15.—The Same Continued.

How then should there not be a feeling of just disquietude entertained by the children of promise, children of the free Jerusalem, which is eternal in the heavens, when they see that by the words of Pelagius the distinction which has been drawn by Apostolic and catholic authority is abolished, and Agar is supposed to be by some means on a par with Sarah? He therefore does injury to the scripture of the Old Testament with heretical impiety, who with an impious and sacrilegious face denies that it was inspired by the good, supreme, and very God,—as Marcion does, as Manichæus does, and other pests of similar opinions. On this account (that I may put into as brief a space as I can what my own views are on the subject), as much injury is done to the New Testament, when it is put on the same level with the Old Testament, as is inflicted on the Old itself when men deny it to be the work of the supreme God of goodness. Now, when Pelagius in his answer gave as his reason for saying that even in the Old Testament there was a promise of the kingdom of heaven, the testimony of the prophet Daniel, who most plainly foretold that the saints should receive the kingdom of the Most High, it was fairly decided that the statement of Pelagius was not opposed to the catholic faith, although not according to the distinction which shows that the earthly promises of Mount Sinai are the proper characteristics of the Old Testament; nor indeed was the decision an improper one, considering that mode of speech which designates all the canonical Scriptures which were given to men before the Lord’s coming in the flesh by the title of the “Old Testament.” The kingdom of the Most High is of course none other than the kingdom of God; otherwise, anybody might boldly contend that the kingdom of God is one thing, and the kingdom of heaven another.

15. Quomodo ergo non merito commoverentur filii promissionis, filii liberae Jerusalem in coelis aeternae, cum ista discretio apostolica atque catholica Pelagii verbis videretur auferri, et Agar quodam modo Sarae 0329 crederetur aequari? Ille igitur haeretica impietate scripturae Veteris Testamenti facit injuriam, qui eam ex Deo bono, summo et vero, fronte sacrilegae impietatis negat: sicut Marcion, sicut Manichaeus, et si quae alia pestis hoc sentit. Quapropter, ut de hac re quod sentio, qua possum brevitate complectar: sicut Veteri Testamento, si esse ex Deo bono et summo negetur; ita et Novo fit injuria, si veteri aequetur. Sed cum Pelagius respondisset, cur etiam dixerit in Vetere Testamento promitti regnum coelorum, Danielis prophetae commemorans testimonium, qui sanctos accepturos regnum Altissimi, apertissime prophetavit, non esse hoc alienum a fide catholica, merito judicatum est: non secundum illam distinctionem, qua in monte Sina promissa terrena ad Vetus Testamentum proprie pertinere monstrantur; nec tamen improbe, secundum hanc loquendi consuetudinem, qua universae Scripturae canonicae ante incarnationem Domini ministratae Veteris Testamenti appellatione censentur. Non enim aliud est regnum Altissimi, quam Dei regnum; aut quisquam contendere audebit, aliud esse Dei regnum, aliud regnum coelorum.