Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Above it was shown how one must come to eternal life by the common way; here he teaches how one must come by the way of perfection, which is touched upon as to two things: as to continence, and as to voluntary poverty. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the coming; second, of continence, where it says "the disciples say to him," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First the temptation of the Pharisees is set forth; second, Christ's solution; third, an objection against the solution. The second is "who, answering, said to them"; the third, "why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce?" Concerning the first, three things: first the place is described; second, the occasion for tempting; third, the temptation itself. He says therefore "and it came to pass," because his word was deed. For he spoke, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created, Psalm 32:9. "When he had finished these words," namely concerning avoiding scandal, "he departed from Galilee into the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan." Judea is sometimes taken for the whole land which the Jews inhabit; sometimes for the land which fell as a portion to the tribe of Judah, and thus it is divided against the others, and it is taken in this sense here. For it was necessary to pass through Judea for one who wished to go to Jerusalem, which was in the tribe of Benjamin, within the borders of Judea. But why did he depart from Galilee? For three reasons. To give preachers an example, that one ought to preach not only in one place, but in many; hence Luke 4:43: "because I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also." Likewise because the time of the passion was now imminent, therefore he wished to draw near to the place where he was to suffer. Ephesians 5:2: "he delivered himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness," and so on. Or he wished to return to the Jews, to signify that at the end he would turn to converting the Jews. "And the crowds followed him." It is a sign of the devotion of the crowds, that they followed him, as sons follow a father on a journey. John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice," and he healed them. Hosea 6:1: "he will strike and heal us." Sometimes the Lord healed, sometimes he worked signs. Signs, that he might strengthen; in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Someone might believe that because he passed over to the Jews, he had abandoned the Gentiles; therefore, to indicate that he had not abandoned them, he says "the crowds followed him," that is, to salvation, because though they were a wild olive, they were grafted in and made olive trees, Romans 11:17. Or, that they followed beyond the Jordan signifies that through Baptism sins are remitted. "And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him." And in this they are reproved: because while the crowds were following, the Pharisees were laying snares. Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great men, and will speak to them." Hence they came, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" There appears in these men, first, malicious cunning, because they came to Christ in order to bring a charge against Christ; for either he would say that she should be put away, or not. If he said yes, he would seem contrary to himself, because he was a preacher of chastity. If he said no, they would accuse him, because this is contrary to Moses the lawgiver. As Chrysostom says, they are convicted of incontinence, because if anyone gladly listens to talk of separating from a wife, he is incontinent. Hence, because these men were talking about divorce, they showed themselves to be incontinent. The Lord had given a cause for which a wife might be put away, namely on account of turpitude; but these men were asking not only concerning this cause, but whether for any cause whatsoever. Hence they wished to have free power of putting away a wife. Therefore there follows the response, "who, answering, said to them." The Lord gives the best manner of responding: because when someone asks in order to learn, the truth is to be told at once; but to one who asks in order to bring a charge, the truth is not to be told at once, but first certain things must be said which cannot be denied. Therefore the Lord first asks about the law; hence first he takes up the words of Scripture; second he shows how it bears upon the matter proposed; third he concludes the principal proposition. And concerning the first he does three things. First he shows the fellowship of male and female, which God instituted; second, the affection which he implanted; third, the manner in which he joined them. He intends to prove that the union of male and female was instituted by God. "Have you not read that he who made man, from the beginning made them male and female?" For this is read in Genesis 1:27: "and God created man to his own image and likeness." This is not to be understood, as some have understood it, that he first made man male, and afterward female, and afterward separated them; but he first made one man, and in him made that from which woman would be made. But why did the Lord wish it to be done in this way, namely that the multitude of men should come from man and woman? I answer, that it might be signified that the form of matrimony was from God. Likewise, that they might love one another the more. But then Chrysostom asks, why he does not always do it this way, so that man and woman would be born together at once. He answers, because if it were so, there would seem to be a necessity of using matrimony. And because the Lord wills it to be lawful to use matrimony, or not to use it, and not to be necessary, he first created male and female, to signify that matrimony was lawful; but afterward, that a male would be born without a woman, and conversely, so that they might have free faculty both of using matrimony and of not using it. According to this a double error is excluded. For some said that matrimony was not from God: and this is excluded, because if he made them male and female, and it is established that he made nothing in vain, therefore neither of these things either, and it was for nothing except the fellowship of matrimony. Others said that if man had not sinned, God would not have made woman, but rather men would have been multiplied in another way; but this is nothing, because they were created before sin. And he says "male and female" in the singular, so that one man should have one woman. "For which reason a man shall leave father and mother." Here is set down what affection he implanted. "And he said." Who said? He who made them. But this does not seem to be so, because it seems that Adam said it. Augustine says that the Lord sent a deep sleep upon Adam, and took one of his ribs. This sleep was an ecstasy; hence there many good things were revealed to him; hence the Lord also revealed to him what is said here; hence above, 10:20, it was said: "for it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." Because therefore Adam said it, God commanding, therefore it is said that God said it; hence Ezra (Nehemiah) 2:4: a man leaves the father who nourished him. "And shall cleave to his wife." What is the reason? Brother and sister are born from one, and they separate themselves; but husband and wife are from different sources, and yet they do not separate themselves. Chrysostom says that this is from divine ordination. Likewise, naturally every cause has a reduction to its effect, as sap from the root to the branches, hence fathers love their sons more than the converse; therefore husband and wife, although they are from different sources, are nevertheless united into one effect. "And they two shall be in one flesh." Jerome: namely in the flesh of offspring. And this is the fruit of matrimony. Chrysostom explains: "in one flesh," that is, in one carnal affection, just as also in spiritual affection unity comes about, as in Acts 4:32: "and the heart and soul of the believers was one." Or "they two shall be in one flesh," that is, in one carnal work. The Philosopher says that man and woman in that work are always so disposed that, just as active and passive power are always joined together in an effect, so in that act action and passion are joined. "And so now they are not two, but one flesh." Then he concludes the principal intention, that "therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate," because it was done by the will of God. If it is from God, man cannot separate it; because if God joined them, God may separate them. For separation can happen either from God or from man: and this either on account of pleasure, or so that one may have another, and this is not valid; or on account of mutual consent, that one may serve God more freely, and thus it is from God. They say to him: "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?" Here their objection is set down against the general law: for they open up what was in their mind. "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?" Moses did not command putting away, but wished indirectly to prohibit it, because Moses wished that a wife should not be put away unless a bill of divorce were given. And this pertained rather to prohibition, because the bill was not made except through a common hand; hence he referred it to the wise, that they might see whether they had cause for which they ought to put them away. "And he said to them." Here he responds to the objection. And first he sets down the response; second the confirmation, because the Lord proves that she is not to be put away from the authority of God, which is greater; therefore against the authority of God there is no authority of Moses. But against this: did not the Lord give the law through Moses? See, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 7:25: "concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel." Hence sometimes he said that he had received it from the Lord, sometimes that it was inspired to him by his own diligence: so also Moses. But this he permitted, not because he had heard it from the Lord, but from divine inspiration, yet not confirmed by authority. "By reason of the hardness of your heart he permitted you to put away your wives." They had said that Moses commanded; but he did not command, he permitted. Concerning their hardness we have Acts 7:51: "stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit." Here there is customarily a question, whether those who put away their wives sin mortally. Some said that those putting away sinned mortally. For permission is taken in four ways. A thing is said to be permitted, when the contrary is not commanded, so that a lesser good is permitted because a greater good is not commanded, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 7:6: "this I say by way of indulgence." Likewise sometimes through the privation of prohibition; and thus venial sins are permitted. Sometimes, however, through the privation of impediment: and thus all evils which occur in the present are sometimes also said to be permitted, because punishment is not applied. Therefore certain things were permitted to the Jews which were mortal sins, because punishment was not inflicted upon them for them. But this holds in worldly matters: for thus we see that according to human laws simple fornication is not punished; hence if the old law looked only to the present life, the solution would be good in this way. But because, although according to the husk it pertains to the present life, yet according to the marrow it pertains also to eternal life — Exodus 15:26: "I have given them my precepts"; and the Lord says to the young man, below in this same chapter: "if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" — therefore others say that it would have been ill provided for that people if they were ignorant of what was a sin, since nevertheless it is written, Isaiah 58:1: "announce to my people their sins." Therefore Chrysostom says that he took away the fault of the sin from the sin. And although it was something disordered, yet he did not wish it to be imputed to them as fault, as the Lord commanded Hosea to beget children of fornication; hence the permission was not from a precept, but to avoid a greater evil. "But from the beginning it was not so." Hence it was something actual, not instituted from the beginning; hence after many years no one put away his wife. "But I say to you," and so on. Here he introduces the law. First on behalf of the man; second on behalf of the woman. He says therefore, "whoever shall put away his wife," and so on. But fornication is excepted. But note that fornication is twofold, namely bodily and spiritual. Hence on account of either he may put away, as we have in 1 Corinthians 7:15: "if the unbeliever depart, let him depart" — the believer may put away the unbeliever. It is to be noted that by no subsequent impediment can the bond of matrimony be dissolved, because it signifies the union of Christ and the Church: hence since the union of Christ and the Church cannot be dissolved, neither can the union of matrimony. But on account of fornication one may be separated from cohabitation, and ought not to keep her with him, lest he seem to be a party to the turpitude; but for other kinds of turpitude he cannot, as for drunkenness. Likewise if she wishes to lead the man into unbelief, he may put her away. But why is mention made rather of bodily fornication than of spiritual? Because it is against the fidelity of marriage: and to one who breaks faith, faith need not be kept. Another reason is given by Origen, because above, 5:32, the Lord said, "whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery," and therefore gives her occasion of committing adultery; but after she herself has sinned, he does not give her occasion of committing adultery, therefore afterward he may put her away, not before. "And whoever shall marry her that is put away commits adultery." But why not, unless he marries another? Because the same thing, by that through which it is loosed, is bound. Hence when a man has a wife who is separated, and not another, there still remains hope that they may be united, either through a similar repentance for sin, or through the consent of their hearts; but when he has married another, then he has totally separated his heart, and his assent from her. Another reason, because if apart from fornication he could put away his wife, it would sometimes happen that a man would impute a crime to his wife, so as to be separated from her, and be joined to another; therefore the Lord willed that he should not have another. Hence he expressly forbids that a man should have different wives, because, one having been put away, and another taken, he commits adultery. "And whoever shall marry her that is put away commits adultery." Here he sets down the law as concerns the woman: hence he does not wish that the wife who is put away should have a husband. But why does he forbid the man to marry her, and not the woman? I answer, that women are more headlong toward evil. Jeremiah 3:3: "you have had a harlot's forehead." Therefore through this prohibition she would be driven headlong to greater evils. Therefore he commands the man that he should not marry her, but he does not forbid the woman. But what then? Was it not lawful for her, who had been repudiated, to take another? Some say no, because the bond still remained: and they adduce that which is found in Deuteronomy 24, that she could not return to the former husband, because she is polluted; but unless she had sinned, she could return. Others say that she could marry another, but not this one, because if she could return to him, he would more easily repudiate her. What then do you say, that she is polluted? I say that she is polluted with respect to this man, because she cannot return to him. Or it can be understood of the uncleanness of the law, because a priest could not have her. The disciples say to him: "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." After the Lord had dealt with the indissolubility of matrimony, here he treats of the perfection of those who are continent: and concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the opinion of the disciples; second the opinion of Christ, where it says "who said to them," and so on. He says therefore, "the disciples said: if the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." They were moved to say this, because they had heard that a wife could not be put away except for one cause, whereas many other causes make matrimony burdensome, such as some uncleanness, like leprosy and the like; so that what is said in Ecclesiasticus 25:23 is fulfilled: "it is better to dwell with a lion and a dragon (bear), than to dwell with a wicked woman." Likewise it brings much anxiety; 1 Corinthians 7:34: "if a virgin marries, she thinks about the things of the world." Therefore from this they argue that it is expedient for any man not to marry; therefore the Lord tempers this, because it happens that something is better in two ways: either simply, or in a certain respect; thus continence is fitting for some, not for others: because, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 7:9, "it is better to marry than to burn." "Who said to them" approves the opinion of the disciples. And first in words; second in deeds, where it says "then little children were brought to him." And first he approves continence; second he assigns the differences of the continent, where it says "for there are eunuchs," and so on; third the difficulty, where it says "he that can take it, let him take it." He says therefore, "who said to them: not all take this word." So you say that it is not expedient to marry: this is true for some, but it is not true for all, because not all have such power that they can abstain; "but they to whom it is given," because to some it is given not from their own doing, but from the gift of grace. Wisdom 8:21: "I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it." For that man should live in the flesh apart from the flesh is not of man, but of God; 1 Corinthians 7:7: "I would that all men were even as myself; but every one has his proper gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that." And because they might believe that all could be continent, therefore he says "for there are eunuchs," and so on. Hence he distinguishes, that continence exists in some from nature, sometimes from violence, sometimes from will. Therefore he touches on three kinds of eunuchs: for some are so "by nature, who were born so from their mother's womb." Just as some are born monstrously through lack of a hand, so also some without genitals: and this by the providence of God, because if all things happened according to the common course of nature, everything would be attributed to nature, and not to divine providence; hence Wisdom 8:8: "she knows signs and wonders before they come to pass." Likewise some are eunuchs by violence, as those who are castrated by tyrants or barbarians, or who are castrated for the guarding of women. "Who were made so by men," namely whom either the cruelty of men castrated, or the guarding of women. And Jerome says that he knows this, because boys were taken, and castrated, and placed in the house of Nebuchadnezzar. Others, however, by will, as it says, "and there are eunuchs, who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven." Some have wrongly understood this word, saying that the genitals are to be cut off, and it is read that some have done this, of whom Origen is said to have been one. But this has been condemned, and such men ought to be separated from the clergy, according to the chapter "Ex parte" and the chapter "Significavit," in the Decretals, on the body (mutilated). Hence occasion is given to the error of the Manichaeans, who said that bodily creation was the cause of evil. Likewise occasion is given to the error of the Gentiles, because some in their sacrifices castrate themselves. Likewise this deed is not for any usefulness, because such men, even if they do not have the act, are nevertheless not immune from concupiscence. Hence Ecclesiasticus 20:4: "the concupiscence of an eunuch shall deflower a young maiden." Therefore it is better that a man put a bridle upon himself, than cut off a member, so as to restrain evil thoughts and desires. Isaiah 1:16: "take away the evil of your thoughts from my eyes" (from your hearts). "Who have castrated themselves," gave themselves to continual chastity, and this "for the kingdom of heaven." For sometimes a member is understood through the act, as above, 18:9: "if your eye scandalizes you, pluck it out, and cast it from you." So here the genital members are taken for the act. Hence he castrates himself, who dedicates himself to chastity. Or, according to Jerome, that those who keep continence are so born by coldness, namely of nature, so that they are not moved to that act. Hence they are called eunuchs on account of the act of eunuchs, which they have on account of the nature which they have from the womb. Because some have some disposition to some virtue naturally, as Job to mercy, who says in chapter 31:18: "compassion grew up with me from my infancy." Some, however, are eunuchs from will, either on account of pretense; or, taught by heretics, is "made so by men." 2 Timothy 3:5: "having indeed an appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof." Some, however, are eunuchs on account of the reward of eternal life. The first two, namely those who are castrated either naturally or by violence, do not have the merit of eternal life, but only the third kind. But is it true of the first two, that they do not merit? I say that they merit as to the will, although they do not merit as to the act; because although they cannot do it, they can nevertheless will that they could do it. "He that can take it, let him take it." The difference of continence having been set down, here is set down the exhortation, as Jerome says. The Lord does as a general does in an army, who, when a city is to be taken, says: whoever shall enter the city, this or that shall be given to him, as David says to Joab. So he who can take and keep continence, let him take it, and not draw back. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:31: "be zealous for the better gifts." But what is this that he says? Is not everyone bound to keep virginity? It would seem so, because man is bound to the better things. It must be said that this is not a precept, but a counsel, as the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 7:25: "concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel." But what then? Is not a man bound to the better things? I say that a distinction must be made, that "better" is understood either as to the act, or as to the affection. He is not bound to the better as to the act, but he is bound to the better as to the affection, because every rule and every act is determined to something finite and certain: and if one were bound to the better absolutely, one would be bound to something uncertain. Hence as to exterior acts, because one is not bound to the uncertain, one is not bound to the better things; but as to the affection, one is bound to the better things. Hence he who would not always wish to be better could not will this without contempt. But what is this that he says, "he that can take it, let him take it"? Either by natural power; and thus no one can: or by the power of grace; and thus anyone can, because it is said, Luke 11:9: "ask, and you shall receive." Likewise the grace of God can do all things. I say that the word "can" includes the power of the will: for the will is either firm or infirm. Now it is established that when a man has a firm will, he does not fear many impulses; but when he does not, he falls by an easy impulse. Hence let him who can take it by firmness of will take it, and this not from nature, but from God. Hence let him who has this from God — we counsel that he take this and observe continence. Or, he who can according to the opportunity of the time, or the condition of the time, as Abraham: hence the celibacy of John is not preferred to the marriage of Abraham. Likewise according to condition; because he who is married cannot practice continence; hence some are excluded either by reason of the time, or of the condition. "Then were little children brought to him." Here he shows in deed what he had said in word. And first the offering of the little children is set down; second the zeal of the disciples; third the satisfaction given by Christ. The second where it says "and the disciples rebuked them"; the third where it says "but Jesus said to them," and so on. He says therefore, "then were little children brought to him." The Lord had commended chastity, and because in little children there is chastity and purity, therefore, seeing that purity pleased him, they brought little children to him, "that he should impose hands upon them, and pray." It is to be noted that it was the custom that children were brought to the elders, and they blessed them, and prayed, as a sign that the blessing is from God. Likewise, having experienced that his touch had a saving power, because he had healed a leper and many others, therefore they did this as well. Likewise they brought little children, because they believed that whoever was touched by him would afterward not be troubled by demons; therefore the Church took it up as a custom, that the sacraments of the Church should be administered to little children, so that they might be the more confirmed. "And the disciples rebuked them." Here the zeal of the disciples is touched upon. But why did they rebuke them? Because they believed that he, being a true man, was wearied by the frequency of people; therefore, wishing to spare his labor, and so on. Another reason, because they had a great opinion of Christ; therefore it seemed to them that it was unbecoming for little children to approach him. Origen: because through this it is signified that in the Church there are certain unlearned little ones. Through the disciples the perfect are signified; hence such disdain, when they see little ones, namely these unlearned, coming to Christ, not knowing that he wills all men to be saved. The Apostle, Romans 1:14: "I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians." Consequently he gives satisfaction to both. And first to the zeal for justice; second he gives satisfaction to the devotion of those offering them. He says therefore, "suffer the little children to come to me," that is, the humble, or the few; 1 Corinthians 14:20: "do not become children in sense, but in malice be children." "And forbid them not," namely the few, on account of innocence. For the imperfect are not to be forbidden from coming to perfection. "For of such is the kingdom of heaven." He says "of such," not "of these," namely who are so pure through innocence. Above, 18:3: "unless you become as this little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Job 22:29: "he that has been humbled shall be in glory." Consequently he gives satisfaction to their devotion, "when he had imposed hands upon them." By which he strengthens their virtues. Isaiah 40:29: "who gives strength to the weary." "He departed from thence." Sometimes Christ lays on hands, and does not depart from there; sometimes he lays them on, and departs, because some are so strong that they do not draw back. And he called Peter and Andrew, and remained with them, John 1:38ff. Because therefore these were still imperfect, and not fit for following, therefore he departed from there. "And behold one came up," and so on. Here he deals with the perfection of poverty; and because there is a twofold way, the common way, and the special way, as is continence: the first way is the way of salvation, the second of perfection: therefore first he deals with the first, second with the second. And first the question is set down; second Christ's response; third the exposition of the response. The question is set down, "and behold one came up and said to him: Good master." Concerning this man there is a differing opinion, because Jerome says that he was perverse in heart: and this is clear, because he went away sad; hence if he had come with a good heart, he would not have gone away sad. Chrysostom says that he was held fast by the passion of avarice; therefore he could not bear it: and this is clear, because he did not come for the sake of tempting; because when some came to Jesus for the sake of tempting, the Lord always answered according to their malice: "why do you tempt me?" or something of this kind; but he sets down none of this here. Hence it is clear that he was not a tempter, but an imperfect man, who was approaching God, that he might be made perfect; Psalm 34:5: "come to him and be enlightened." "Good master," and so on. He calls him master, as one who knows: for such ought a master to be, one who knows. Likewise he calls him good: it is of the nature of the good to communicate itself; hence Wisdom 7:13: "I communicate without envy." For he himself is truly good; Psalm 119:68: "you are good, and in your goodness teach me your justifications." "What good shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" He had heard much about eternal life. He had heard well, Psalm 37:27: "decline from evil, and do good"; but in the law he had not heard eternal life promised, but only temporal things. Isaiah 1:19: "you shall eat the good things of the land." "Who says to him, why do you ask me?" Here he sets down the response. First he answers, as we have in Mark, "why do you call me good?" Here, however, "why do you ask me?" Both can be understood. But what Matthew says, "why do you ask me?" has no imputation of blame; but according to what Mark says, the Arians took up their error, saying that the Father is good by essence, the Son by participation; therefore they held the Son to be unequal to the Father. But it is to be noted that he says: "one is good, God." But by the name of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are understood; hence every other creature is excluded from this, because it is not good by essence. But why does he answer in this way? Jerome says that he answers to his very mind, since he was commending that goodness which is customarily found in man; because they clung more to the traditions of men than of God, as is said above, 15:6: "you have made void the commandment of God for the sake of your traditions." Therefore he reproves him, because he was asking of him as of a good man, but not as of God. But what is this that he says, "why do you ask me concerning the good?" He says this as one knowing his disposition, because he did not have a mind to obey the good, and every temporal good is imperfect and a shadow with respect to the divine good; Isaiah 64:6: "all our righteousnesses are as a filthy rag." Hence all these good things are from God; therefore if you wish to have them, ask from him: for he alone is good; Psalm 136:1: "give praise to the Lord, for he is good." Therefore return to God. "If you will enter into life, keep the commandments." For some have an imperfect life, some a perfect life, and some are altogether outside of life, as those who are in sin, or unbelievers, because "the just man lives by faith," Hebrews 10:38. Some, therefore, have a life begun and imperfect, as the just in this world; but those have the perfect life who are already in eternal life; hence, "if you will enter into life, keep the commandments," because man is brought in through the commandments. Ezekiel 20:11: "I gave them my commandments, and showed them my judgments." But were the commandments sufficient for salvation? I say no, except from the faith of the Mediator, and charity; hence the Apostle, Galatians 2:21: "if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain." Likewise Proverbs 7:2: "keep my commandments, and you shall live." "He says to him, which?" There follows the exposition of the response, in which he repeats the commandments. And first he sets down the commandments; second the root, where it says "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." He says therefore, "but Jesus said: you shall do no murder," and so on. And why does he make no mention of the commandments of the first tablet? Because he saw him inclined to the love of God, therefore it was not necessary. Likewise these are preliminary to love. And first he sets down the negative; second the affirmative. First he begins from the greater, "you shall do no murder," which is against life in act; "you shall not commit adultery," which is against life in potency; "you shall not steal," which is against the goods of the person; "you shall not bear false witness," which is against the person. Likewise he sets down the affirmative: "honor your father." Then he sets down the root, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Romans 13:8: "he that loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."

"The young man says to him: all these I have kept from my youth." After the Lord had handed down the teaching of the common salvation, here he hands down the teaching of perfection. And first he hands down the teaching; second, the necessity of this teaching; third, the reward of its observance. The second is at "Jesus then said to his disciples"; the third at "Peter answering, and so on." And first is set down the occasion for giving the teaching; second, its promulgation; third, its effect. The second is at "Jesus says to him, etc."; the third at "when the young man had heard the word, he went away sad." The occasion for promulgating this teaching is the young man's petition. And first he confesses himself an observer of the legal precepts; second he asks what the perfection is to which he might attain, at "what do I still lack?" He says therefore "all these I have kept from my youth"; and he says "all," because it does not suffice to do one thing only, unless all are kept; James 2:10: "whoever offends in one point has become guilty of all." Likewise he says "from my youth"; Proverbs 22:6: "a young man according to his way, and when he has grown old, he will not depart from it." Whence there was fitting for him what is said in Job 23:12: "I have not departed from the way of my lips." But whether he spoke truly is a question. Jerome says that he lied, which is evident, because immediately before this it had preceded, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." If he had so loved, he would not have gone away sad, when the Lord said, "go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor." Chrysostom says that he spoke truly in that he had kept the legal precepts; and this is confirmed by what is found in Mark 10:21, that when Jesus had looked upon him, he loved him, which he would not have done unless he were good. For there is a twofold way. One is sufficient for salvation; and this is the love of God and of neighbor together with one's own benefit, without one's own burden, according to what is had in 1 Corinthians 8:3: "whoever loves God is known by him," and this he had kept. The other is a way of perfection, namely to love one's neighbor with one's own detriment; and this he had not kept; therefore, when it was announced to him, he went away sad. He was not content with the first; therefore he asked "what do I still lack?" Everyone is bound to ask this question, according to what is said: "make known to me, Lord, my end, and what is the number of my days, that I may know what is lacking to me." For he alone knows what is lacking to us. "My imperfection your eyes have seen," Psalm 138:16. Jesus says to him: "if you wish to be perfect, go, and so on." First is set down the endeavor; second, the way; third, since it is difficult, the reward is set down; fourth, the consummation of perfection. He says therefore, "if you wish to be perfect, go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor." For we ought to strive toward perfection; Hebrews 6:1: "leaving the discourse of the beginning of Christ, let us be carried on to what is perfect." But Origen asks: the perfection of the law is love; but he had said "you shall love your neighbor as yourself"; why then did he say "if you wish to be perfect," when he was already perfect? Some say that in certain books that phrase "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" is not found. And this is evident, because it is not found in Mark. Otherwise it can be said that he did say it, but not in this order, because in the Gospel of the Nazarenes it stands thus: the Lord said, "you shall not commit murder," and so on, up to the matter concerning love. And afterward follows, "all these," etc., and then follows, "you shall love your neighbor, and so on." Nevertheless the solution is plain, because there is a twofold love of neighbor, namely love according to the common way, and love of perfection. Hence he says "go, and sell all," etc., not a part, as Ananias and Sapphira did, as is had in Acts 5:2. And "give to the poor," not to the rich. 1 Corinthians 13:3: "if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor." Psalm 111:9: "he has scattered abroad, he has given to the poor." And not to one, but to many. But what is this? Would not such a one immediately be perfect? It seems not, because passions are still in him; therefore he is not perfect in virtue. Origen says that he is immediately made perfect, just as those are perfect to whom he distributes his goods. 2 Corinthians 8:14: "let your abundance supply their want, and their abundance may be a supplement to your want." Whence their perfection passes over into him, just as he who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, etc., above, Matthew 10:41. Hence the way of perfection is not "go and sell all that you have," but only what follows, "and give to the poor." The other response is that "if you wish to be perfect" does not mean that you will immediately be perfect, but that you will have a certain beginning of perfection, because, unburdened of these things, you will be able more easily to contemplate heavenly things. Augustine says that vigils and things of this kind are instruments of perfection; but in what follows is the perfection, "and follow me." Whence above, Matthew 4:20: "Peter and Andrew, having left all things, followed him." And so too Matthew above, Matthew 9:9. But when you let go of all these things, the better use is to give to the poor, and in this the neighbor is to be considered. Hence if perfection does not consist in those things, in what does it consist? It must be said that it consists in the perfection of charity; Colossians 3:14: "above all things having charity, which is the bond of perfection." Hence the love of God is perfection, but the letting go of things is the way to perfection. And how? Augustine, in the book of Eighty-Three Questions, says that the increase of charity is the diminishing of cupidity; the perfection of charity is no cupidity at all. He therefore is perfect in charity who loves God even to the contempt of himself and his own. Hence it is difficult and well-nigh impossible that anyone possess riches without being enticed by them: and this is evident in the case of Gregory, of whom it is read that when he had thought he would serve Christ better under a secular guise, so many things began to grow up against him that he was held back not merely in appearance but even in mind. Therefore there is nothing that makes the soul so free as not being occupied about riches: and this is the way of perfection. Hence it is one thing to be perfect, and another to have the state of perfection. Whoever has perfect charity even to the contempt of himself and his own, has perfection. The state of perfection is twofold, of prelates and of religious; but equivocally, because the state of religious is for the acquiring of perfection; hence to such a one it was said, "if you wish to be perfect," and "if you wish to come to the state of perfection." But the state of prelacy is not for acquiring perfection for oneself, but for communicating what one already has; hence the Lord, John 21:17, said to Peter: "Peter, if you love me, feed my sheep"; and he did not say "if you wish to be perfect, etc." Hence the difference between the perfection of religious and of prelates is such as that between a disciple and a master. Hence to the disciple it is said: if you wish to learn, enter the schools that you may learn. To the master it is said: read, and complete your task. Hence the state of religious is more secure, because ignorance is not imputed to them as it is to the prelate. Hence just as it would be ridiculous for a master to know nothing, so too the rest follows. But granted that each does what pertains to him, and uses his office well, I say that there is no comparison, except as between a disciple and a master; hence the prelate is in a more perfect state, even if you should propose Elijah, or anyone whatsoever. But there is a question: if the prelate is perfect, is he not bound to sell all things? I say that this would follow, if perfection consisted in this, namely "go, and sell all that you have"; but it does not, but rather it is the way and the preamble to acquiring perfection; therefore he need not sell what he has. But because it rarely happens that someone has perfection together with riches, it is required of him who comes to perfection that all things be left behind; therefore the Lord gives what is easier. Hence if the prelate were fit, and administered the care well, I say that he would be more perfect; just as someone can say: I wish to enter the schools that I may learn, but it is presumptuous to say, when one knows nothing, that one wishes to be a master. Hence Augustine, in the City of God: a higher state, without which the people cannot be ruled, even if administered fittingly, is nonetheless unfittingly sought after. Likewise it is one thing to be a prelate, and another to be in the state of a prelate. Are parish priests or those with cure of souls in the state of perfection? I say that they are not in that state, because they do not constitute a state. Every state is given with solemnity, as the order of the episcopate and religious life. But when a parish is given, it is not given with solemnity, hence such do not have the state of perfection: which is evident, because to some the care and administration is committed, and if he is not promoted, he can resign and marry, and sometimes he has become a religious. But a bishop would not resign the episcopate, except by leave of a superior; one with cure of souls can enter religious life. But if he were in a more perfect state, he would already be falling from that state, and thus would sin; hence he can have perfection according to act, but not according to state; because a state is not given except with solemnity. "Go therefore and sell all that you have, and give to the poor," because through this you will have a great reward, since reward corresponds to merit. "And you shall have treasure in heaven." In treasure there are two things, stability and abundance. You will have treasure and abundance of spiritual things. Psalm 111:3: "glory and riches are in his house." Isaiah 33:6: "and there shall be faith in your times, riches of salvation, wisdom and knowledge." "And come, follow me." Here is the end of perfection. Hence those are perfect who follow God with their whole heart. Hence Genesis 17:1: "walk before me, and be perfect." And "follow me," that is, imitate the life of Christ; hence above, Matthew 16:24: "if anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself." For imitation consists in the solicitude of preaching, teaching, and having care. Hence Chrysostom: it was said to Peter, "follow me," namely in undertaking the care of the whole world. Job 23:11: "my foot has kept his footsteps." "And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad." His affection is shown, because he went away sad. This happens when we desire something, and cannot have it as we wish; hence this one desired perfection, and heard what he ought to have to attain it. And because he was covetous, he went away sad. And why? "For he had many possessions." Augustine: he who has let go of the will to possess is of great merit, because it is imputed to him what he could have possessed; but it is of greater merit to let go of what one has already acquired, because it is more difficult that things already united be torn away, than things not united. And this is evident, because this man, who possessed, could not be separated from it. "Jesus then said to his disciples." Here is set down the reason for the aforesaid teaching. And first the reason is assigned; second he satisfies the wonder of the disciples, at "and when the disciples had heard this, they wondered greatly." He says therefore "Jesus then said to his disciples, and so on." The occasion for saying this word was that he went away sad, because he had said, "go, sell what you have, and so on." "Because it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven": he does not say impossible. And he says "rich man," not one who has riches: for some have them, and do not love them, while others have them, and love them, and put their trust in them. Those who have them, and do not love them, can enter the kingdom of heaven. For if this were not so, Paul would not say: "charge the rich of this world not to be highminded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches." But he who has and loves, it is difficult, and so on. Above, Matthew 13:22: "the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word." Proverbs 28:20: "he who hastens to be rich shall not be innocent." Ecclesiasticus 31:8: "blessed is the rich man who is found without blemish, who has not gone after gold, and so on." But this is difficult; therefore there follows: "who is this, and we will praise him? For he has done wonderful things in his life." He adds something which seems to pertain to impossibility; hence he says, "and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven." Above the Lord had said that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; here, that it is impossible, just as it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle: hence understand by "rich man" the one who has riches and does not love them—for him it is difficult; but for him who loves them, and puts his trust in them, it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven. For that a camel cannot enter through the eye of a needle is from nature; but that a rich man who loves riches cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, this is from divine justice; but sooner could all things be overturned than divine justice be changed. Others, such as Jerome, say that impossibility is not designated, but difficulty. In a certain Gloss, whose author is unknown, it is found that at Jerusalem there was a gate called "the eye of the needle," through which laden camels could not pass: thus a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he unburden himself of the affection for riches. But it is easier for a camel to be unburdened than for a rich man to lay down this affection. Chrysostom expounds it mystically: by the camel are signified the Gentiles, who are burdened with the sin of idolatry; by the rich, the Jews; the needle is Christ, and the eye of the needle is his passion. Hence it was easier for the Gentile people to pass through the passion of Christ than for the Jews, because they could not come unless by abandoning the ceremonies of the law, and this they themselves would not do. Hence it was asked of the Demon what is the graver sin, and he said, to have what belongs to another; to which it was answered, you are lying. Rather, he says, because I often lose other sinners, but these I do not lose. Or thus, "it is easier," etc., so that by the rich man we understand the proud man; by the camel, Christ; by the eye of the needle, the passion of Christ: therefore it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a proud man to be humbled. "And when the disciples had heard this, they wondered greatly, saying: who then can be saved?" Above the Lord assigned the reason for his teaching; here he satisfies the wonder of the disciples. And first their wonder is set down; second the satisfaction, at "but Jesus looking on them said to them." He says therefore, "and when the disciples had heard this, they wondered greatly, saying: who can be saved?" But here there is a question of the letter. Since more are poor than rich, and it is difficult for the rich to be saved, how do they say "who can be saved?" It is answered that they understood him to mean also the poor who are rich in will; because more are poor who are rich in will. Likewise they themselves had already become solicitous for the whole world; therefore there pressed upon them that solicitude which is had in 2 Corinthians 11:28, so that they were solicitous rulers of all creatures. "But Jesus looking on them said to them: with men this is impossible, and so on." Here he satisfies their wonder, saying: "with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." But what does he mean by this? For it seems that free will perishes, if it is impossible with men. It is true that man has of himself the ability to sin; but to rise again, and to perform the works of salvation, this he does not have of himself without the help of the grace of God: for it is God himself who is able to do these things. Romans 9:16: "it is not of him who runs, nor of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy." Hence Job 42:2: "I know that you can do all things, and with you nothing is impossible." Hence according to human power it is impossible for a man to be saved, because human power does not change the will; but it belongs to God alone to change it, as is had in Philippians 2:13: "who works in us both to will and to accomplish." Consequently he determines concerning the reward of the perfect. And first the question is set down; second the response, at "Jesus then said to them." Peter had heard poverty praised, and had heard: "go, and sell all that you have, and give to the poor." He had also heard that it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven; therefore Peter reckoned that he had done something great, because he had let go of all things; hence he says, "then Peter answering said to him: behold, we have left all things." And because he had heard not only "go, and sell," but further, "and follow me, etc."; therefore Peter adds, "and have followed you." To leave all things does not make perfection, but to leave all things and follow Christ, because many philosophers left all things. But Peter had left a boat and a net. But Peter is praised more for his disposition than for what he left, because he let go with such a ready will that he would have let go of everything, if he had had it. Likewise he knew that Christ knew his will, therefore he says, "behold, we, and so on." By which he gave an example, that those who let go of what they had should not be reckoned to have left little, even if they had little. And Jerome says that letting go does not make perfection, but following the Lord. And in many ways one follows God. In mind, through contemplation; Hosea 6:3: "we shall know and we shall follow on, that we may know the Lord." Hence those follow God who have God before their eyes, and know God by way of contemplation. Likewise one follows the Lord through observance of the commandments; John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice, and follow me." Likewise through imitation of works; Job 23:11: "my foot has followed his steps." Likewise through contempt of self and one's own; above, Matthew 16:24: "if anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Likewise through purity of mind and body; Apocalypse 14:4: "these are they who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins, and follow the Lamb wherever he goes." Voluntary poverty disposes one to this following. "Jesus then said to them, amen I say to you, and so on." Here he treats of the reward of perfection. And first he sets down the reward of the perfection of the apostles; second, the reward of the perfection of others; third, he excludes a certain objection. The second is at "and everyone who has left, etc."; the third at "but many shall be first that are last, and so on." He says therefore, "amen I say to you, and so on." For because he wished it to be certain that he had spoken truly, therefore he professes that he has spoken the truth by saying "amen." And to show that perfection does not consist in this, "go, and sell all that you have," but in this, "follow me"; therefore he says that "you who have followed me, in the regeneration (...) shall sit upon twelve seats, and so on." Regeneration is twofold. One is of the spirit, which happens through grace in Baptism, concerning which 1 Peter 1:3: "he has regenerated us unto a living hope." Likewise there is a regeneration of the body: for just as the spirit is regenerated through grace, so too in the resurrection, he will raise up our bodies. Philippians 3:21: "he will reform the body of our lowliness, made like to the body of his glory." Some expound it of the first regeneration, and punctuate it thus: "you who have followed me in the regeneration," that is, you have been regenerated through grace, "shall sit, and so on." Chrysostom in the same way, but does not punctuate it thus; hence he says that he promised them a reward in the present, thus: "you who have followed me (...) shall sit." The present is the Church of the faith of Christ. In this Church there are diverse states of men. And although all the virtues are necessary for salvation, nevertheless one man is more praiseworthy in the act of one virtue than of another: some in faith, some in chastity, some in charity. And just as it is among diverse believers, so too among the apostles, because Peter was the most fervent zealot of the faith, but John excelled in chastity; thus those who are fervent in faith are the seat of Peter, in chastity the seat of John, and so of the others. But all are the seat of Christ, because all the virtues were in him; therefore he promised them that they would be the future pastors of the Church. Otherwise, according to Augustine, it is taken of regeneration, namely for the resurrection: "amen I say to you, in the regeneration," that is, in the resurrection, when they will be called back according to body and soul, "you shall sit," namely upon the seat of majesty, that is, you shall have judiciary power, "judging the twelve tribes of Israel," because just as God gave judgment to the Son, so it is given also to those who have followed him. But what does he mean by saying "over the tribes of Israel"? Will they not judge others? Why then does he say more, "over the twelve tribes of Israel"? The whole people of the faithful of the whole world is understood, because the Gentile people entered into the richness of the olive tree, and became sharers of the promise made to the fathers. But those who are unfaithful will not be judged: for Gregory says that some are condemned and not judged, as the unfaithful; but some are condemned and judged, as those who believed and were perverted. And, as Jerome puts it, enemies are condemned in one way, those who remained in the faith in another; because enemies are condemned in absence, but the others in presence. Therefore, "you shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel." Because the apostles lived among the Jews; therefore it is said that they will judge the twelve tribes. And how? By comparison, because they had admonished them. They might say: how should we believe that you were God, who were living mortally among us? and so on. But the Lord will say: you were wise in the law, and did not believe; these were fishermen, and believed. Chrysostom asks what great thing was given to the apostles. Was not this also given to the Ninevites and the queen of the South? Above, Matthew 12:41. Chrysostom says that the very manner shows that the authority of judging was given to the apostles, because those who judge by authority judge while sitting, while advocates and accusers condemn while standing; therefore to signify that the apostles will judge by authority, he says "you shall sit." But of the Ninevites he says, "the men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it." But here is a question, because some will be condemned and not judged: thus some will be saved and not judged, as the apostles and apostolic men; but others who are to be saved will be judged, and their merits will be examined. And how will they judge? Some say by comparison. But this does not suffice, because thus even the queen of the South will judge. Some say by the judgment of Christ. But this does not suffice, because thus all the saints would approve. Psalm 57:11: "the just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge." Likewise some say by a certain venerable justice, because the just will be lifted up in the air to meet Christ, and will be assessors of Christ. But this also does not suffice, because he says "you shall sit, you also judging." Some say that they will judge as a book judges: for it judges, because there are written in it the laws which judge that person; just as the hearts of the apostles and of the just, who kept the commandments of God, will be a book condemning them. "The dead were judged, the books being opened," Apocalypse 20:12. But there is more, because they will exercise another function. Hence in Psalm 149:6: "two-edged swords in their hands." How then will they judge? Consider. There will be a mental judgment, because by divine power it will happen that all one's sins are brought back to memory for each individual. Hence Lactantius was deceived, who supposes the resurrection to occur a thousand years before the judgment. This therefore will be a mental judgment, because by divine power there will be brought back to memory the things which each one has done. But it is not unfitting that someone should receive some light from another, because the Angels receive from God, and men from the Angels; therefore it is no wonder that men will be enlightened by the apostles who will be full; therefore they will not only judge, but the other just will also receive a certain light from them. But Christ and the apostles differ, because Christ judges by authority, but they as promulgators: just as the law was given through Angels, so too the execution of judgment will happen through Angels, because behold Angels are called (Job 36:6: "he will give judgment to the poor") who have followed justice, and have left all things. And why will they judge? One reason is, because sins belong to the world. Hence those who are to judge ought to be from outside the world, and such are the apostles and apostolic men; hence John 15:19: "I have chosen you out of the world." Likewise the Philosopher says that the virtuous man is the judge of all men, just as taste is the judge of all things tastable. Just as therefore he who wishes to taste something gives it to be tasted to one who has a sound taste: so since the virtuous man has a sound taste, therefore he himself is the rule of all acts; therefore perfect men will judge as a rule. Likewise another reason, because they are estranged from the world, therefore they follow Christ more fervently. These therefore ought to judge more, because they grow warm concerning the things to be contemplated; Psalm 38:4: "my heart grew hot within me, and in my meditation a fire shall flame out." Therefore also, because more accustomed, they are more fervent. Likewise because they were poor and more abject, but the merit of abjection is exaltation; therefore they will be exalted. Therefore he says "you shall sit judging, and so on." But will Judas judge? No, because these promises are always under a condition; therefore the Lord says "you who have followed me, and so on." Hence whoever shall have followed, and shall have persevered, will judge, and so on. But if these judge, what will Paul do? If the seats are already full, where then is Paul? Augustine says that by the twelve is signified the universality, which is turned by seven. The number twelve therefore comes from the multitude of seven, because the number seven consists of three and four, and three times four is twelve, or four times three; therefore by this number is signified the universality of the elect. "And everyone who has left house, or brothers, and so on." Having set down the reward of the apostles, here is set down the reward of others: and here there are questions. First, why he promised the apostles nothing temporal, but to others something temporal, because "he shall receive a hundredfold, and so on." And this is evident, because in Mark it is had that the hundredfold is in the present. According to Chrysostom, something temporal was promised to the apostles, because judgment in the Church of God, as was said before. Or otherwise, because each one is enticed according to that to which he is inclined. Hence he who has let go of the world and the things that are in the world, is not enticed by the things that are in the world; but others, who are bound to secular things, are enticed by them. Therefore to the apostles, because they had left everything, he promised nothing temporal; but to others, because they have affection for temporal things, therefore to the apostles he promised judgment. Or, according to Origen, that what was said, "in the regeneration," this is the reward of those who have left all things for Christ. But someone might say: I do not wish to leave all things for you, but I will leave one house, or one field, and so on. I say that if you leave something, you will have something; but if all things, you will be a judge. But there is another question. He said "house," and about this there is no doubt; but he says "father or mother, and so on." Whoever commands that father or mother be left, commands a sin. Likewise he himself commanded that a wife not be left, that parents be honored. It must be said that in these two things are considered: natural affinity, and this is not to be despised, but good is to be done to them if they are in need. But sometimes they draw one back from the service of God: hence then they are like a scandalizing member, and then that member is to be cut off; and therefore he commands these to be left. Likewise another reason, because the Lord foresaw the time of future persecution, when brother would rise up against brother; therefore he wishes man to be separated from them. Another question is when he says "he shall receive a hundredfold, and so on," how it is to be understood. Some said that the saints will rise before the judgment a thousand years, and then Christ will have his kingdom completed: and then he who left a house will have a hundredfold. Jerome disapproves this, because he will not have a hundred fathers, and so on. Likewise baseness is signified, because he will not have a hundred wives. Therefore Augustine says that it is understood as to spiritual things. Hence the Lord has chosen us who are poor in this world, and heirs of the kingdom: hence is understood the grace of God, which outweighs everything that you leave, and infinitely; therefore he puts the finite for the infinite. Hence "he shall receive a hundredfold," that is, something which is worth a hundredfold. Origen says that it is also to be understood according to the letter. You leave a field, by the providence of God it will happen that you will find many for your service; hence there will befit them what is in 2 Corinthians 6:10: "as having nothing, and possessing all things." Likewise you will find brothers, that is, all spiritual men. Likewise, besides this, eternal life; John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life." Consequently he introduces incidentally, "but many that are first shall be last, and the last first." Those who leave something for Christ, or all things, if they live negligently, will they have that reward? I say not, because they took it up imperfectly, and they will not be first, but last. Or otherwise, because they might say, "you who have left all things, and so on, we will judge thus." Those who through pride were exalted as first, are last. Origen says that this can be understood of those who come to Christ, and live lukewarmly; afterward others come who are fervent, and by their fervor surpass the others. Or he calls "first" those who were born of Christians, who have become last with respect to others who were from the Gentiles or the Jews. Or it can be referred to men, or to Angels; because those who are first in the order of Angels, have become last through fault; and the last, that is, men, will become first and superior.