Arguments for the essential identity of both testaments.
Arguments for the essential identity of both testaments.
§ 123. All these points quite clearly show that the substance of the old and new testaments is not one and the same thing and that they differ not just in external circumstances. “More covenants” were given to the human race, and each of the two has a certain “character” (says Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 4, p. 38). It remains for us to give our attention to the more powerful arguments by which they try to prove the essential identity of both testaments. (I) “ ‘Covenant of grace’ and ‘testament’ are equivalent in meaning. But only one covenant of grace was made in Christ the Mediator. Therefore there is also only one testament.”
We respond. The words “testament” and “covenant” are not only used to refer to the promise of grace offered in Christ but also to the Law. Thus the tablets of the Decalogue are called “the tablets of the covenant”; the Ten Words written upon them are called “the words of the covenant”; the book of the Law is called “the scroll of the covenant,” as was stated a little earlier [§ 122 (5)]. Therefore it is false that the words “testament” and “covenant” must refer only to the promise of grace and must be understood in only this sense everywhere.
Ursinus himself (Catech., part 2, q. 18, p. 133) admits this in a certain way: “The term ‘old testament’ or ‘[old] covenant’ is often used by synecdoche to mean the Law with respect to the part of it that is chiefly treated in it. But, on the contrary, the [term] ‘new testament’ or ‘covenant’ is used truly for the Gospel.” So also Bucanus (locus 22, p. 200): “The term ‘old covenant’ is used in two ways: sometimes only with respect to the legislation of Moses, and this is called the legal covenant whose sanction is described in Exodus 24. Yet it is sometimes spoken of in respect to signifying the covenant of grace or the gracious covenant such as was made with Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17).” Those are the words of Bucanus, who adds (p. 201): “When a difference between the old and new testaments is sought, the term ‘old’ means only what is free [gratuitum].” On this point he contradicts Scripture (and especially Jer. 31:31) with a loud voice.
How treaties and covenants in human matters are distinguished is to be sought out in the books of the lawyers. Here it is sufficient for us that in Holy Scripture the word “testament” is used more broadly than [just for] the covenant of grace made with us in Christ the Mediator. We show this as follows. The covenant of grace, which offers and applies the remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life to all who believe in Christ the Mediator, is perpetual, eternal, and immutable; one and the same thing for all the times of the world; liable to no abrogation; excluding every oldness and newness, because the way of salvation is one and the same. But now, Scripture not only enumerates two testaments but also clearly calls one earlier and the other later. One was old, but the other was new. (The reason for such naming is explained by Dr. Chemnitz, Loci, part 3, ch. De discrim. V. et N. T., p. 234).2 In fact, it even declares that the old one was antiquated and has been abrogated while the new is eternal. Therefore they cannot and should not define these two testaments through the covenant of grace, which is one in all times of the world.
We also add this argument. The promise of grace is common to all peoples, but each testament is proper to individual peoples: the former, to the Jews; the latter, to the Christians. Thus we concede that the promise of grace is one, the way of salvation is one, faith is one, etc.; but we deny that it follows from this that the substance of both testaments is the same when taken according to the wording and definition of Scripture.