14.—Examination of This Point. The Phrase “Old Testament” Used in Two Senses. The Heir of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament There Were Heirs of the New Testament.

Was it therefore without reason that our brethren were moved by his words to include this charge among the others against him? Certainly not. The fact is, that the phrase Old Testament is constantly employed in two different ways,—in one, following the authority of the Holy Scriptures; in the other, following the most common custom of speech. For the Apostle Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. . . .Which things are an allegory: for these are the two testaments; the one which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and is conjoined with the Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; whereas the Jerusalem which is above is free, and is the mother of us all.”35    Gal. iv. 21–26. Now, inasmuch as the Old Testament belongs to bondage, whence it is written, “Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac,”36    Gal. iv. 30. but the kingdom of heaven to liberty; what has the kingdom of heaven to do with the Old Testament? Since, however, as I have already remarked, we are accustomed, in our ordinary use of words, to designate all those Scriptures of the law and the prophets which were given previous to the Lord’s incarnation, and are embraced together by canonical authority, under the name and title of the Old Testament, what man who is ever so moderately informed in ecclesiastical lore can be ignorant that the kingdom of heaven could be quite as well promised in those early Scriptures as even the New Testament itself, to which the kingdom of heaven belongs? At all events, in those ancient Scriptures it is most distinctly written: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will consummate a new testament with the house of Israel and with the house of Jacob; not according to the testament that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt.”37    Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. This was done on Mount Sinai. But then there had not yet risen the prophet Daniel to say: “The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.”38    Dan. vii. 18. For by these words he foretold the merit not of the Old, but of the New Testament. In the same manner did the same prophets foretell that Christ Himself would come, in whose blood the New Testament was consecrated. Of this Testament also the apostles became the ministers, as the most blessed Paul declares: “He hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not in its letter, but in spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”39    2 Cor. iii. 6. In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament. And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament; but yet the man who lives under God’s law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament, for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man. But whatever blessings are there figuratively set forth as appertaining to the New Testament require the new man to give them effect. And no doubt the great apostle understood perfectly well what he was saying, when he described the two testaments as capable of the allegorical distinction of the bond-woman and the free,—attributing the children of the flesh to the Old, and to the New the children of the promise: “They,” says he, “which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”40    Rom. ix. 8. The children of the flesh, then, belong to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; whereas the children of the promise belong to the Jerusalem above, the free, the mother of us all, eternal in the heavens.41    Gal. iv. 25, 26. Whence we can easily see who they are that appertain to the earthly, and who to the heavenly kingdom. But then the happy persons, who even in that early age were by the grace of God taught to understand the distinction now set forth, were thereby made the children of promise, and were accounted in the secret purpose of God as heirs of the New Testament; although they continued with perfect fitness to administer the Old Testament to the ancient people of God, because it was divinely appropriated to that people in God’s distribution of the times and seasons.

14. Numquidnam ergo fratres nostros, ut etiam hoc inter caetera objicerent, sine causa verba ista moverunt? Non utique: sed Veteris Testamenti nomen modis duobus dici solet, uno modo secundum divinarum Scripturarum auctoritatem, alio secundum loquendi vulgatissimam consuetudinem. Paulus namque apostolus dicit ad Galatas: Dicite mihi, inquit, sub lege volentes esse, legem non audistis? Scriptum est enim quod Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla, alterum de libera: quae sunt in allegoria . Haec enim sunt duo Testamenta; unum quidem in servitutem generans, quod est Agar. Sina mons est in Arabia, quae conjuncta est ei quae nunc est Jerusalem; servit enim cum filiis suis: quae autem sursum est Jerusalem, libera est, quae est mater nostra. Cum ergo Vetus Testamentum ad servitutem pertineat, unde etiam dictum est, Ejice ancillam et filium ejus, non enim haeres erit filius ancillae cum filio meo Isaac (Galat. IV, 21-30); regnum autem coelorum ad libertatem: quomodo etiam regnum coelorum ad Vetus pertinet Testamentum? Sed quoniam, ut dixi, etiam sic solemus loqui, ut Scripturas omnes Legis et Prophetarum, quae ante incarnationem 0328 Domini ministratae, auctoritate canonica continentur, nomine Testamenti Veteris nuncupemus; quis ecclesiasticis litteris vel mediocriter eruditus ignorat, ita Scripturis illis promitti potuisse regnum coelorum, sicut etiam illud Testamentum Novum, ad quod pertinet regnum coelorum? Certe enim in illis Litteris apertissime scriptum est: Ecce dies veniunt, dicit Dominus, et consummabo domui Israel et domui Jacob Testamentum Novum, non secundum Testamentum quod disposui patribus eorum, in die qua apprehendi manum eorum, ut educerem eos de terra Aegypti (Jerem. XXXI, 31, 32). Hoc enim factum est in monte Sina. Tunc autem Daniel propheta nondum erat qui dixerat , Accipient sancti regnum Altissimi. His enim verbis praemium, non Veteris, sed Novi Testamenti prophetabat: sicut ipsum Christum venturum iidem Prophetae praenuntiarunt, cujus sanguine dedicatum est Testamentum Novum: cujus Testamenti ministri Apostoli facti sunt, dicente beatissimo Paulo, Qui et idoneos nos fecit ministros Novi Testamenti, non littera, sed spiritu. Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat (II Cor. III, 6). In illo vero Testamento quod proprie vetus dicitur, et datum est in monte Sina, non invenitur promitti apertissime, nisi terrena felicitas. Unde illa terra, quo est populus introductus, et per eremum ductus, terra promissionis vocatur; in qua pax et regnum, et ab inimicis victoriarum reportatio, et abundantia filiorum ac fructuum terrenorum, et si qua hujusmodi, haec sunt promissa Veteris Testamenti: quibus etsi figurantur ad Novum Testamentum pertinentia spiritualia, tamen qui propter illa terrena suscipit legem Dei, ipse est haeres Veteris Testamenti. Ea quippe secundum Vetus Testamentum promittuntur atque tribuuntur, quae secundum hominem veterem concupiscuntur. Quae autem illic ad Novum Testamentum pertinentia figurantur, novos homines quaerunt. Neque nesciebat enim quid loqueretur tantus Apostolus, qui duo Testamenta in ancilla et libera, allegorica significatione distincta esse dicebat, veteri filios carnis, novo filios promissionis attribuens: Non qui filii carnis, inquit, hi filii Dei; sed filii promissionis deputantur in semen (Rom. IX, 8). Filii ergo carnis pertinent ad terrenam Jerusalem, quae servit cum filiis suis: filii autem promissionis ad eam quae sursum est, liberam matrem nostram in coelis aeternam. Unde perspicitur qui ad regnum terrenum, et qui pertineant ad regnum coelorum. Istam distinctionem qui etiam illo tempore per Dei gratiam intelligentes, filii promissionis effecti sunt, Novi Testamenti haeredes in occulto Dei consilio deputati sunt, etiamsi Vetus Testamentum per temporum distributionem divinitus datum populo veteri congruenter ministraverunt.