# Symington's "Messiah the Prince" & WCF



## Poimen (May 14, 2013)

I read this work recently and found it to be quite helpful. Symington, in fact, answers many objections to the assertion of Christ's "Meditorial Kingship" which could be used to answer many R2K objections to opposing views as well. 

My main interest in this post, however, is to answer this question: how close to the overall theology and presentation of the WCF is Symington's thesis? Is Symington's presentation just vanilla establishmentarianism or are there some elements that expand on or even (in your view) contradict the WCF? I can't see anything in his work that would undermine the original WCF (1646), but I would like to 'throw out' this matter here for discussion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 14, 2013)

From gathering information I have found there were various views about Christ's Mediatorial Reign. I honestly believe that Symington gets it correct. On p. 97 of 'Aaron's Rod Blossoming' you will see that Gillespie doesn't hold to his view of Christ as Mediator over the Civil realm. But he is responding to Erastianism. Rutherford is in line with Gillespie. Dr. David McKay who is a RP confirms that there is a shift in RP thinking but doesn't seem to be able to pin down the exact time. He writes about it in a book. Christianbook.com: The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear: Anthony Selvaggio: 9781596380202

You can download an audio of Dr. McKay speaking on the topic which basically follows the book here.
*From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ*

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals > From Popery To Principle Covenanters And The Kingship Of Christ

I had someone seem to indicate that we were taking a Roman Principle and importing it into our thinking. It is quite obvious that that isn't true at all. Principles can be partially correct and not resemble the truth. That is how cults work. They take a bit of truth and skew it. Of course that was a Modern Two Kingdom proponent. 

I noticed that Chris Coldwell posted this a bit back.


NaphtaliPress said:


> There is nothing in the record regarding the judicial law for instance, like Gillespie’s insistence for a change to the wording of 23.3; and even in that case the Assembly adopted a rare if not singular memorandum that the change was “not intended to determine the controversy about the subordination of the civill magistrate to Christ as mediatour” (see below at April 12, 1646/47).



I just read somewhere (and I am sorry I can't recall where) that there was disagreement on the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ as the Erastians held to a view concerning it. That seems to be what Gillespie and Rutherford were reacting to. We are not Erastian! So I believe our view does comport to being under the umbrella of the Divines as the teaching developed.


----------



## Poimen (May 14, 2013)

Thank you Randy. And, For what it's worth, Symington clearly rejects Erastianism: 



> It may be the duty of the state to give the church all the advantages of a civil establishment, without such an establishment being essential to the church's existence. The church has existed without the countenance and support of the civil power. These are by no means necessary to its being. To maintain that they are, is pure and undisguised Erastianism;—a principle degrading to the honour of the church, and subversive of the very ends of its existence.



-William Symington, “Messiah the Prince” pages 127-128


----------



## au5t1n (May 14, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> On p. 97 of 'Aaron's Rod Blossoming' you will see that Gillespie doesn't hold to his view of Christ as Mediator over the Civil realm. But he is responding to Erastianism.



My understanding was that Gillespie insisted (and rightly so) that civil government is a natural ordinance which originates from God as Creator and is not a mediatorial institution, but that nevertheless he would acknowledge that Christ as victorious Mediator rules over all things to the good of his church, and that the nations ought to acknowledge the Mediator. Is there another distinction somewhere in the mix that I'm missing?


----------



## MW (May 14, 2013)

Symington presented the claims of Christ as Mediator upon nations, but did not provide the kind of systematic qualification one finds in Rutherford and Gillespie. I don't see how this necessarily amounts to a different position as it could simply be a matter of presentation. Of course Rutherford and Gillespie do not equate to the WCF, but their understanding is fairly typical of the mind of the church in adopting the Confession in 1647, especially the 111 Propositions.

Symington clearly stated, "True, civil society is founded in nature, and not in grace." He fails to go as far as the old divines who taught that obligation to the Messiah is "super-added." In fact, he seems to have contradicted them when he said that nations derive their "existence" from Christ, but he is careful to restrict this to "a certain sense" which is tied to civil government being a "moral ordinance" only.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 7, 2013)

Why, if it is held that Christ rules the nation-states mediatorially, does this imply Erastianism?

I just need that clarified. Does the above position imply that He _only_ rules the Church through the State?


----------

