APPENDAGES TO THE LAW by Joseph Baker

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Feb 21, 1854

APPENDAGES TO THE LAW.

By Joseph Baker

I WILL here make some remarks, and quotations, in reference to what I have said in my discourse on the Covenants, relative to appendages. The reader is referred to the latter clause of Ex. xx, 5, 6; viz., "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Now turn to Gen. xv, 14, 16, especially verse 16. "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." Here is an intimation that he would visit the iniquity of the fathers, upon the children, unto the fourth generation of the Amorites, who hated him. And this is justified by matter of fact. The Canaanites were driven out of Canaan, for their iniquity, as we learn from Moses; [Deut. ix, 45.] "But for the wickedness of these nations doth the Lord drive them out from before thee." See also, Chap. viii, 19, 20; xviii, 12; Lev. xviii, 24-28; xx, 23.

The appendages were given to make the ten commandments appropriate to the peculiar circumstances of Israel; (for there must be rules of application; and this, too, is justified by matter of fact; see Matt. v;) hence, this appendage, undoubtedly, had reference to the Canaanites.

The following passages plainly show this to be an appendage merely; and that under the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, it was to be, and is, null and void. Eze. xviii, 2-4; xix, 20; Jer. xxxi, 27, 29, 30.

"In these days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." For proof that this was particularly applied to the gospel dispensation, see Matt. xvi, 27; Rom. ii, 6; 1 Cor. iii, 8; 2 Cor. v, 10; Gal. vi, 2-7; Rev. ii, 23; xx, 12, 13; also xxii 12; Eph. ii, 11-19; Isa. lvi, 6-8; Jno. x, 16; 1 Pet. i, 1; ii, 5-10; Hos. ii, 23; Rom. ix, 24-26.

Again: Ex. xx, 12. "That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." This I consider the appendage of the 5th command, and that it has particular reference to the children of Israel, and the land of Canaan. For proof of this, see Deut. iv, 25, 26; v, 33; xi, 6, 9, 21, 31; xii, 1; xvi, 20; xvii, 20; xxii, 7; xxv, 15; xxx, 16, 20; xxxi, 13; xxxii, 47. We now turn to Eph. vi, 3. In regard to this, it is asked, "Why does the Apostle quote this, if it is abolished, and is not re-instated (or incorporated) into the gospel." In answer, I ask, Is it good, or sufficient evidence that the Apostle considered it indispensable, because he quotes it, merely in its original form? If so, tell me why he quotes from the law of Moses, as in 1 Cor. ix, 9, 13; 1 Tim. v, 18, when in fact, that law was abolished by Christ—"nailed to his cross?" Rom. x, 4; Gal. iv, 31; Eph. ii, 14-16; Col. ii, 14-23; 2 Tim. i, 10; Heb. x, 9. I have been told that "all that was good was brought over, or incorporated into the gospel." But I ask, if there would not be, under any dispensation, something worthy of imitation; which time, the real original thing itself, had abolished? Is the idea of imitating an act, to be rejected, or despised, because the original itself is abolished—has ceased to be? And because this act is imitated, does it make the real original act to exist? or only its image, or resemblance? If a part of the real original Mosaic law, or any part of the Mosaic dispensation, was incorporated into the gospel, (dispensation, for the gospel is merely a system of good news) pray tell me what part Christ "nailed to his cross?" If there was any thing in the law of Moses, or if any part of the Mosaic dispensation was not to be abolished, and, (as the Mosaic was typical of the gospel dispensation) a substitute for the substance given by Christ, [Heb. x, 9; Col. ii, 17.] he did not abolish it; and Paul should have said, "He taketh away a part of the first, that he may establish the second." But he does not say so; and as the Scriptures were written by inspiration, and are not written in a language of their own, but in the common language of men, for otherwise they would be no revelation to them, hence we conclude that he meant what he said.

We admit that almost, if not quite, the whole Mosaic law, and dispensation, is referred to, as being (in some way) worthy of imitation; or as being written for our admonition. See 2 Cor. x, 6, 11. Even the sacrifices, also other ceremonial services, under the Mosaic dispensation, (and too, some of the precepts of that law, which were not strictly ritual,) are referred to, as being in some way, imitative. See 1 Pet. ii, 5; Rom. xii, 1, 2; Phil. iv, 18; Heb. xiii, 15, 16. Also, see Heb. x, 22; xii, 24; xiii, 10-13. See also 1 Cor. ix, 9-11; also verses 13, 14. But obedience to the real original law is not required or enjoined. Heb. viii, 7, 8, 13; x, 9; Gal. ii, 16-18; iv, 31. We are frank to admit that many (if not all) things under the Mosaic dispensation, were typical of something under the gospel dispensation. And, as they were typical of something under the gospel, we ask, What does the term, antitype, signify, or mean? "The restoration of its type?" What! Is this its true signification, true meaning? Why, the apostle Paul, speaking of the Mosaic law, says: "The law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, &c." See Col. ii, 17; Heb. x, 1. But the opponent in fixing up a principle to suit his own particular creed,

or sentiment, has for the foundation, the supposition that the antitype is, in every sense of the word, a mere restoration of its own type? But this idea burlesques the Scriptures, and is too absurd to be considered warrantable by the man of reason! Therefore, a principle founded on such a basis, must be considered a fabulous and groundless principle.

Now therefore, Christ could not re-instate his type, (the Mosaic law, see Col. ii, 17.) This point, is also "plainly stated," in the Apostle's inquiry and declaration, found in Gal. ii, 17, 18. (Compare verse 18 with Rom. x, 4; Gal. iii, 13; Eph. ii, 15; Col. ii, 14; Heb. x, 9.) And, that the gospel dispensation could not exist, or be effectual whilst its type was effectual, or even existed, we learn from the Apostle's declaration, and arguments in the following passages: Heb. ix, 8, 9; vii, 11; Gal. ii, 21; v, 2-4. Therefore that Christ could not re-instate or restore anything which was typical of the gospel dispensation, of which dispensation he was the foundation; and that, therefore, (as the apostles laid no other foundation, preached no other gospel, 2 Cor. iv, 5; Gal. i, 6-12) no part of the real original Mosaic law, or Mosaic dispensation, has been in force since the introduction of the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, should remain forever settled in the minds of all believers in Christ. Gal. v, 2-4; Rom. iv, 4; iii, 27. Compare with 1 Cor. vii, 19; Gal. v, 6; Gal. ii, 16-18. It is an old maxim, that we should "give the devil his due;" but when our opponents have all that they in justice can claim, they have not the one hundredth part of enough to re-instate, or restore one of the ten commandments, if they were, (as they assert,) Mosaic, or Jewish, or abolish the fourth command, without preaching another gospel, laying another foundation beside the one laid by Christ, as long as Christ's rule of application to the gospel dispensation, remains a principle of the New Testament; viz., "For the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-day." And says he, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

The literal land of Canaan was typical of the New Earth; and that antitype is beyond, or in other words, is to succeed (but not immediately; i. e., the renewal of the earth is not to be the first event, following) the conclusion of the gospel dispensation; but the promise of the land of Canaan is not incorporated into the gospel dispensation; neither is it a part of the gospel system, or gospel dispensation: being a fulfilled promise. Ex. xii, 25; Deut. xxvii, 3; Josh. xxiii, 5; Josh. i, 11; 2 Chron. vi, 25. It is simply referred to in the writings of the apostles, as having been promised, and as having been typical of the new earth; and some things which were necessary to be done by the children of Israel, in order that they might obtain an inheritance in this land, (the literal land of Canaan) are referred to by the Saviour and the apostles, as being in some way worthy of imitation. But that abolished system makes no part of the gospel; neither is any part of it incorporated into the gospel dispensation. The gospel is a system of life, not of dead works, which, when in their native and most vigorous strength, made nothing perfect. Heb. vii, 18, 19; x, 9.

But I am asked, "What must be done to re-instate this law?" I answer, something more than merely to quote it in its original form. There must be some evidence that it stands as valid both in form and strength as when in its primeval state; or in other words, there must be something presented to prove that the end or purpose for which it was

given, was not accomplished; hence that its effect must be as valid in accomplishing the purpose for which the new covenant was given, as the purpose for which the old was given. Now, how to ascertain or determine this point, may be understood by ascertaining the difference existing between the purposes for which these two covenants were introduced. For the validity of the means to accomplish the purpose for which they were given, must inevitably correspond with the purpose to be accomplished. Now the old was introduced to preserve temporal life, to save from temporal death; but the new to save from eternal death, by preparing for life everlasting. Now which is of the most importance, salvation from only temporal death? or salvation from eternal death? And which would require the most perfect means? or would it require means equal in validity to accomplish the purpose of the one, that it would the purpose of the other? But now can any part of the Mosaic law or first covenant, or any part of the Mosaic dispensation, be incorporated into the gospel, or its dispensation? from even this fact if there were no other evidence, that the gospel has no such ends to answer; as they were answered or accomplished at the introduction of the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, for as we have remarked in some part of our discourse, the ceremonial law, or first covenant was introduced to preserve the temporal lives of, and restore the children of Israel to a temporal relationship with Abraham, which they had lost by violating the conditions on which the extent of their relationship was suspended. And as we have shown in some of the remarks in this article, the Mosaic dispensation in many respects, if not in all, was typical of the new, or gospel dispensation. Hence the gospel had no such ends to answer; for when the antitype came, the type was no longer effectual; neither did it any longer exist. For an illustration, we ask, Were the prophecies of Christ's first advent any longer a prediction after Christ had come? (?) Or could they be made to serve two ends with the same acceptance? If so, we will admit that in like manner, the law could be made to serve two ends; for if it were true that the Mosaic law, or Mosaic dispensation was incorporated into the gospel, it must have been on the same principle that the prophecy of Christ's first advent could be made to serve two ends; or else the gospel must have so changed its nature (which was to preserve temporal life, and restore to the privilege of temporal blessings,) when incorporated, that other results might be expected from it. The gospel has a transforming influence, 'its true; but if it contained a dead or abolished law, it surely could not have a transforming influence; for it would certainly have a system of dead works, which when in their primeval state, when in their native and most vigorous strength, "made nothing perfect." Hence, how can any part of the real original first covenant or Mosaic dispensation, be applicable to the gospel, or gospel dispensation? for the gospel is a system of life; and under the gospel dispensation, mankind must, if ever, make a preparation for eternal life; for it is the dispensation preparatory to the fulfillment of the last unfulfilled promise made to Abraham, of which, the ten commandments are the basis. Admitting the foregoing arguments to be true, what part of the Mosaic law, or Mosaic dispensation, has been, or could be incorporated into the gospel, or gospel dispensation?

We have we think, proved conclusively that no part of the real original Mosaic dispensation could be re-instated or incorporated into the gospel, or gospel dispensation. Not into the gospel because it is a system of good news, of life, simply; and not into the gospel dispensation; because to suppose that the term, antitype, signified, "a restoration of its own type," is too absurd to be admitted; and because Christ could not therefore, re-instate anything typical of himself. And again; because, this, the apostles could not do, and yet, preach upon the foundation laid by Christ; and too, because the gospel dispensation had no such a purpose to answer, as the one for which the Mosaic law and dispensation were given. Therefore as we presented proof that the appendage of the fifth command had reference to the children of Israel, and the literal land of Canaan, (before entering on our examination of the objector's position in regard to the apostle Paul's quotation of this appendage,) hence it must be that it could only apply to the dispensation under which, the promise of the gift of the literal land of Canaan, was to be fulfilled; and the time of this, we have previously shown by reference to scripture declarations. And again; from the position taken (and maintained by scripture,) in regard to this land's being given to keep distinct the tribe of Judah, that Christ might come through them; for therefore, after the first advent of Christ, having accomplished the purpose for which it was promised, it could no longer be considered a promised land; therefore, as the term, antitype, signifying, a restoration of its own type, or the idea of Christ's restoring his own type, is too absurd to be admitted; and also as the idea of the apostle's incorporating into the gospel dispensation, anything typical of Christ, and yet preach no other gospel than Christ, is contrary to scripture; and also, as there were no such purposes to be accomplished under the gospel dispensation, as the purposes for which the first covenant, and Mosaic dispensation were given—hence, this appendage must be a part of the Mosaic dispensation, and hence, could not be incorporated into the gospel dispensation; for since it could be applicable to only Israel, and the literal land of Canaan—it being appropriate only under the dispensation in which temporal death could be inflicted on the disobedient, by the authority of the Divine Being—it could not be made appropriate under the gospel. For all believers in Christ, will I think, admit that Christ abolished the judicial part, at least, of the Mosaic or Jewish dispensation. And hence, I ask, will any admit, that since Christ abolished the Mosaic judicial law, or in other words, since he took from man, (for this he did,) all right to inflict temporal death upon the in any wise disobedient, that temporal life will be extended any longer to the obedient than to the disobedient?

But this appendage is by some applied to the new earth. But do such sincerely believe, that those who are permitted to inherit the new earth, will have their existence extended any further, for keeping here, or there, any command whatever? If so, they must admit that eternity, although learned men have said, "Eternity is not divided into parts or periods," and have called it "duration without end;" "endless duration;" and although the Scriptures teach that God, a being without end, "inhabiteth eternity;" yet that eternity is limited!! That eternal, everlasting life, is probationary life!! That they that obtain eternal life, obtain nothing more than a probationary state of existence!! But see 1 Cor. xv, 26, 54; Rev. xx, 14; xxi, 4. Yet all this must be true if this appendage has reference to the duration of the new earth, or to the duration of man's existence there. But I am told that "a parallel passage is contained in Isa. lxv, 22, and that, that must apply to the new earth." But it cannot apply to the duration of the new earth, neither to the duration of man's existence there; for the one is inseparably connected with the other; for the new earth is to be the everlasting inheritance of such as are blessed with faithful Abraham, of such as have been faithful while in time, and have obtained everlasting life; for the reason that neither the duration of the new earth, or the duration of man's existence there will admit of degrees of comparison: being limited in no degree whatever. Men as wise as the appellants, have proved that such words in such connections cannot bear. Learned men have applied the whole connection to time; but such an application of it may be unnecessary; for the power both to do, and to enjoy the works of his hands, could be taken from man, and not affect the duration of his existence, or the duration of his inheritance. We do not however, wish to be understood to mean, that the power to do and enjoy will be taken from him; but that it could be done by Him who hath power to create, and give to man power to do and to enjoy the work of his hands, and yet, neither the duration of his (man's) existence, or the duration of the new earth would be limited thereby. Hence there may not be any impropriety in the idea of the Prophet's employing a term expressive of limitation, a term admitting degrees of comparison, and applying it (as he does, if at all) figuratively, to the enjoyment and work of man; i. e., that man shall longer enjoy the work of his hands, than in this mortal state. But a term admitting degrees of comparison, (as long, longer, longest,) if applied at all to the enjoyment and works of being on the new earth, cannot be justified on any other principle, than that it was figuratively applied.

Now as the terms, eternity and eternal, are inseparably connected, and one being applicable to the duration of the new earth, and the other to the duration of man's existence on the new earth, hence it must be admitted that this appendage cannot apply to that to which either of these terms apply; for neither of them will admit of degrees of comparison, as long, longer, longest. And, moreover, as these terms are inseparably connected, this appendage cannot be applicable to either the duration of the new earth, [Eph. vi, 3.] or to the duration of man's existence there, (in eternity); even figuratively; (neither is it any where in the Holy Scriptures thus applied;) for time bears no proportion to eternity, unless eternity is measured by time; but "eternity is not divided into parts or periods."

From the whole it follows, that the Apostle's merely quoting this appendage, cannot be considered any evidence whatever, that he believed it to be appropriate since the abolition of that dispensation, under which temporal death was inflicted on the transgressor of the ten commandment.

Under the present dispensation, these commandments are by the Holy Spirit written on the hearts, hence by the intents of the heart all mankind are to be judged; and hence, vengeance belongeth unto the all-seeing and all-wise Being; "And I will repay, saith the Lord." Amen. Lebanon, N. H., Feb. 6th, 1854.