# Aquinas’ Distinction Between Membership in the New Covenant and the era of the New Covenant



## brandonadams (Feb 15, 2021)

Augustine limits the Old Covenant to temporal, earthly promises and argues that OT saints were saved by the New Covenant.



> [T]he happy persons, who even in that early age [the Old Testament] 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
> Augustine: Proto-1689 Federalist



Aquinas followed Augustine on this point, citing him several times in _Summa Theologica _I-II, 106-107 (Old “Law” = Old Covenant; New “Law” = New Covenant).



> [T]he Old Law, which was given to men who were imperfect, that is, who had not yet received spiritual grace, was called the “law of fear,” inasmuch as it induced men to observe its commandments by threatening them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing temporal promises…
> 
> the New Law which derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our hearts, is called the “Law of love”: and it is described as containing spiritual and eternal promises…
> 
> ...



The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically quotes Aquinas on this point (1964).



> There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law… [E]ven though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom “God’s charity has been poured into our hearts.



I do not agree with everything he has to say, but I highly recommend reading Joshua Moon’s dissertation “Jeremiah’s New Covenant: An Augustinian Reading” (PDF) as he explains Augustine’s view of Jeremiah 31, as well as how that Augustinian reading was held down through church history up until the Reformation. Below is an excerpt (66-74 PDF) of his account of Aquinas’ Augustinian reading of Jeremiah 31.



In summary form the_ lex nova_ for Thomas is the grace of God through the Holy Spirit.64 Thomas identifies the _lex nova_ with the Law of the _novum testamentum_ (_‘lex nova est lex novi testamenti_’), and defines the new law as the grace of the Holy Spirit:




> ‘Each thing appears to be that which is foremost in it,’ as the Philosopher states (Ethic., ix). That which is foremost in the Law of the _novum testamentum_, and in which all its power consists, is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the _lex nova_ is principally the grace itself of the Holy Spirit, which is given to those who believe in Christ.65



To establish his position he cites Jer 31:31,33, followed by two citations of Augustine from the _De spiritu_, the second of which reads: ‘What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of his Holy Spirit?’ From Augustine, Thomas reads the contrast in Jer 31 as between an old law without further power, and the ‘new’ work of the Spirit in those who believe.


The consequences of this for Jer 31 are then spelled out by an objection now somewhat familiar: what of those prior to the _nova lex_? If the new law is the Spirit’s work by which people are made friends of God, and if the ancient faithful had that Spirit’s work, then you have the _novum testamentum_ in the era of the _vetus_. Thus, the objection runs, the new law cannot be defined this way:




> The Law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in the state of the _novum testamentum_. But the Law that is inscribed [on the heart] is common both to those who are in the _novum testamentum_ and those who are in the _vetus testamentum_. For it is said in Wisdom 7[:27]: ‘Divine wisdom conveys herself through the nations into holy souls; she establishes the friends of God and the prophets.’ Therefore the _lex nova_ is not the Law inscribed.66



*Thomas answers by appeal to an implicit distinction between membership in the novum testamentum and the ‘state (or era) of the novum testamentum’*:




> No one ever possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit except through faith in Christ, explicit or implicit. Through faith in Christ a man belongs to the _novum testamentum_. Thus whoever had the Law of grace infused, accordingly belonged to the _novum testamentum_



At first glance it does not appear that Thomas answers the objection. He solves the dilemma by agreeing that there have always been those who had the Law of grace and belonged to the _novum testamentum_. The implicit point, however, is that Thomas does not see ‘belonging to the _novum testamentum_’ as the same as being in the s_tatu novi testamenti_ – otherwise the reply would not at all address the objection. Thomas thus drives a distinction between two realities, that of the era of the Gospel or the _statu novi testamenti_, and that of
membership within the _novum testamentum_. And Jer 31:33-34 is addressed to the latter. Thus, in article 4 of the same question he asserts that the state of the new law succeeds the state of the old law (‘_successit enim status novae legis statui veteris legis_’), a claim he finds consistent with the _novum testamentum_ existing during the state of the old law.


Matthew Levering summarizes the distinction being made this way: ‘The state of the new law begins after the Incarnation, while the new law itself, as the grace of the Holy Spirit, is found in all places and times.’68 Or more fully is Colman O’Neill:




> the new law exists as the mystery of salvation at work in the world from the time of the restoration of man to grace. Yet, though the new law thus transcends historical periods, the state of the new law does not. For the state of the new law is precisely that third state of revelation and faith which was initiated in the Incarnation and in the mysteries of Christ.69



That Thomas owes this position to Augustine is clear: Augustine is cited no fewer than 8 times in answer to this one question. One can speak two different ways of the _vetus_ and _novum testamentum_ (or lex): either to a ‘state’ or era, or with respect to the thing itself. If the former, then one can speak of the economical differences. But if the latter, then any view of temporal succession is impossible. And Jeremiah is speaking of the latter. The _lex nova_, spoken of in Jer 31:33-34, is available throughout all ages and without the possession of it, one’s happiness (proper end) is unattainable – for that which is outside of a person cannot justify. The virtue of being just before God cannot be acquired unless given by God, and clearly those faithful of the ancient era were just. Thus ‘in all times there have been some belonging to the _novum testamentum_’, even if the _statu novi testamenti_ awaited the coming of Christ.70


This point is made concrete in Thomas’ treatment of David in Psalm 51 (Vg. 50) and Thomas’ view of David as having the Holy Spirit (i.e. the _lex nova_):




> The reason for this manifestation [of guilt (_culpa_) being wiped clean] is a divine mercy; for the manifestation of righteousness (_iustis_) is useful so that we do not presume on his righteousness (_iustitia_). For if David sins – after all of his victories, after the gift of the Holy Spirit, after all his familiarity with God and prophecy – how much more ought we to fear how weak and sinful we are?71
> If Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant is a prophecy of the _lex nova_, which is contained fundamentally in the giving of the Holy Spirit, then David is here explicitly counted as a member of the new covenant. The exhortation even hinges upon an _a fortiori_ privileging of the place of David: if even David can sin, how much more should we fear? *There is only one way by which anyone is made right with God, and that is through the novum testamentum or the lex nova, which is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to those who believe. This is true for Augustine and Thomas regardless of era, and this right standing before God is the substance of Jeremiah’s new covenant.*72

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 15, 2021)

I'm not sure how helpful it is to try to learn from Thomas or Augustine's formulations in covenant theology without dealing with their errors. It's not a coincidence that they use the terminology of "new law" rather than "covenant". In the Roman Catholic reading of Galatians 2 and Romans 3-4, Paul is saying one cannot be saved by the _old_ law, not the law _simpliciter_, as Protestants assert. They must therefore be saved by fulfilling the _new_ _law_, which requires opera caritatis, works of charity, enabled by the sacraments of the Catholic Church, in order to obtain the merits of salvation. The similarities between their formulation and 1689 federalism are ultimately superficial in light of their corruption of the gospel.


----------



## brandonadams (Feb 15, 2021)

I'm not suggesting that we try to learn from them without dealing with their errors.



> The similarities between their formulation and 1689 federalism are ultimately superficial in light of their corruption of the gospel.



That is incorrect. The point of similarity is the recognition that OT saints were saved by the New Covenant. That is not superficial, even if we disagree on _how _they were saved by the New Covenant.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 15, 2021)

brandonadams said:


> I'm not suggesting that we try to learn from them without dealing with their errors.
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect. The point of similarity is the recognition that OT saints were saved by the New Covenant. That is not superficial, even if we disagree on _how _they were saved by the New Covenant.


They don't actually agree on that though. One says the Old Testament saints were under the New Law; the other says the were under the New Covenant. The Reformed don't even agree that there is a New Law. So at most you could say that they agree that the old testament saints are under the same sort of thing as the new testament saints - but that proposition is shared with Reformed Covenant Theology, and is not unique to 1689 Federalism. Roman Catholic theology does not provide a unique precedent for 1689 Federalism, and to be honest, I'm not sure why one would want for it to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams (Feb 15, 2021)

Brother, go read the context. By "New Law" Aquinas clearly refers to the "New Covenant."

Furthermore, as you acknowledge, Augustine does say that OT saints were saved by the New Covenant not the Old Covenant, which is a distinctive of 1689 Federalism and all that I am pointing out here. Boiling Augustine down to "Roman Catholic theology" is quite unhelpful. Calvin had no problem appealing to him abundantly. My only point in mentioning Aquinas is to show that this Augustinian reading continued to have a strong representation down through the centuries up until Calvin and the reformed departed from it. The "subservient covenant" tradition goes back many, many centuries.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Feb 15, 2021)

brandonadams said:


> The "subservient covenant" tradition goes back many, many centuries.


With all due respect brother, all you have shown is that the "subservient something" tradition goes back centuries, because Aquinas never expresses a doctrine of salvation by gracious covenant, but by the merits of the law, and his whole system is built around explaining how the new law saves a man. This is not a minor equivocation. I grouped Augustine with Aquinas because he makes many of the same errors, as I have shown elsewhere.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams (Feb 15, 2021)

If anyone is interested in this topic, I encourage them to read the full contexts as well as Moon's dissertation. I'm afraid Charles has missed the point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Feb 15, 2021)

brandonadams said:


> If anyone is interested in this topic, I encourage them to read the full contexts as well as Moon's dissertation. I'm afraid Charles has missed the point.



I am having trouble understanding what the topic is. Does the thread title accurately define the topic? If so, how does that relate to the Puritanboard?


----------



## brandonadams (Feb 15, 2021)

Ken,

I guess I needed more of a preface, sorry.

The thread is about covenant theology. In the reformed tradition there are various understandings of covenant theology. Some view all the post-fall covenant as one and the same (in substance) and thus argue that OT saints were saved by the Old Covenant, which was the pre-Christ administration of the Covenant of Grace. Others disagree and argue that the Old Covenant was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan and that OT saints were saved by the New Covenant (working in their own day and time, prior to its establishment). This thread is simply highlighting the historicity of the latter view.


----------



## KMK (Feb 16, 2021)

Got it, thanks.


----------

