3. To the Arguments for the Opinion of Others

197. To the arguments made for the preceding opinion:

To the first [n.155], when it is said that circumcision was not revoked before the death of Christ, I say that it is true: not revoked so as to be useless (as if useless and illicit), but revoked, that is relaxed, so as no longer to be necessary, because counsel about another remedy [baptism] relaxed the precept about the prior one [circumcision]; for from the fact that the second was a remedy simply and was being counselled, it was licit - nay it was laudably licit - not to use the prior remedy against the same.

198. To the argument about John 19.30, “it is consummated” [n.156], I say that this is understood of the things that were written about the Son of man, according to Luke 18.31, “Behold we go up to Jerusalem and all things will be consummated that are written about the Son of man through the prophets.” Or if this be referred to the Old Law, the consummating must be understood thus, ‘it is consummated in its cause’, because the death of Christ was the cause of the confirmation or the consummation of the Law of the Gospel. But that Law was not consummated or confirmed as necessary for observance before the public preaching of it, which did not begin at the passion but on the day of Pentecost. For in the time between the disciples sat in the upper room [Acts 2.2], preaching to no one solemnly and publicly, or not yet