Reply, Position 2 — Argument 1

If circumcision is a part of the ceremonial law, and the ceremonial law was dedicated by blood; and whatever is so dedicated is by you confessed to be no part of the covenant of works; then circumcision is no part of the covenant of works, even by your own confession. But it is so, Ergo.

That it is a part of the ceremonial law was never doubted or denied by any man. That it was dedicated by blood, and therefore no part of the moral law, you yourself not only acknowledge, but vehemently plead for it, Page 148, where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some sharpness, and unbecoming reflection, for making no distinction between the ceremonial covenant which was dedicated by blood, and the law written in tables of stone, which was not so dedicated, and therefore could not be the same with the moral law, which you make the covenant of works. Telling him that this dedication by blood ought to distinguish it from the moral law, or Sinai covenant of works, as you say it does, and ought to do — how then can circumcision be the same with, and yet quite another thing from, the Sinai covenant? Was the ceremonial law dedicated by [reconstructed: blood]? Yes, the Apostle plainly asserts it from Exodus, Hebrews 9:18-19, Exodus 24:7-8. Moses took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of the people, and took the blood, and sprinkled it upon the people, and said, behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning these things. But what kind of covenant then was this covenant that was sprinkled with blood? You tell us, Page 147, it could not possibly be the law written in stones (which you make the covenant of works) but was indeed another covenant delivered at a distinct season, and in a distinct method. What covenant then must this be, seeing it could not possibly (as you say) be the Sinai covenant written in stones? It must either be the covenant of grace, or none. No, say you, that it was not, neither; for it was of the same nature with, and is no other than a covenant of works, Page 151. It was the same, and yet could not possibly be the same. Mr. Sedgwick, that learned, grave divine, is checked, Page 148, for confounding the ceremonial law that was sprinkled with blood, with the moral law (which you call the covenant of works) that was not sprinkled with blood. And say you, Page 147, it could not possibly be the same. And then Page 151 you say it is clear, these two, namely, the moral and ceremonial law, were both of the same nature, that is, no other than a covenant of works. How does this hang together? Pray reconcile it if you can. You say it is an ungrounded supposition of Mr. Sedgwick's, that that covenant which was so confirmed by blood must of necessity be confirmed by the blood of Christ also, Page 148. But sir, the truth you oppose — namely, that the book of the ceremonial law was sprinkled by typical blood, and therefore confirmed by the blood of Christ for the time it was to continue — shines like a bright sunbeam in your eyes, from Hebrews 9:14, 23. Was not the blood that sprinkled this law the figure or type of Christ's own blood? Whose blood was it then, if not Christ's? How dare you call this an ungrounded supposition? Was not that blood typical blood? And what, I pray you, was the antitype but Christ's blood? And did not the Holy Ghost signify the one by the other? (Hebrews 9:8) I stand amazed at these things. You distinguish and confound all again. You say it could not possibly be the same with the law written in stone, and you say it is clear both were of the same nature, no other than a covenant of works. At this rate you may say what you please, for I see contradiction is no crime in your book.