Chapter XI
CHAPTER XI: ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
§ 119. Furthermore, since the promulgation of the Law properly pertains to the Old Testament while the promulgation of the Gospel pertains to the New, we also add the distinction between the Old and the New Testaments with the differences assigned to them. There are diverse and, in fact, adverse opinions of different men regarding this subject. Let us allow the opinion of the Pelagians to remain concealed, who imagine that the people of the Old Testament before Moses were justified and saved by the law of nature, but later by the Law of Moses and, in the New Testament, by the law of Christ.
It is well-known that the Scholastics claim that the Old and New Testaments differ in promises, commandments, and sacraments. They say that in the Old Testament the promises were temporal, the commandments were external regulations, and the sacraments figurative; but in the New Testament the promises are heavenly, the commandments more complete, ruling not only the hand but also the mind, and the sacraments grace-conferring. Earlier (§§ 17, 57–[63]) we explained what should be thought about this subject. The Papists follow the opinion of the Scholastics, though some add new colorings, as Dr. Chemnitz (Loci, part 3, ch. De disc. V. et N. T., p. 227) shows from Gropper, Lindanus, and de Soto.1
The Anabaptists claim that the fathers of the Old Testament had only corporeal, external, and temporal promises but that under Christ, or in the time of the New Testament, spiritual promises were given for the first time. This was spoken of above (§ 59).
Calvin (Inst., bk. 2, ch. 10), Peter Martyr [Vermigli] (Loc. theol., class. 1, locus 16, §§ 2ff.), Ursinus (Cateches., part 2, p. 130), Grynaeus (Disput. theolog., vol. 2, pp. 125, 260), Bucanus (locus 22, p. 200), and those who follow them argue as follows. As regards substance they are not two different things but are only one covenant and testament because there is one mode of reconciliation, one faith, and one way of salvation for all times of the world. They say two covenants are established because of certain external circumstances and, to a lesser degree, principles which are different in each testament. For instance, they say: (1) That in the Old Testament specific promises were given about certain physical benefits, but specific promises of the same type are not found in the New.
(2) That in the Old Testament believers were received into grace for the sake of the Messiah who was going to be revealed and for the sake of His coming sacrifice; but this happens in the New because of a Messiah who has already come and His sacrifice which He has already made.
(3) That in the Old Testament some sacraments or signs were added to the promise of grace, and they were varied and laborious; but in the New, they were different, as well as few and simple.
(4) That the Old Testament had types and foreshadowings; thus everything in it is quite obscure. But the New Testament has the fulfillment of the types, and thus everything in it is quite clear, both in its sacraments and in its doctrine.
(5) That the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was once quite limited and sparing, but now it is broader and richer.
(6) That the Old Testament lasted until the Messiah came, but the New is eternal.
(7) That the Old Testament bound people to all the moral, ceremonial, and forensic law; the New binds them only to the moral Law and to the use of Christ’s Sacraments.
(8) That in the Old Testament the church was closed up in the Jewish nation, which had to be joined by those who wished to be saved. But in the New Testament the church has been sown among all nations, and access to it lies open to all.