Three treatises of the vanity of the creature. The sinfulness of sin. The life…Three treatises of the vanity of the creature. The sinfulnesse of sinne. The life…

Vers. 17. And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect.] These words are a Prolepsis or prevention of an objection which might be made. A man might thus argue: when two laws are made, whereof the one is expressly contradictory to the other, the later doth in common presumption abrogate and disannul the former (else men should be bound to contraries, and so punishments would be unavoidable.) But here we find that four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham, there was a Law published extremely contrary unto the promise: A law without mercy or compassion, a law both impossible and inexorable, which can neither be obeyed, nor endured: therefore it should seem that some cause or other had happened to make God repent, and revoke his former covenant. The Apostle retorts this Objection. And his meaning I thus apprehend. If there be a covenant made, by a Lawgiver in wisdom infinite, to foresee before hand, and to prevent any inconveniences which might follow upon it, any reasons which might fall out to abrogate it; A Lawgiver in all his ways constant ⟨p. 377⟩and immutable, (as being by no improvidence, disappointments, or unexpected emergencies ever put to repent) and this covenant made to a man and his seed for ever, and that without dependence upon any condition, (being all of Grace and Promise) save only that Abraham have a seed, and Christ a Body: Then if it happen, that another law be after made, which primâ facie, and in strict construction, doth imply a contradiction to the terms and nature of the former Law (for Abrogation notwithstanding whereof there have no other reasons at all de novo intercurr'd, then only such as were actually in being when it was made, namely the sins of the world, and yet were not then valid enough to prevent the making, and therefore by consequence have no force to alter or disannul it) then it is certain that this latter law must be understood in some other sense, and admit of some other subordinate use, which may well consist with the being and force of the former covenant; and not in that which primâ facie seems to contradict, and by consequence to abrogate it.

Vers. 17. And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was foure hundred and thirty yeeres after, cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect.] These words are a Prolepsis or prevention of an objection which might be made. A man might thus argue: when two lawes are made, whereof the one is expresly contradictory to the other, the later doth in common presumption abrogate and disanull the former (else men should be bound to contraries, and so punishments would bee unavoydable.) But here wee finde that foure hundred and thirty yeeres after the promise to Abraham, there was a Law published extremely contrary unto the promise: A law without mercy or compassion, a law both impossible and inexorable, which can neither be obeyed, nor endured: therefore it should seeme that some cause or other had hapned to make God repent, and revoke his former covenant. The Apostle retorts this Objection. And his meaning I thus apprehend. If there bee a covenant made, by a Lawgiver in wisedome infinite, to foresee before hand, and to prevent any inconveniences which might follow upon it, any reasons which might fall out to abrogate it; A Lawgiver in all his wayes constant