Testament.(l) The Vulgate translation, instead of retaining the original Hebrew signification, translated the word in the Gospels and Epistles, "Testamentum" and [———] became "Vetus Testamentum" instead of "Vetus Foedus" and whenever the word occurs in the English version it is almost invariably rendered "Testament" instead of covenant. The expression "Book of the Covenant," or "Testament," [———], frequently occurs in the LXX version of the Old Testament and its Apocrypha,(2) and in Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34,(3) the prophet speaks of making a "new covenant" [———] with the house of Israel, which is indeed quoted in Hebrews viii. 8. It is the doctrinal idea of the new covenant, through Christ confirming the former one made to the Israelites, which has led to the distinction of the Old and New Testaments. Generally the Old Testament was, in the first ages of Christianity, indicated by the simple expressions "The Books" [———], "Holy Scriptures" [———],(5) or "The Scriptures" [———,(6) but the preparation for the distinction of "Old Testament" began very early in the development of the doctrinal idea of the New Testament of Christ, before there was any part of the New Testament books written at all. The expression "New Testament," derived thus
antithetically from the "Old Testament," occurs constantly throughout the second part of the Bible. In the Epistle to the Hebrews viii. 6-13, the Mosaic dispensation is contrasted with the Christian, and Jesus is called the Mediator of a better Testament [———].(1) The first Testament not being faultless, is replaced by the second, and the writer quotes the passage from Jeremiah to which we have referred regarding a New Testament, winding up his argument with the words, v. 13: "In that he saith a new (Testament) he hath made the first old." Again, in our first Gospel, during the Last Supper, Jesus is represented as saying: "This is my blood of the New Testament" [———];(2) and in Luke he says: "This cup is the New Testament [———] in my blood."(3) There is, therefore, a very distinct reference made to the two Testaments as "New" and "Old," and in speaking of the books of the Law and the Prophets as the "Old Books" and "Books of the old Testament," after the general acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus as the New Testament or Covenant, there was no antithetical implication whatever of a written New Testament, but a mere reference to the doctrinal idea. We might multiply illustrations showing how ever-present to the mind of the early Church was the contrast of the Mosaic and Christian Covenants as Old and New. Two more we may venture to point out. In Romans ix. 4, and Gal. iv. 24, the two Testaments or Covenants [———], typified by Sinai and the heavenly Jerusalem, are discussed, and the superiority of the latter asserted. There is, however, a passage, still more clear and decisive. Paul says in 2 Corinthians iii. 6: "Who also (God) made us sufficient to be ministers of the New
Testament [———] not of the letter, but of the spirit" [———]. Why does not Canon Westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a definite written New Testament, when not only is there reference to the name, but a distinction drawn between the letter and the spirit of it, from which an apologist might make a telling argument? But proceeding to contrast the glory of the New with the Old dispensation, the Apostle, in reference to the veil with which Moses covered his face, says: "But their understandings were hardened: for until this very day remaineth the same veil in the reading of the Old Testament" [———];(l ) and as if to make the matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse: "But even unto this day when Moses is read, the veil lieth upon their heart." Now here the actual reading of the Old Testament [———] is distinctly mentioned, and the expression quite as aptly as that of Melito, "implies a definite New Testament, a written antitype to the Old," but even Canon Westcott would not dare to suggest that, when the second Epistle to the Corinthians was composed, there was a "definite written New Testament" in existence. This conclusively shows that the whole argument from Melito's mention of the books of the Old Testament is absolutely groundless.
On the contrary, Canon Westcott should know very well that the first general designation for the New Testament collection was "The Gospel" [———] and "The Apostle" [———], for the two portions of the collection, in contrast with the divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets [———]
[———],(1) and the name New Testament occurs for the very first time in the third century, when Tertullian called the collection of Christian Scriptures Novum Instrumentum and Novum Testamentum.(2) The term [———] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the Greek to the "New Testament" collection in any earlier work than Origen's De Principiis, iv. 1. It was only in the second half of the third century that the double designation [———] was generally abandoned.(3)
As to the evidence for a New Testament Canon, which Dr. Westcott supposes he gains by his unfounded inference from Melito's expression, we may judge of its value from the fact that he himself, like Lardner, admits: "But there is little evidence in the fragment of Melito to show what writings he would have included in the new collection."(4) Little evidence? There is none at all.
There is, however, one singular and instructive point in this fragment to which Canon Westcott does not in any way refer, but which well merits attention as