Paedo-Baptism Answers Is this a Typical Non-Republicationist View, or Does it Still Lean Republicationist; also, Is it Correct?

[Sam Jer]

It [the law] was designed, in the first instance, for the instruction of the Jews, now formed into a nation, and about to be established in the land which the Lord had promised to give to Abraham and his seed; and, in the second instance, to prepare them, by a course of discipline and education, for the coming of Him 'in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed.' They were put 'under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father,'—and 'the Law was their schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ, that they might be justified by faith.' For this reason it had a mixed character,—the 'Law' which came by Moses being 'added' to the 'Promise' which had been given to Abraham. It was neither purely Evangelical, nor purely Legal; it contained the Gospel, but 'the Law was added to it because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made.' The addition of the Law was not intended to alter either the ground, or the method, of a sinner's justification, by substituting obedience to the Law for faith in the Promise; for the Law which was originally 'ordained unto life' was now found, by reason of sin, 'to be unto death;' but it was now 'added,' and promulgated anew with awful sanctions amidst the thunderings and lightnings of Sinai, to impress the Jews, and through them the Church at large, with a sense of the holiness and justice of Him with whom they had to do,—of the spirituality and extent of that obedience which they owed to Him,—of the number and heinousness of their sins,—and of their utter inability to escape the wrath and curse of God, otherwise than by taking refuge in the free promise of His grace. Believers were justified, therefore, under the Law, not by works, but by faith: by faith, they were 'the children of Abraham,' and 'heirs with him of the same promise.' The Law—considered as a national covenant, by which their continued possession of the land of Canaan, and of all their privileges under the Theocracy, was left to depend on their external obedience to it,—might be called a national Covenant of Works, since their temporal welfare was suspended on the condition of their continued adherence to it; but, in that aspect of it, it had no relation to the spiritual salvation of individuals, otherwise than as this might be affected by their retaining, or forfeiting, their outward privileges and means of grace. It may be considered, however, in another light, as a re-exhibition of the original Covenant of Works, for the instruction of individual Jews in the principles of divine truth; for in some such light it is evidently presented in the writings of Paul. In this aspect, it was designed, not for the justification of sinners, but for the conviction of sin. In that form, it was afterwards employed even by the Apostles of Christ, to prove the impossibility of justification by the deeds of the Law, and the necessity of another righteousness, the righteousness of faith; and for the same end, it is still applied to the conscience by every faithful preacher of the Gospel. Thus considered,—as a re-exhibition of the Covenant of Works,—it had a tendency to produce 'a spirit of bondage unto fear;' and this would have been its only effect, had it not been associated with a revelation of God's purpose and promise of grace. But when the Gospel, which had been preached beforehand to Abraham, was known and believed, so as to impart a lively apprehension of 'the forgiveness which is with God,' then conviction of sin might become genuine contrition,—remorse might be turned into repentance,—and the more thoroughly the Law had done its work in the conscience, the more gladly would the promise of a Saviour be received into the heart. The economy of Moses, whatever prominence it gave to the Law, was unquestionably a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. So far from superseding the promise given to Abraham, or 'making it void' and 'of none effect,' it was expressly founded upon it, and designed to carry it on to its accomplishment. That economy gathered up into itself all prior revelations of divine truth. It adopted also the Primæval and Patriarchal institutions—the Sabbath, Sacrifice, and Circumcision,—while it added to these a multitude of ordinances which were peculiar to itself—ceremonial and ritual observances, which were in themselves 'weak and beggarly elements,' and were felt to be 'a heavy yoke,'—yet they were all significant symbols, and typical prefigurations, of spiritual blessings. The believer, therefore, who could look beyond the sign to the thing signified, and see in the shadow the figure of the substance, might find Christ in every ordinance of the Old Testament Church, and obtain through Him, as revealed in the promise, forgiveness and acceptance with God. The devout Israelite, therefore, was justified by grace through faith, not less than the Christian believer. The divine Law, spiritually understood, awakened a deep conviction of sin; the divine promises, embodied and exhibited in the divine ordinances,—in those especially which related to the expiation of sin and the removal of ceremonial defilement,—pointed to a divine method of deliverance based on the principles of substitution and atonement, and produced trust in God's mercy and hope of His gracious acceptance; while the prospective character of these ordinances, as types of better things to come, and their utter insufficiency in themselves to 'take away sin,' or 'to make the comers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience,' directed their thoughts forward to the time when the work of redemption should be actually accomplished by the promised Seed.

~ Exerpt taken out of Lecture 1 in James Buchanan's The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of its History in the Church; And of Its Exposition From Scripture (Links to some efitions: Banner of Truth UK, Monergism, Logos)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It's what I would call a properly nuanced view. Buchanan adopts or presents a "mixed covenant" perspective on the content of Sinai, considered by itself or on its face. Sinai was the moment of national covenanting, of constituting the holy nation which was at the same moment organized as the church--a church-state. The Book of the Covenant (Ex.20-24) was the foundational Constitution document for the people of God going forward. If it only served in that "external" manner, then it most definitely bore the character of the original covenant of works; for it bound the people (who swore to it obediently and in detail) to maintain its terms upon pain of punishment, especially exile from New Eden after the example of Adam and Eve.

Yet, as Sinai was in fact founded on a better ground than their own oath--even on the Abrahamic covenant of promise and free grant--and even as buried in the heart of the Pentateuch is the work of the priests and altar of Israel, a necessary service for the pardoning of countless sins violating the oath, considering the implications of this service (as the book of Hebrews amply demonstrates) was pointing to a perfect sacrifice that must come in time; the Mosaic economy was of necessity and for blessing a "dispensation of the covenant of grace" just as Buchanan writes.

This is the hidden (under the glory-shine) and true character of the Sinai covenant, the "internal" reality. It was not so hidden that it lacked any apparent and undisguised sign. There can be no doubt but that the OT elect of God apprehended the grace of God by faith, as this spiritual sight penetrated beyond the veil of transient glory and the works accompanying. But if one should put his hopes in such works and confidence in the glory he could see naturally, he ought not be surprised when the impatient demands of the law were compelled of him in full.

The legalist or Pharisee believed he, at least, had broken the code for achieving (as nearly as possible) full external compliance with the legal demands. His thought was: if anyone can be justified by this code--and surely God will justify some--I will be among those, and not the "sinners" with a doubtful acceptance or a most certain refusal. He gloried in the law itself, and in himself. Whereas, he who apprehended the mercy of God--grace shown to the sinner Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, and so many more--who saw himself as the publican saw himself, or Peter saw himself, or Jacob saw himself namely as undeserving of divine favor and blessing: here was someone who could love the Old Covenant and what it provided, without relying on it as a covenant of works that could never save a sinner such as he was. Let him that glories glory in the Lord.

If "republication" is regarded substantively of the Mosaic economy, i.e. that its demands were within the grasp of men (in this fallen estate); and/or that its judgments were of the congruent merit variety, meaning that there was a "minimum effort" God would regard as sufficient; then the whole idea must be rejected as incompatible with fallen man's capability, and unworthy of the holy character of God. However, few well-known teachers who boldly adopt the label "republication" think of the concept in purely substantive terms. They are more likely to employ language like administrative, subservient, typological, or mixed when describing the kind of republication they have in mind.

I don't know what terminology Buchanan would use to label himself, or if he would feel any need to. He utilizes the language "re-exhibition" to describe what the Sinai covenant contained with respect to the first covenant of life. It is simply a synonym in this case, when we compare what it is he teaches and what is found in a great many modern teachers using the term republication (language that predates the modern and even Buchanan's day). Was Buchanan avoiding the latter term? I think it doubtful, if yet he preferred the former for clarity or any other reason.

It is simply the case that one of the oldest Reformed-world arguments for a "covenant of works" being apt to describe the first estate of mankind (where in Gen.1-3 the term berith is missing, and certain formalities associated later with covenanting) is this: that as prelude to entering the blessed, restful Promised Land, a New Eden, the people were given a Law to which they swore obedience, a Law that ordained rejection and exile as justice for them when they failed to keep their word. Conceptually, this covenant idea retroactively fits the conditions and terms of the original Eden and estate of man in his innocence. Hence we conclude, it was a covenant arrangement Adam experienced; and it was some kind of re-expression (i.e. republication) of those original terms encoded into the moral law (Decalogue) at Sinai.

The fury with which "republication" has been met in the last generation is partly the result of disengagement with Reformed historic dogmatics by the previous two generations, and its late recovery. There are also echoes of earlier antinomian and neo-nomian controversies, rearing up once again as a perennial issue facing the church. What is the Christian's relationship to the law of God? Does a gospel that seems "too free" lead to licentious evil among members of the church? If grace marked the conditions of the Mosaic economy, how is the Christic economy any better?