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 your self 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 betwixt 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 ⟨p. 43⟩Covenant of works, as you say it doth, 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 •lood? Yes, the Apostle plainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18, 19. •4. 7, 8. Moses took the Book •f the Covenant, and read it in the audience •f the people, and took the blood, and sprink•d it upon the people, and said, behold the •lood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath •ade with you concerning these things. But •hat kind of Covenant then was this Covenant that was sprinkled with Blood? •ou tell us, Page 147. it could not possi•y be the Law written in Stones (which •ou make the Covenant of works) but •as indeed another Covenant delivered […] a distinct Season, and in a distinct method. What Covenant then must this •e, seeing it could not possibly (as you •y) be the Sinai Covenant written in •ones? It must either be the Covenant •f Grace, or none. No, say you, that […] was not neither; for it was of the same •ture with, and is no other than a Covenant of works, Page 151. it was the •me, and yet could not possibly be the ⟨p. 44⟩same. Mr. Sedgwick, that Learned-Grave Divine, is checked Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that wa• sprinkled with Blood, with the Mora• Law (which you call the Covenant o• works) that was not sprinkled wit• Blood; and say you, Page 147. It coul• not possibly be the same: And then P. 151 you say, It's clear, these two, viz. th• Moral and Ceremonial Law, were both […] the same nature, that is, no other than […] Covenant of Works. How doth this han• together? Pray reconcile it if you ca• You say it is an ungrounded Supposition […] Mr.
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 your self 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 betwixt 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 ⟨p. 43⟩Covenant of works, as you say it doth, 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 •lood? Yes, the Apostle •lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18, 19. •4. 7, 8. Moses took the Book •f the Covenant, and read it in the audience •f the people, and took the blood, and sprink•d it upon the people, and said, behold the •lood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath •ade with you concerning these things. But •hat kind of Covenant then was this Co•enant that was sprinkled with Blood? •ou tell us, Page 147. it could not possi•y be the Law written in Stones (which •ou make the Covenant of works) but •as indeed another Covenant delivered 〈…〉 a distinct Season, and in a distinct •ethod. What Covenant then must this •e, seeing it could not possibly (as you •y) be the Sinai Covenant written in •ones? It must either be the Covenant •f Grace, or none. No, say you, that was not neither; for it was of the same ture with, and is no other than a Coenant of works, Page 151. it was the me, and yet could not possibly be the
