This I saye, that the lawe whiche began afterwarde, beyonde foure hundred and thirtie yeares, dothe not disanull the testamente that was confirmed afore of God vnto Christwarde, to make the promise of none effecte. For yf the inheritaunce come of the lawe, it commeth not nowe of promise. But god gaue it vnto Abraham by promyse.
But further to compare the former example, the promise and couenaūt whiche god, before the lawe was gyuen made with Abraham, whiche pro∣mise he woulde haue to be stable, the lawe whiche folowed and was gyuē after the same promise and couenaunt, coulde not defete nor disanul. And yet shoulde it restrayne and disapoynt the promise, yf the inheritaunce of goddes blessing promised to Abrahams posteritie, were due to suche only, as kepe the lawe, forasmuche as in the promyse there is no condicion of y• lawe expressed. For howe coulde therin of the lawe be any mencion made, synce the lawe was not at that tyme gyuen? For in case the lawe had not folowed the promise at all, yet woulde god netheles with Abrahams po∣steritie haue kepte the couenaunt made with Abraham. Nowe yf the pro∣mise of this blessed state be due by reason of goddes promise, and the pro∣mise made before the law had no condicion of keping the law ioyned wt it,* 1.1 for what cause exclude we frō the promise, suche as to y• law are straūgers, and not straungers to fayth? For yf by the lawe men enioye thenheritaūce