And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these words, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan.

“That they might have Him as it were between the horns of a syllogism, so that, whatever answer He should make, it would lie open to cavil. Should He allow a wife to be put away for any cause, and the marriage of another, he would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. Should He answer that she may not be put away for any cause whatsoever, He will be judged to have spoken impiously, and to make against the teaching of Moses and of God.”

“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."”

“Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.”