A09990:506
The new covenantThe nevv covenant
The new covenant, or the saints portion A treatise unfolding the all-sufficiency of God, and mans uprightness, and the covenant of grace. delivered in fourteen sermons upon Gen. 17. 1. 2. Whereunto are adjoined four sermons upon Eccles. 9.1. 2. 11. 12. By the late faithful and worthy minister of Jesus Christ John Preston. Dr. in Divinity, chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty, master of Emmanuel College in Cambridge, and sometimes preacher of Lincolns Inn.The nevv covenant, or the saints portion A treatise vnfolding the all-sufficiencie of God, and mans uprightnes, and the covenant of grace. delivered in fourteene sermons vpon Gen. 17. 1. 2. Wherevnto are adioyned foure sermons vpon Eccles. 9.1. 2. 11. 12. By the late faithfull and worthie minister of Iesus Christ Iohn Preston. Dr. in Divinitie, chaplaine in ordinary to his Maiestie, maister of Emmanuel Colledge in Cambridge, and sometimes preacher of Lincolnes Inne.
London: printed by I. Dawson for Nicolas Bourne, 1629
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
A second reason of it is,1 because it could not be done by obedience to the Law; it was impossible to have made the sons of men partakers of the Covenant, that way: for if it could have been done by the Law, and by the Commandment, it should have been; but the LORD tried that in Adam, he gave Adam a Commandment, and ability to keep it, (so he made him perfectly innocent,) yet Adam did not keep it. Put the case that GOD should have tried him the second time, and have given him a Commandment again, and not have required the Condition of faith, but of obedience, he would have broken it, as he did before; and therefore it could not be by the Law: Therefore ⟨p. 118⟩it must needs be by faith, and the promises, otherwise it could never have been sure. Adam brake it; surely, if he brake it, we should have broken it, if it had been any other way but by faith: and therefore we see what the Apostle saith, Galat. 3. 21. Is the Law then against the promise of GOD? 2GOD forbid: for if there had been a Law given that could have given life, surely righteousness had been by the Law: If Adam had stood and had kept the Law, and if men could have entered into Covenant, and have kept it, Christ had been spared, the Covenant of Grace had been spared; if righteousness had been by the Law, there had needed no Messiah, there had needed no Covenant of Grace; and therefore, through the infirmity of the flesh, (Adams flesh, that would not keep the Law, and ours, that is not able to keep it) there was no other way to make mankind partaker of the Covenant of Grace, but only by faith, by believing GOD, and by taking the promise, and the gift of Righteousness, through Jesus Christ: for it could never else in likelihood have been sure to the seed. This is the way to make it sure, when there is no more but an acceptation required, and not exact obedience to the Commandment.
A second reason of it is,1 because it could not bee done by obedience to the Law; it was impossible to haue made the sonnes of men partakers of the Couenant, that way: for if it could haue beene done by the Law, and by the Commandement, it should haue beene; but the LORD tryed that in Adam, hee gaue Adam a Commandement, and ability to keepe it, (so hee made him perfectly innocent,) yet Adam did not keepe it. Put the case that GOD should haue tryed him the second time, and haue giuen him a Commandement againe, and not haue required the Condition of faith, but of obedience, hee would haue broken it, as hee did before; and therefore it could not bee by the Law: Therefore