‘And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his Kingdom there shall be no end.’
‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’
‘Jesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.’
Order of Contents
While Christ has a Kingdom of Power over the whole world in its general providence as He is divine, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is the Mediatorial Kingdom that has been delegated to Him as the God-Man the Church (only), or is it co-extensive with his Kingdom of Power, including all things?
Dr. Richard Muller, one of the world’s leading Reformed historians, summarizes the standard reformed view of the Reformation and Puritan era thus:
‘The Reformed, however [in contrast to the Lutherans], tend to attribute the regnum universale [universal Kingdom] specifically to the Second Person of the Trinity and only the regnum oeconomicum [economic reign, including the Mediatorial Kingdom] to the God-man as Mediator.’
– Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms, pp. 259-60
George Gillespie, the Westminster divine, explains historically, in part, why the doctrine that Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church only became so dominant during the Reformation and shortly thereafter, here. Here are All of the Scottish Confessions, National Covenants and Declarations from the Reformation, Puritan and Covenanting Eras on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only.
Thus, according to the large majority of the Reformation and Puritan era, Christ has two Kingdoms:
1. A Kingdom by divine right (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the other persons of the Trinity) as Creator (Prov. 8:15-16;22-30), King (Ps. 99:1-2), Governor (Col. 1:16-17) and Head (Col. 2:9-10) of the universe. Civil and paternal authority derive from this source (Rom. 13:1; Ex. 20:12). By the call of the gospel (Mt. 6:33; Col. 3:17), persons are to use their natural vocations and authority (Ps. 2:10-12; Isa. 49:23) to profess Christ (Col. 3:17), glorify Him and serve (Ps. 72:10-11) the interests of his Mediatorial Kingdom (Mt. 6:33) in consistency with the natural ends of their offices (1 Pet. 2:13-14).
2. A Kingdom that has been delegated and given to Christ as the God-Man, Mediator, King (Lk. 1:32-33; Isa. 9:6-7) and Head (Col. 1:18) of God’s people, the Church, only (Eph. 1:22-23 in the Greek), for redemptive purposes (Jn. 17:2). Due to his mediatorial work, Christ the God-Man has been exalted in glory over the whole universe (Phil. 2:6-9; Heb. 2:8) and has been given all spiritual (Jn. 17:2; 18:36; Lk. 17:20-21) authority ‘as Mediator… [to] exercise a supreme power (Mt. 28:18) and providence over all things for his own glory and his Church’s good’ (Eph. 1:22), including over-ruling and dashing kings and nations of the earth that resist Him and will not serve Him (Ps. 2:9-12).
Thus, the dominant view of the Reformation was that the civil government’s sole source of authority and power was from God the Trinity as Creator (Rom. 13:1-5; Ps. 82:1), via nature (1 Pet. 2:13-14; Gen. 9:5-7; 10:8-10; Jud. 9:6; 1 Sam. 11:15; 12:1, etc.), and not from Christ as Mediator.
One reason, amongst many others, why Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom does not include the world is because a kingdom, by definition, must be for the good of its subjects (Rom. 13:4; WCF 23.1; WLC #45). Yet Christ’s governing of all people and dashing nations and kings that resist Him through providential judgments (Ps. 2:8-12) is not for their good, but for the good of the Church, his Kingdom.
The Secession Church of Scotland (1732 and following) held substantially the same view that came before them, though it used different terminology and had some variation of categories. They asserted that Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is over all things spiritually (Christ governs all things for his spiritual ends), but the sole source of civil authority is still via nature, from God as Creator. This view, and its attendant terminology, accounts for almost all of the historic, Reformed theologians during the 1500’s and 1600’s who used the terminology of Christ’s Kingdom as Mediator being over all things. It also accounts for much of the same terminology being used by standard Reformed writers in later centuries.
The third view, that Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom includes all things, while having previous precedents in Reformed history, has most often been associated with the family of denominations known as the Reformed Presbyterians. This view asserts that all authority has been transferred to Christ at his ascension such that all authority, natural and spiritual, derive from Christ as Mediator, his Mediatorial Kingdom being co-extensive with that of his Kingdom of Power by creation, and all ruling functions of the Trinity by creation being delegated to Him. Thus, the civil government, as well as every natural institution, derives at least part of its authority from Christ as God-man at the right hand of God, its Head, and is thus formally responsible to Him, as God-Man, in all things both spiritual and moral (natural). Unbelievers, while owned by Christ, are in Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom in a non-saving way, being rebels to his rule.
The Reformed Presbyterian theoloigical professor David McKay writes concerning the history of this view:
“By the following century [the 1800’s], however, the doctrine [of the kingship of Christ as Mediator over the nations] is taken as an essential element of the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony, complete with exegesis of a number of texts, yet with little apparent awareness that it is not the doctrine of the early Covenanters.”
– ‘From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ’ in ed. Anthony Selvaggio, The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne Spear (2007) p. 156
The Traditional and Seceder views espouse a ‘Two Kingdom’ paradigm. The view commonly held by Reformed Presbyterians also often holds to a Two Kingdom paradigm with a super-added universal Mediatorial Kingdom since Christ’s ascension; see for instance, William Symington’s Messiah the Prince, pp. 213-215 & 101-102, though the distinction between the Kingdoms becomes ‘only theoretical’.¹
¹ Andrew Symington, Headship of Christ over the Nations, p. 16
Some persons of this view, though, would reject the Two Kingdom paradigm altogether and assert only one Kingdom through history with two different aspects, such as the Reformed Presbyterian theological professor, David McKay (An Ecclesiastical Republic, pp. 62-76). McKay says that this One Kingdom view, ‘…did not really develop until approximately the last century.’ (p. 77)
All three of the views on this page are in contrast to the modern Two Kingdoms view, commonly espoused, for instance, by professors at Westminster Seminary West. The difference lies in how the Kingdoms relate to each other. The Modern view of Church and State relations (historically known as Voluntaryism), holds that the civil government is to uphold only half of God’s Moral Law: only the 2nd Table of the Ten Commandments; and thus the State is to enforce, by the Will of God and his holy authority, religious pluralism.
All three of the views represented on this page, in contrast, fully hold to the orthodox reformed view of the Establishment Principle (see Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646, ch. 23.3), that the civil government and the Church are co-ordinate institutions under the authority of the Word of God with separate jurisdictions. The civil government, in the administration of its office, is to profess, protect and promote the true religion and uphold all of the Ten Commandments in natural society, as responsible unto God and wielding his authority, according to its limited, natural and outward civil jurisdiction, without interfering with the spiritual commission, administration, jurisdiction and authority of the Church.
The Traditional and Seceder views hold that the civil government is under the headship and power-giving authority of God as Creator and Christ as divine, and that the Church is under the headship and power-giving authority of Christ as Mediator, the God-man. The view associated with the Reformed Presbyterians holds that both the civil magistrate and the Church are under the headship and power-giving authority of Christ as Mediator, the God-Man.
Please enjoy this Christian literature and learn much from the saints that have gone before us. May Christ’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
1. Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only
Contemporary Introductory Article
Barth, Paul – ‘Confessional Two Kingdoms’ (2015) 26 paragraphs
Beeke, Jonathan David – Duplex Regnum Christi: Christ’s Twofold Kingdom in Reformed Theology (Univ. of Groningen, 2019) 299 pp. The 9 propositions that he defended are available.
Abstract: “For centuries the Christian church has wrestled with the question, “How must the Christian’s activity relate to the surrounding culture?” While answers abound, this debate has only intensified over the past decade as a renewed interest in the Reformed “two kingdoms” (R2K) doctrine has gained momentum. This two-kingdoms reading challenges the neo-Calvinist or transformationalist response, and yet both claim to be operating from a Reformational perspective. Although this study does not seek to referee this debate, it does ask the question, “How was the doctrine of Christ’s twofold kingdom expressed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries?” The research concentrates on select Reformers of the sixteenth century and representative intellectual centers of the seventeenth century (notably, Geneva [Turretin & Pictet], Leiden [Junius & Walaeus], and Edinburgh [Scharp & Dickson]). A primary concern is to trace the development of this doctrine over the two centuries in question.
The overarching argument is that the Reformed orthodox portrayal of the twofold kingdom of Christ stands in continuity with that of the early Reformers, and yet there is significant doctrinal development extending into the seventeenth century. Three primary factors stimulated this doctrine’s refinement: (1) new theological challenges, combined with a desire for more precise terminology; (2) the exegesis of particular Scripture passages describing a transfer of authority to/from Jesus Christ; and (3) development in other doctrines, especially covenant theology. Interesting for today’s context, the varied political climate of the seventeenth century had relatively little influence on this doctrine’s development.”
Bradford, John – Meditation on the Kingdom of Christ (d. 1555) in Writings, vol. 2, pp. 359-362
Davenant, John – The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846) bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2
Temple, Thomas – ‘Christ’s Government in & Over his People: Delivered in a Sermon before the House of Commons, at their Late Public & Solemn Fast, Oct. 26, 1642’ (London, 1642) on Ps. 2:6
Temple (c. 1601-1661) was a Westminster divine.
All of Gillespie’s Writings on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is the Church Only 110 pp. ed. Travis Fentiman
2 paragraphs at the end of Argument 1 in ‘That Excommunication and other Church Censures are Appointed by Jesus Christ, and that Church Officers are Appointed by Him to dispense these censures’ in Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster
“There is no date assigned in Gillespie’s MS to these arguments, but they were probably occasioned by [John] Seldon’s statements on 20th February 1644 in regard to the discussions on Matthew ch. 18 which are at page 25. See at a later date, pages 91-95.” – Editor
pp. 291-294, Sixteenth Argument in Part 2, Ch. 9 of Aaron’s Rod
“Now in the administration and government of a kingdom, these three things are necessarily required: 1. Laws; 2. Officers, Ministers, Judges, Courts; 3. Censures and punishments of offences. Which three being universally necessary in every Kingdom…” – pp. 291-292
Hudson, Samuel – pp. 64-66 of ‘Proofs by Arguments and Reason that there is a Church-Catholic-Visible’ 1645 3 pp. in A Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholic Visible This work was dedicated to the Westminster Assembly
Goodwin, Thomas – The World to Come, or the Kingdom of Christ Asserted, in 2 Expository Lectures on Eph. 1:21-22 in Works, vol. 12 Westminster divine
Owen, John – ‘The Exercise of the Mediatory Office of Christ in Heaven’ being ch. 20 of A Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ in Works, vol. 1
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994)
Vol. 1, 3rd Topic, 22nd Question, The Dominion & Sovereignty of God, sections III-IV, pp. 250-51
16. ‘The Kingdom of Christ: Whether the Economical Kingdom of Christ is Temporal and Earthly, or Spiritual and Heavenly. The Former we Deny; We Assert the Latter Against the Jews.’ 486-90
Turretin interprets Ps. 2 in the same manner as Gillespie and Rutherford, on pp. 486, 490 and other places: that Christ has been set as King upon his Church (2:6), that the inheritance out of all the nations (Ps. 2:8) is the Church called out of the world (not the whole world), and that kings and judges are to serve Him (vv. 10-11) as He is the King of the Church. The ‘Word of his Power’ is his word preached through his Church ministers, a spiritual power, enforced through providential judgments, and the decree of Christ being the Begotten Son of God and raised from the dead is to go out to all the earth through the extending call of the gospel, from Zion, God’s Church.
17. ‘The Eternity of Christ’s Kingdom: Is the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ to Continue Forever? We Affirm.’ 490-94
18. ‘The Adoration and Worship Due to Christ as Mediator: Is Christ to be Adored as Mediator? We Distinguish.’ 494-501
Vol. 3, 18th Topic, Question 29, Ecclesiastical Power, sections 14-18, Ecclesiastical Power is Distinct from Political as to Origin, pp. 278-80
Barlow, Thomas – ‘Question: Whether Dominion is Founded in Grace [as Romanists claim]? [No]’ in Several Miscellaneous & Weighty Cases of Conscience (London, 1692), pp. 26-38
Barlow (c.1608-1691) was a reformed, Anglican bishop and academic at Oxford. He was among the last English bishops to call the Pope the Antichrist.
A’Brakel, Wilhelmus – The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ch. 21, ‘The Kingly Office of Jesus Christ’, p. 561-3 1700
A’Brakel’s treatment is brief, but interesting in revealing the Dutch scene. His systematic theology may be the most influential set of theology in Dutch Reformed history.
Crakanthorpe, Richard – ‘That Christ had no such Temporal Monarchy, as is Now Claimed for the Pope,’ (1621) 12 pp. being ch. 2 of The Defense of Constantine with a treatise of [against] the Pope’s Temporal monarchy, wherein… the second Roman Synod, under Silvester, is declared to be a mere fiction and forgery
Crakanthorpe takes aim at the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, but as will be seen from the article, presents a very detailed discussion of the nature and extent of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom from the Reformed paradigm.
Wollebius, an influential Swiss theologian, presents the standard reformed view in his foundational systematic theology that shaped much of reformed theology after him.
ed. van Asselt, Bell, van den Brink, Ferwerda, Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588–1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules (Apeldoorn, 2009), ch. 4, ‘On God’, p. 119
“24. In Christ there is a distinction between power and authority.
Authority denotes an office; power a nature.”
ed. Mitchell & Struthers, Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1874) p. 307-8
Session 752 – December 4, 1646 – Friday morning
Report was made of the remaining part of the Confession of Faith by Dr. Burges.
Upon a motion by Mr. Gillespie for an alteration in the chapt[er] about the Civil Magistrate [ch. 23], and upon debate it was:
Resolved upon the Q [the final edition of the Confession], ‘That in the said chapter for the word “Christ,” the word “God,” shall be put in three places.’ Dr. Burges enters his dissent.
Memorandum-‘This vote was not intended to determine the controversy about the subordination of the Civil Magistrate to Christ as Mediator.’
Aaron’s Rod Blossoming 1646
“As for that collaterality which is objected, I answer, the civil and ecclesiastical power, if we speak properly, are not collateral.
1. They have no footing upon the same ground: there may be many subject to the magistrate, who are no church members, and so not under the spiritual power; and where the same persons are subject to both the powers, there is no more collaterality, in this case, nay, not so much, as is betwixt the power of a father in one man, and the power of a master in another man, when both powers are exercised upon the same man who is both a son and a servant.
2. Powers that are collateral, are of the same eminency and altitude, of the same kind and nature; but the civil power is a dominion and lordship; the ecclesiastical power is ministerial, not lordly.
3. Collateral powers do mutually and alike exercise authority over each other respectively. But, though the magistrate may exercise much authority in things ecclesiastical [circa sacra], church officers can exercise no authority in things civil. The magistrate’s authority is ecclesiastical objective, though not formaliter: but the church officer’s authority is not civil so much as objective, not being exercised about either civil, criminal, or capital cases.
4. Collateral powers are subordinate to, and derived from the supreme and original power, like two branches growing out of the same stock, two streams flowing from the same fountain, two lines drawn from the same center, two arms under the same head; but the power of the magistrate is subordinate unto, and depends upon the dominion of God the Creator of all: the power of church officers depends upon the dominion of Christ, the Mediator and King of the church.”
A Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical, in Several Tractates (Oxford, 1656), p. 43. Jeanes was an English presbyterian minister.
“Here comes in that question, whether or not the power of the temporal magistrate (as such) be so derived from Christ, not only as God, but as Mediator, so that he is his deputy and vice-gerent. The negative may be made good by these following arguments:
1. The power of Christ’s deputies as Mediator is only ministerial, the power of servants or heralds (Lk. 22:25-26; Mt. 20:25-27): as Protestants prove against Papists in the controversy touching the supremacy of the Pope. But now the power of magistrates may be imperial and monarchical, and therefore it is not derived from Christ as He is Mediator unto his deputies.
2. All the deputies and vice-gerents of Christ as Mediator are obliged to promote the Kingdom and Gospel of Christ. But now heathenish magistrates that never heard, nor could hear of the name of Christ, are not bound to promote Christ’s Mediatory Kingdom and gospel: for they are invincibly ignorant thereof, and there can be no obligation without revelation (Jn. 15:22; Rom. 2:12). Therefore they are not the deputies and vice-gerents of Christ as Mediator, and therefore [they are] no magistrates as such: for, à quatenus ad de omni valet consequentia.
3. All the deputies and vice-gerents of Christ as Mediator have their commission from the Gospel; but now temporal magistrates have their commission at least from the secondary law of nature, the law of nations. But now the law of nature and nations dictates nothing of a Mediator, or anything relating unto Him as such.
I should send the reader unto Mr. Gillespie in his Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Book 2, chs. 6-7; to see farther of this subject, but because Mr. Baxter thinks Mr. Rutherford a more able disputant than Gillespie, I shall refer unto him, in his Lex & Rex, Question 42, from pp. 422-433, as also his Divine Right of Church Government, from pp. 600-42 where he prosecutes these and other arguments at large…”
Presbyterial Government Described, or, A Methodical Synopsis of it, as it is Professed & Practiced in the Church of Scotland… (Edinburgh, 1695), no page number
“Yet surely as ministers derive their power from the Mediator Christ, so magistrates derive theirs from God Almighty, and both by vertue of their office, commission and capacity are unavoidably obliged to join their power and policy together for the suppression and punishment of vice and wickedness and the promoval and encouragement of virtue and piety, for no less will God call civil magistrates to an account for their negligence and maladministrations than Church pastors and ministers; therefore both should amicably correspond and cordially concur for advancing the peace and purity of the Church, for which purpose it is our hearty vote that God would pour forth a spirit of wisdom, zeal and holiness upon magistrates, ministers and all ranks and degrees of persons, Amen.”
‘The Westminster Assembly and the Judicial Law’ in Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 5 (2009), p. 74, 76-77
“A Christian [according to the Westminster Confession of Faith] may take up the lawful calling of a magistrate, in contrast to Anabaptism. A magistrate must not exercise his rule in sacred things, in contrast to Erastianism. An infidel magistrate still possesses legal authority, in contrast with Romanism.
Although Anabaptism, Erastianism, and Romanism are quite divergent systems, the three share one underlying assumption in their views of the relationship of the State to Christianity–they all teach that lawful civil power is, in some way or another, derived from Jesus Christ as Mediator.
Anabaptists denied that non-Christian government is ordained of God. As Robert Baillie relates, they considered the saints to be those who were ‘joined to their Churches and received their Anabaptisme; all the rest of them were wicked and to be cut off.’ Erastians asserted, in the words of Thomas Coleman, ‘that God hath given all magistracy to Christ to be managed under him, for him.’ Romanists made magistrates servants to the papacy. Samuel Rutherford wrote, ‘Stapleton, Bellarmine, and Papists will have them [princes] to be brutish servants, to execute whatsoever the Pope and Councils shall decree, good or bad, without examination.’
All three systems differ as to the application of this principle and the place where ultimate jurisdiction is to be vested–Anabaptists placing it in the Conscience, Erastians in the King, and Romanists in the Pope–but they agree on the principle itself, that Jesus Christ as Mediator is the foundation of civil power.
In opposing these three errors, the Westminster divines, with the exception of the Erastian representatives, rejected the view that the civil magistrate derives his authority from Christ as Mediator. Rather, it is from God as the Creator and Supreme Ruler that magistrates receive power…
In contrast to the teaching of the Confession and its framers, theonomy rejects the nature-grace distinction and teaches that the civil magistrate is subservient to Christ as Mediator. Greg Bahnsen claims that ‘A nature/grace dichotomy in the area of civil government is totally alien to the scriptural outlook’ (Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 433). It is taught that ‘the Lord’s Messiah has absolute, firm, and autocratic authority over all the magistrates of the nations; they are guided, directed, and chastised by Him’ (362). The apostle Paul is alleged to have ‘subordinated the authority of Caesar to that of King Jesus’ and ‘by his teaching of the Kingship of Christ Paul was opposing the decrees of autocratic Caesar’ (395).¹
¹ The Westminster Annotations take the opposite view, and judge the allegation made against Paul and Silas [in Acts 17:7] to be nothing less than a false aspersion cast upon them by the Jews. It also comments, ‘Paul and Silas endeavored to advance the spiritual kingdom of Christ, without any injury to the Roman Empire… the ancient Christians were no disturbers of States.’ ‘Annotations on the Acts of the Apostle’s,’ in The Second Volume of Annotations, on Acts 17:7.
Finally it is maintained [by Bahnsen],
‘The only ultimate King in civil government is Christ, and all rulers of the nations derive their authority from Him; hence all magistrates are subject to Christ’s word, even Christ’s confirmation of every bit of the law (Matt 17f.)… National leaders have no exemption from the law of God just as they have no escape from the universal Lordship of Christ’ (429).
The civil magistrate, according to this [theonomic] view of it, is a ‘Christocracy’ (432). This means that ‘state leaders are just as obligated to follow Christ’s direction as the church elders are required to obey the Head of the Church’ (433).
2. Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is Over All Things, Spiritually
Brown, John, of Haddington – A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion, Book 4, ‘Of the General and Particular Offices of Christ’, Part III, pp. 309-16 (1782)
‘Of the Accomplishment of the Covenant of Grace by Christ as a King’ from Sacred Contemplations, Part 2, Period 2, Section 3, pp. 234-9 (1786)
‘Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom & Common Benefits’ (1747) 7 pp. from his The Present Truth: A Display of the Secession Testimony, vol. 2, Appendix 2, Section 4, pp. 299-302
Gib was an important Scottish Secession Church theologian. Gib discusses how common benefits to humanity flow from Christ on the throne in heaven. He distinguishes Christ’s relation as God, Creator and Preserver, from his office of redemptive Mediator and the benefits of his death for his people (in a Limited Atonement). Gib makes 7 helpful distinctions.
Gib’s general paradigm was previously taught by Rutherford, A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (1642), ch. 19, p. 295.
Mason, John M. – ‘Messiah’s Throne, a Sermon’ (1802) in The Columbian Preacher, or a Collection of Original Sermons, from Preachers of Eminence in the United States, Embracing the Distinguishing Doctrines of Grace, vol. 1 1808 American Seceder, New York
Dick, John – Lectures on Theology, vol. 3, Lecture 64, ‘The Kingdom of Christ’, pp. 224-45 (1834)
Laing, B., What Ought the Reformed Presbyterians & the Original Seceders to do Now? (1846)
Stevenson, George – The Offices of Christ, Sections 12-13, ‘The Kingly Office of Christ’ & ‘The Extent of our Lord’s Dominion as Mediator’, being pp. 109-21, no date
3. Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom Includes All Things
Howe, John – The Redeemer’s Dominion over the Invisible World d. 1705 in Works (London, 1862), vol. 2, pp. 371-449
Howe (1630-1705) was a dissenting minister in England. His piece is a classic.
‘Nor is this key of the vast Hades [the unseen world, Rev. 1:18], when it is in the hand of our Redeemer, the less in the hand of the Holy, Blessed One; for so is He too. But it is in his hand as belonging to his office of Mediator between God and man…’ – p. 380
Johnston, Archibald – The Kingdom of the Stone no date, d. 1818
Pockras, Philip, ‘Christ the King of All’ no date, 9 pp.
Symington, William – Messiah the Prince (1834)
Myers, Andrew – King of Nations as Well as King of Saints: the Extent and Scope of the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ: Survey and Testimony of what is known as the Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter) Distinctive (2016) 498 pp.
This is a massive collection of excerpts from historic, reformed writers since the Reformation (in chronological order) documenting where their language has been similar to, or agreed with, Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom being over, or including, all things.
Schmid, Heinrich – ‘The Regal Office’ 1875 6 pp. being ch. 37 of The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, pp. 370-6
This is an anthology of excerpts from standard, early (1500’s-1700’s) Lutheran writers. They firmly side on Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom including all things.
On Christian Tennis
Some Notes by Travis Fentiman
In consistency with the dominant, traditional Scottish view of the Post-Reformation:
1. There is a distinction between the art/sport/natural-institution, and the person that plays it or uses it, and their goal, or end, in playing it.
The end of tennis or bowling, as an art or science, is simply the art of tennis or bowling itself, or hitting the ball over the net or knocking down all the pins (hence bowling is not tennis). The person who uses tennis or bowling, though, might use that art/sport/science unto their own end of exercise, recreation, etc., and possibly to the glory of God, or for a witness for Christ, etc. But Christ is not in the rule of tennis itself, or in the mechanics of bowling.
2. There is a distinction between between near and proximate ends, and distant ultimate ends.
The near and proximate end of persons in a tennis club is to play tennis (for enjoyment, sport, competition, exercise, etc. or just for appreciating the very art of tennis itself). The near and proximate end of persons in a bowling league is to bowl in a league. The distant and ultimate end of persons playing in the tennis or bowling club, to whom Christ has never been revealed, ought to be to the glory of God the Creator (who made nature, allows tennis and bowling, etc.).
3. There is no change in tennis itself when someone becomes a Christian.
Hence, the intrinsic end of the art/sport/institution does not change. However, how one plays it changes, namely that the person will, or should, play tennis in a Christian way, that is, not cheating, not swearing, trying to bless his opponent in appropriate ways, etc. The use has changed, but not the sport.
4. Col. 3:17 says, ‘And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.’
This is a call to personal Christians, that whatever they do, they are to do in the name of Christ. So personal Christians, when they play tennis, are to play tennis in the name of Christ, and give thanks to God for it. This means that the distal and ultimate end of the Christian in playing tennis ought not to be simply God the Creator, or his own selfish ends, but Christ the Mediator.
However, for those that have never heard of Christ, their chief end is still to be to play tennis to the glory and enjoyment of God the Creator.
5. The reformed often made the distinction between specific acts and the willing-disposition of the soul to such an act. One need not always talk about Christ in playing tennis; if one is known as a Christian, and has a disposition ready to speak well of Christ when appropriate, this is consistent with the light of nature and fulfills the command.
6. All this to say, the purpose of the institution of tennis, tennis clubs, etc. is not now, after the Ascension, the glory of Christ, or even to confess Christ.
While Christ has power over all things as the Mediator, to work all things unto the Church’s good and his glory, yet the power or authority by which a person plays tennis, or that of a tennis club, comes solely from nature, namely, from natural persons in their ability agreeing to play tennis together.
7. According to some varieties of American pluralism, while the Christian playing tennis may play personally in a Christian way, yet the club itself should not be explicitly Christian. On the contrary, if possible, the club, and its authority should be used in a Christian way.
Hence the administration of the tennis club, upon the consent of its organizers or members (with the power which that entails), may be a Christian tennis club; that is, the authority of the tennis club, in its administration, may be, and ought to be when possible, used by the people for the glory of Christ and the good of his spiritual Kingdom (which is the Church, God’s visible people professing the True Religion).
The administration is defined as the science/sport plus the person(s) using it for their ends. Having a Christian administration does not change the science, or tennis, or the intrinsic ends of tennis itself.
The Reformed Presbyterian view:
1. Tends to conflate a Christian administration of an institution, with the intrinsic ends of the institution, science or art itself.
2. Tends to make the distant, ultimate end of glorifying and confessing Christ the near and proximate end.
Hence, the primary purpose of playing tennis at all is now to confess Christ, and if one isn’t doing that clearly and expressly, in the tennis club’s constitution, then they may be unfaithful. In fact, the tennis club itself might be invalid if it does not mention Christ in its constitution.
‘As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him.’