And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions.

“For many who leave their riches do not therefore follow the Lord; and it is not sufficient for perfection that they despise money, unless they also follow the Saviour, that unless having forsaken evil, they also do what is good. For it is easier to contemn the hoard than quit the propensityb; therefore it follows, And come and follow me; for he follows the Lord who is his imitator, and who walks in his steps. It follows, And when the young man had heard these words, he went away sorrowful. This is the sorrow that leads to death. And the cause of his sorrow is added, for he had great possessions, thorns, that is, and briars, which choked the holy leaven.”

“(Ep. 31, 5.) I know not how, but in the love of worldly superfluities, it is what we have already got, rather than what we desire to get, that most strictly enthrals us. For whence went this young man away sorrowful, but that he had great possessions? It is one thing to lay aside thoughts of further acquisition, and another to strip ourselves of what we have already made our own; one is only rejecting what is not ours, the other is like parting with one of our own limbs.”

“"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.”

“But when the young man heard that saying..... That he must sell his estates, and all his worldly substance, and the money made of them, give away to the poor; and become a follower of Christ, deny himself, and submit to hardships very disagreeable to the flesh: he went away sorrowful; not with a godly sorrow for his sin and imperfections, but with the sorrow of the world, which worketh death: he was ashamed and confounded, that he could not perform what he had just now so briskly promised, at least tacitly, that whatever else was proper he would do; as also grieved, that he had not arrived to perfection, which he had hoped he had, but now began to despair of, and of obtaining eternal life; and most of all troubled, that he must part with his worldly substance, his heart was so much set upon, or not enjoy it: for he had great possessions; which were very dear to him; and he chose rather to turn his back on Christ, and drop his pursuits of the happiness of the other world, than part with the present enjoyments of this.”

“Sorrowful. I know not how it happens, that when superfluous and earthly things are loved, we are more attached to what we possess in effect than in desire. For, why did this young man depart sad, but because he had great riches? It is one thing not to wish for, and another to part with them, when once we have them. They become incorporated, and, as it were, a part of ourselves, like food; and, when taken, are changed into our own members. No one easily suffers a member of his body to be cut off. (St. Augustine, ep. xxxi. ad Paul.)”