Chapter 12.—The Old Testament is Properly One Thing—The Old Instrument Another.

Therefore, by a custom of speech already prevailing, in one way the law and all the prophets who prophesied until John are called the “Old Testament;” although this is more definitely called the “Old Instrument” rather than the “Old Testament;” but this name is used in another way by the apostolical authority, whether expressly or impliedly. For the apostle is express when he says, “Until this day, as long as Moses is read, remaineth the same veil in the reading of the old testament; because it is not revealed, because it is made of no effect in Christ.”197    2 Cor. iii. 14. For thus certainly the old testament referred to the ministry of Moses. Moreover, he says, “That we should serve in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter,”198    Rom. vii. 6. signifying that same testament under the name of the letter. In another place also, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive.”199    2 Cor. iii. 6. And here, by the mention of the new, he certainly meant the former to be understood as the old. But much more evidently, although he did not say either old or new, he distinguished the two testaments and the two sons of Abraham, the one of the bondwoman, the other of the free, as I have above mentioned. For what can be more express than his saying, “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, have ye not heard the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are in allegory; for these are the two testaments; the one in the Mount Sinai, gendering to bondage, which is Agar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is associated with Jerusalem which now is, for it is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother?”200    Gal. iv. 21 ff. What is more clear, what more certain, what more remote from all obscurity and ambiguity to the children of the promise? And a little after, “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”201    Gal. iv. 28. Also a little after, “But we, brethren, are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free,”202    Gal. iv. 31. with the liberty with which Christ has made us free. Let us, therefore, choose whether to call the righteous men of old the children of the bondwoman or of the free. Be it far from us to say, of the bondwoman; therefore if of the free, they pertain to the new testament in the Holy Spirit, whom, as making alive, the apostle opposes to the killing letter. For on what ground do they not belong to the grace of the new testament, from whose words and looks we convict and rebut such most frantic and ungrateful enemies of the same grace as these?

12. Aliter itaque dicitur jam obtinente loquendi consuetudine vetus Testamentum, Lex et Prophetae omnes, qui usque ad Joannem prophetaverunt; quod distinctius vetus Instrumentum, quam vetus Testamentum vocatur: aliter autem sicut apostolica appellat auctoritas, sive hoc nomen exprimens, sive significans. Exprimit enim, ubi dicit, Usque in hodiernum diem, quamdiu legitur Moyses, idipsum velamen in lectione veteris Testamenti manet: quod non revelatur, quia in Christo evacuatur (Id. III, 14, 15). Sic enim utique vetus Testamentum ad Moysi retulit ministerium. Item dicit, Ut serviamus in novitate spiritus, et non in vetustate litterae (Rom. VII, 6): idipsum significans Testamentum nomine litterae. Item alio loco: Qui et idoneos nos fecit ministros novi Testamenti, non litterae, sed spiritus : littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat 0596 (II Cor. III, 6). Et hic per commemorationem novi, illud utique vetus intelligi voluit. Multo autem evidentius, quamvis non dixerit, aut vetus, aut novum, duo ipsa Testamenta distinxit, per duos filios Abrahae, unum de ancilla, alium de libera: quod jam superius commemoravimus. Quid enim expressius, quam ut diceret, Dicite mihi, sub lege volentes esse, legem non audistis? Scriptum est enim quoniam Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla, et unum de libera: sed ille quidem qui de ancilla, secundum carnem natus est; qui autem de libera, per repromissionem: quae sunt in allegoria. Haec enim sunt duo Testamenta, unum quidem in monte Sina in servitutem generans, quod est Agar. Sina enim mons est in Arabia, quae conjuncta est huic quae nunc est Jerusalem: servit enim cum filiis suis. Quae autem sursum est Jerusalem, libera est, quae est mater nostra. Quid clarius, quid certius, quid ab omni obscuritate atque ambiguitate remotius promissionis filiis? Et paulo post: Nos autem fratres, inquit, secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus. Item paulo post: Nos autem fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae; qua libertate Christus nos liberavit (Galat. IV, 21-31). Eligamus igitur utrum antiquos justos ancillae filios dicamus, an liberae. Absit autem ut ancillae: ergo si liberae , ad novum pertinent Testamentum in Spiritu sancto, quem vivificantem litterae occidenti opponit Apostolus. Nam quo pacto ad gratiam novi Testamenti non pertinent hi, de quorum dictis et Libris istos ejusdem gratiae dementissimos et ingratissimos inimicos refellendo convincimus?