at times clarified that it was speaking of a situation in which the nation had professed Christianity. But at other times it seems to have systematised the teaching so as to make civil magistracy itself dependent on the mediatorial work of Christ. Consider the "Statement of Principles by the Reformed Presbyterian Union Committee respecting the Relation of Nations and their Rulers to Religion and the Church. – Approved by Synod, May, 1865." (Note, this was after their division of 1863 over the elective franchise.) "But this Divine ordinance having, in common with the other primitive institutions of human life, been depraved by the apostacy of man from God, and greatly perverted from the ends for which it was ordained, can be brought into perfect harmony with its original design only in connection with the Mediatorial economy. It has accordingly been placed by the Father in subjection to Christ as Mediator, to whom all power in heaven and in earth has been given." (Hutchison, History, p. 419.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 20, 2017)

MW said:


> It is probably not so clear-cut because the debate took place within the context of a covenanted kingdom. The RP at times clarified that it was speaking of a situation in which the nation had professed Christianity. But at other times it seems to have systematised the teaching so as to make civil magistracy itself dependent on the mediatorial work of Christ. Consider the "Statement of Principles by the Reformed Presbyterian Union Committee respecting the Relation of Nations and their Rulers to Religion and the Church. – Approved by Synod, May, 1865." (Note, this was after their division of 1863 over the elective franchise.) "But this Divine ordinance having, in common with the other primitive institutions of human life, been depraved by the apostacy of man from God, and greatly perverted from the ends for which it was ordained, can be brought into perfect harmony with its original design only in connection with the Mediatorial economy. It has accordingly been placed by the Father in subjection to Christ as Mediator, to whom all power in heaven and in earth has been given." (Hutchison, History, p. 419.)




What I find interesting is some of the arguments that Gillespie was arguing against. For example,



> In the second sence (which onely concerneth me) taking under and for Christ, to be in Christs stead as his Deputies or Vicegerents: so his Assumption, is lame and imperfect, because it doth not hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did and still do hold is this. That the Civill Magistrate, whether Christian or Pagan, is Gods Vicegerent, who by vertue of that vicegerent-ship is to manage his office and Authority under God, and for God, that is in Gods stead, and as God upon earth. But he is not the Vicegerent of Christ as Mediator, neither is he by vertue of any such Vicegerentship to manage his office and Authority under Christ, and for Christ, that is, in Christs stead, and as Christ Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (nor mine alone, but of others more learned) and Mr. Coleman hath not said so much as [...] to confute it. So much for the Assumption. But in the same sence I utterly deny his Proposition as being a great untruth in Divinity, for the sence of it can be no other then this, Whosoever do not manage their office and authority in Christs stead, or as Deputies and Vicegerents of Christ as he is Mediator, they manage it in the Devils stead, as the devils deputies and Vicegerents. Now I assume. Pagan Magistrates do not manage their office as the Deputies and Vicegerents of Jesus Christ, as he is Mediator: Ergo as the devils deputies. Which way was the Authority derived to them from Christ as Mediator. Mr. Colemanpag. 19. saith in answer to this particular (formerly objected) that Christ is rightfull King of the whole earth, and all Nations ought to receive Christ, though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to shew, was that the Pagan Magistrate, even while continuing Pagan, and not Christian, doth manage his office as Christs Deputy and Vicegerent. If not, then I conclude by his principles, a Pagan Magistrate is the devils deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Pauls doctrine, who will have us to be subject for conscience sake, even to Heathen Magistrates as the Ministers of God for good. Rom. 13. first 7 verses. By the same Argument Mr. Coleman must grant that Generals, Admirals, Majors, Sheriffes, Constables, Captains, Masters, yea every man that hath an office, is either Christs Vicegerent, or the devils vicegerent: then which what can be more absurd? I might beside all these shew some other flawes in his Divinity, as namely, pa. 9. and 13. He doth not agree to this Proposition, that the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Lords Table, makes Ministers to partake of their sins. And he supposeth that Ministers may do their duty, though they admit the scandalous. But of this elsewhere.
> 
> (Gillespie, Nihil Respondes)



Gillespie particularly notes "neither is he by vertue of any such Vicegerentship to manage his office and Authority under Christ". This seems to be the basic premise of the RP position, right? 

There have also been other people that I have spoken to, that say Rutherford disagreed with Gillespie. In one particular discussion, one pointed out the language in Rutherford's catechism:



> "Q. Who called Christ to be king?
> A. His Father put the crown upon his head; He entered not to the throne by violence, blood, or tyranny (Ps. 2:6; Dan. 2:44; Lk. 1:32).
> 
> Q. But is not Christ a king for ever?
> ...



I'm just trying to understand the consensus, especially in light of Baillie and Gillespie's work on the 111 Propositions as respresenting the Scottish church.

Thoughts?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 21, 2017)

Sorry Andrew, what is the meaning of


Andrew P.C. said:


> Vicegerentship


 as Gillespie is using it?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 21, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Sorry Andrew, what is the meaning of as Gillespie is using it?



Well, I'll quote Rev. Winzer on earlier posts (he has a better way with words than I):



> 1.The word commonly used in this context is vicegerent. Of late vice-regent has been gaining momentum in literature, but it is an obvious mistake. Man was not made vice-regent, serving in the place of God, but one who was to exercise delegated power. (Found here: http://puritanboard.com/threads/what-does-it-really-mean.88169/#post-1090543)
> 
> 2. "Gero" is to bear or carry whereas "rego" is to rule. As one author noted, vice-regent can imply a layer of rule between God and man whereas vicegerent acts more directly on behalf of the sovereign. My guess is that vice-regent came into theological literature in the latter part of the twentieth century as a misuse of vicegerent. (Found here:http://puritanboard.com/threads/extent-of-mediatorial-kingdom.89091/#post-1099701)


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 21, 2017)

On a side note, I have this thought that the MK as portrayed by the RP, is somehow connected to hypothetical universalism. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to see a response to this idea.


----------



## MW (Feb 21, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> There have also been other people that I have spoken to, that say Rutherford disagreed with Gillespie. In one particular discussion, one pointed out the language in Rutherford's catechism:



Rutherford's anti-Erastian thought is crystallised in The Divine Right of Church Government. The particular area of Christ's mediation is treated on pp. 607ff., along the same lines as taught by George Gillespie, and answering the same person, Thomas Coleman.

While on the subject of Rutherford, he also answers your later query about the implications for redemption. See p. 610, where Rutherford employs an ad absurdum argument to the effect that the adversaries must teach universal redemption.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

