Commentary on 2 Corinthians (Super II Epistolam ad Corinthios Lectura)

Having praised his commendation as regards the evils he suffered, the Apostle here consequently, commending himself, shows the pre-eminence of his dignity as regards the goods he received from on high. But the first glorying was concerning his infirmities; this one, however, is concerning his goods. Hence concerning this he does two things. First he commends himself concerning the goods received from on high; second he excuses himself for this commendation, on the ground that he did this as though compelled, at I am become foolish, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he extols the greatness of those things which have been conferred on him by God; second he shows the remedy applied to him against the infirmity, against the danger of pride, at and lest the greatness, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the good conferred on him from on high; second he shows how he conducted himself in glorying about a good of this kind, at for such an one, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that this was conferred on him from on high in general; second in particular, at I know a man, etc. Now the good conferred on the Apostle from on high are the revelations made to him from on high, and it is of these that he wishes here to glory. Hence he says if it is necessary to glory, that is, because it is necessary to glory for your sake, yet in itself it is not expedient, because he who glories of a good he has received falls into the danger of losing what he has. Ecclesiasticus 43:15: the treasuries were opened, namely of the virtues, through empty glorying, and they vanished like clouds like birds. And this is signified in Hezekiah, Isaiah 39:2, when he showed the treasures of the house of the Lord to the messengers of the king of Babylon. And although simply speaking it is not expedient to glory, nevertheless sometimes on account of some special cause a man can glory, as is clear from what has gone before. And so he says: because it is necessary to glory, therefore, having set aside the commendations concerning his infirmities, I will come, commending myself, to the visions and revelations of the Lord. Here it must be noted that there is a difference between vision and revelation. For revelation includes vision, but not the reverse. For sometimes certain things are seen, of which the understanding and meaning is hidden from the one seeing, and then it is vision only. Such was the vision of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2:1 and Genesis 41:1. But when along with the vision there is had the understanding of the meaning of the things seen, then it is revelation. Hence as regards Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, the vision of the ears of grain and of the statue was vision only; but as regards Joseph and Daniel, who had the meaning of the things seen, it was revelation and prophecy. Both, however, namely vision and revelation, are sometimes done by God. Daniel 2:28: there is a God in heaven revealing mysteries. Hosea 12:10: I have multiplied visions for them. Psalm 118:18: reveal my eyes, etc. But sometimes by an evil spirit. Jeremiah 23:13: the prophets prophesied in Baal. But to the Apostle there was made both vision and revelation, because the secrets which he saw he fully understood from the Lord, not from an evil spirit. Hence he says but I will come to the visions and revelations of the Lord. Now revelation is the removal of a veil. There can be a twofold veil. One on the part of the one seeing, and this is unbelief, or sin, or hardness of heart; and concerning this above, 3:14: even to this present day the veil, etc. The other on the part of the thing seen, namely when a spiritual reality is set before someone under the figures of sensible things, and concerning this it is said in Numbers 4:15, that the priests handed over to the Levites the vessels of the sanctuary veiled, because indeed the weaker cannot grasp spiritual things according to how they are in themselves. And therefore the Lord spoke to the crowds in parables, Matthew 13:13. Consequently these visions and revelations the Apostle makes known in particular, speaking of himself as of another. Hence he says I know a man in Christ, etc. And he sets down two visions. The first begins here, but the second begins there at and I know that such a man in Christ, etc. Now concerning the first vision the Apostle uses a certain distinction. For he says that, concerning this revelation, he knows certain things and does not know certain things. Now he says that he knows three things, namely the condition of the one seeing, whence I know a man in Christ; the time of the vision, because fourteen years ago; and the summit of the vision, because caught up even to the third heaven. But he says he does not know the disposition of the one seeing, because whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not. Let us then look at those things which he knew, so that, through the known, we may more easily arrive at the unknown. And first the condition of the one seeing, which is praiseworthy, because in Christ, that is, conformed to Christ. But against this: no one is in Christ except one who has charity, because it is said in 1 John 4:16: he who abides in charity abides in God. Therefore he knew that he had charity, which is against that saying: man does not know whether he is worthy of hatred or of love, etc. I answer that to be in Christ can be understood in two ways. In one way through faith and the sacrament of faith, according to that saying of the Apostle, Galatians 3:27: as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ, namely through faith and the sacrament of faith. And in this way the Apostle knew himself to be in Christ. In another way someone is said to be in Christ through charity, and in this way no one knows with certainty that he is in Christ, except through certain experiences and signs, insofar as he perceives himself to be disposed and joined in Christ, in such a way that in no manner, even on account of death, would he allow himself to be separated from him. And this the Apostle had experienced of himself, when he said, Romans 8:38: for I am certain that neither death, nor life, etc., shall separate us from charity. Hence he could have signs of this kind, that he was in the charity of Christ.

Second, the time of the vision, which was fitting, because fourteen years ago, because fourteen years had passed from that time when he had seen the vision up to the time when he wrote this epistle. For when he wrote this epistle, the Apostle was not yet placed in prison. And so it appears that it was about the beginning of the reign of Nero, by whom, after a long time, he was killed. Hence if we compute the years going down from the beginning of the reign of Nero back fourteen years, it clearly appears that the Apostle had these visions at the beginning of his conversion. For he was converted to Christ in the year in which Christ suffered. Now Christ suffered about the end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, on whose death Gaius succeeded him as emperor, who lived four years, after whom Nero was made emperor. And so between Tiberius and Nero four years elapsed. And so, adding two years from the time of Tiberius, because he had not yet died when Paul was converted, and eight from the time of Nero, which had elapsed up to the time when he wrote this epistle, it remains that from the time of his conversion up to the time when he wrote this epistle, there were fourteen years. And therefore some say quite probably that the Apostle had these visions in that space of three days in which, after his overthrow, he stood before the Lord neither seeing, nor eating, nor drinking, Acts 9:9. Now the Apostle recalls the time of his conversion in order to show that if from the time of his conversion he was already so pleasing to Christ that such things were shown to him, how much more after fourteen years, since he had progressed both in authority with God, and in virtues, and in grace?

Third, let us look at the summit of the vision, which indeed is excellent, because caught up even to the third heaven. But it must be known that stealing is one thing and being caught up is another. Stealing indeed is properly when a thing is secretly taken away from someone. Hence Genesis 40:15 Joseph said: I was stolen away secretly. But to be caught up is properly said of what is taken away suddenly and by force. Job 6:15: like a torrent, raptim, that is, suddenly and swiftly, it passes through the valleys. Hence it is that robbers, who plunder violently, are called raptores. But observe that a man is said to be caught up by men, as Enoch. Wisdom 4:11: he was caught up, lest malice, etc. Sometimes the soul is caught up from the body. Luke 12:20: fool, this night your soul, etc. Sometimes someone is said to be caught up from himself, when on account of something a man is made outside himself, and this is the same as ecstasy. But a man is made outside himself both through the appetitive power and the cognitive. For through the appetitive power a man is only in himself, when he cares for the things that are his own only. But he is made outside himself, when he does not care for the things that are his own, but for those that pertain to the good of others, and this charity does. 1 Corinthians 13:4: charity seeks not the things that are its own. And concerning this ecstasy Dionysius says, chapter 4 On the Divine Names: divine love is that which makes ecstasy, not allowing the lover to belong to himself, but to the beloved, namely of the things loved. But according to the cognitive power someone is made outside himself, when someone beyond the natural mode of man is raised up to see something, and it is of this rapture that the Apostle speaks here. But it must be known that the natural mode of human cognition is that it knows at the same time through the mental power which is the intellect, and the bodily power which is the sense. And hence it is that man does not have, in knowing, free judgment of the intellect, except when the senses have been well disposed in their vigor, without any impediment of binding; otherwise, when they are impeded, the judgment of the intellect too is impeded, as is clear in those who are sleeping. Then therefore a man is made outside himself according to the cognitive power, when he is removed from this natural disposition of cognition, which is that the intellect, abstracted from the use of the senses and of sensible things, is moved to see certain things. Now this happens in two ways: in one way through a defect of power, from whatever source such a defect may arise, as happens in the frenzied and others out of their mind, and this abstraction from the senses is not an elevation of man, but rather a depression, because their power is weakened. In another way through divine power, and then it is properly called elevation, because since an agent assimilates the patient to itself, the abstraction which comes about by divine power, and is above man, is something higher than man's nature is. And therefore rapture, so understood, is defined thus: rapture is an elevation from that which is according to nature into that which is above nature, by the force of a higher nature. In which definition indeed its genus is touched, when it is said elevation; the efficient cause, because by the force of a higher nature; and the two termini of the motion, namely from which and into which, when it is said from that which is according to nature, into that which is above nature. Thus, then, it is clear concerning rapture.

There follows the terminus of the rapture, namely to which, when it is said even to the third heaven. Now it must be noted that the third heaven is taken in three ways. In one way according to those things which are below the soul; in another way according to those things which are in the soul; in a third way according to those things which are above the soul. Below the soul are all bodies, as Augustine says in the book On True Religion. And thus we can take a threefold bodily heaven, namely the aerial, the sidereal, and the Empyrean. And in this way it is said that the Apostle was caught up even to the third heaven, that is, even to seeing those things which are in the Empyrean heaven, not that he existed there, because then he would know whether it was in the body or out of the body. Or according to Damascene, who does not posit an Empyrean heaven, we can say that the third heaven, to which the Apostle was caught up, is above the eighth sphere, so that indeed he saw evidently those things which are above the whole of corporeal nature. But if we take heaven according to those things which are in the soul itself, thus we ought to call heaven a certain height of cognition, which exceeds natural human cognition. Now there is a threefold vision, namely corporeal, by which we see and know corporeal things, or imaginative, by which we see the likenesses of bodies, and intellectual, by which we know the natures of things in themselves. For properly the object of the intellect is what a thing is. Now visions of this kind, if they come about according to the natural mode, for instance, if I see something sensible, if I imagine something previously seen, if I understand through phantasms, cannot be called heaven. But then each of these is called heaven, when it is above the natural faculty of human cognition, for instance, if you see something with the bodily eyes, above the faculty of nature, thus you are caught up to the first heaven. As Balthasar was caught up seeing the hand writing on the wall, as it is said Daniel 5:6. But if you are raised up through imagination, or through the spirit, to know something supernaturally, thus you are caught up to the second heaven. Thus Peter was caught up, when he saw the sheet let down from heaven, as it is said Acts 10:10. But if someone should see the intelligible things themselves and their natures, not through sensible things, nor through phantasms, thus he would be caught up even to the third heaven. But it must be known that to be caught up to the first heaven is to be alienated from the bodily senses. Hence, since no one can be totally abstracted from the bodily senses, it is clear that no one can be said to be simply caught up into the first heaven, but in a certain respect, insofar as it happens that someone is sometimes so intent upon one sense that he is abstracted from the act of the others. To be caught up to the second heaven is when someone is alienated from sense so as to see certain imaginable things, hence such persons have always been accustomed to come to be in ecstasy. And therefore, Acts 10:10, when Peter saw the sheet, it is said that he came to be in ecstasy. But Paul is said to have been caught up to the third heaven, because he was so alienated from the senses, and raised above all corporeal things, that he saw the intelligible things bare and pure in the manner in which the Angels and the separated soul see them, and, what is more, even God himself through his essence, as Augustine expressly says, Book 12 on the Literal Meaning of Genesis, and in the Gloss, and to Paulinus in the book On Seeing God. Nor is it probable that Moses, the minister of the Old Testament to the Jews, should have seen God, and the minister of the New Testament to the Gentiles and teacher of the Gentiles should have been deprived of this gift. Hence he himself says above, 3:7: if the ministration of condemnation was in glory, etc. Now that Moses saw God through his essence is clear. For he himself asked of the Lord, Exodus 33:13: show me your face. And although this was then denied him, it is not therefore said that the Lord finally denied it to him. Hence Augustine says that it was granted to him through what is said, Numbers 12:6ff: if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, etc. But not so my servant Moses, etc. For openly, and not through riddles, he saw God. But could it have happened to Paul that, without being caught up, he saw God? It must be said, no. For it is impossible that God should be seen in this life by a man not alienated from the senses, because no image, no phantasm is a sufficient medium for showing the essence of God, and therefore it is necessary that he be abstracted and alienated from the senses.

In a third way, taking heaven according to those things which are above the soul: and thus the threefold heaven is the threefold hierarchy of Angels, and according to this the Apostle was caught up even to the third heaven, that is, to this, that he saw the essence of God as clearly as the Angels of the higher and first hierarchy see him, who so see God that immediately in God himself they receive illuminations, and know the divine mysteries. And thus Paul saw. Thus, then, he saw the essence of God as the Angels of the higher hierarchy. Therefore it certainly seems that the Apostle was blessed, and consequently was immortal. I answer that although he saw God through his essence, nevertheless he was not simply blessed, but only in a certain respect. Now it must be known that the vision of God through his essence comes about through some light, namely through the light of glory, concerning which it is said in Psalm 35:10: in your light we shall see light. But some light is communicated to something by way of a passion, but to another by way of an inherent form, just as the light of the sun is found in a carbuncle and in the stars, as an inherent form, that is, made connatural, but in the air it is found as a transient form, and not permanent, because it passes away, the sun departing. Similarly the light of glory too is infused into the mind in two ways. In one way by way of a connatural and permanent form made, and thus it makes the mind simply blessed. And in this way it is infused into the blessed in the homeland, and therefore they are called comprehensors, and, so to speak, seers. In another way the light of glory comes to the human mind as a certain transient passion, and thus the mind of Paul was, in the rapture, illumined by the light of glory. Hence even the very name rapture shows this to have come about in passing. And therefore he was not simply glorified, nor did he have the endowment of glory, since that clarity was not made a property. And on account of this it was not derived from the soul into the body, nor did it remain perpetually in this state. Hence he had only the act of the blessed in the rapture itself, but was not blessed. Thus by this it is clear what the Apostle knew in his rapture, namely the condition of the one seeing, the time of the vision, and the summit of the vision. There follows what he did not know, namely whether he was in the body, or out of the body, which nevertheless he says God knows. Hence he says whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not, God knows; which some wished to understand in such a way that the rapture is referred to the body, saying that the Apostle said he did not know, not indeed whether the soul was joined to the body in that rapture or not, but whether he was caught up according to soul and body together, so that he was borne bodily at the same time into heaven, as Habakkuk was borne, Daniel, last chapter; or whether according to the soul only he was in the visions of God, as it is said Ezekiel 8:3: in a vision he brought me into the land of Israel. And this was the understanding of a certain Jew, whom Jerome expounds in the prologue on Daniel, where he says: finally he says also that our Apostle did not dare to affirm that he was caught up in the body, but said: whether in the body, etc. But Augustine chiefly disapproves this understanding, Book 2 on the Literal Meaning of Genesis, because it does not agree with the other words of the Apostle. For the Apostle says he was caught up even to the third heaven; hence he knew for certain that this was a true heaven. Therefore he knew whether that heaven was corporeal or incorporeal, that is, an incorporeal reality. But if it was incorporeal, he knew that he could not have been caught up there bodily, because in an incorporeal reality there cannot be a body. But if it was corporeal, he knew that the soul was not there without the body; because a soul joined to a body cannot be in a place where the body is not, unless an incorporeal heaven is called a likeness of a corporeal heaven. But if so, the Apostle would not have said that he knew that he was caught up into the third heaven, that is, into a likeness of heaven, because, by the same reasoning, he could have said that he was caught up in the body, that is, in a likeness of a body. It must therefore be said, according to Augustine, that no one placed in this life, and living in this mortal life, can see the divine essence. Hence the Lord says, Exodus 33:20: man shall not see me, and live, that is, man shall not see me, unless he is totally separated from the body, in such a way namely that his soul is not in the body as its form, or if it is in it as its form, nevertheless his mind, in a vision of this kind, is totally alienated from the senses. And therefore it must be said that this, which the Apostle says he does not know — namely whether in that vision his soul was totally separated from the body, hence he says or out of the body; or whether his soul existed in the body as its form, yet his mind was alienated from the bodily senses, hence he says or in the body. And this too others grant.

Having laid down the first rapture, the second rapture is set forth next. And he does two things: first the rapture is set forth, second the excellence of the rapture, at "he heard secret words," etc. But it should be noted that the Gloss says this rapture is other than the first. And if it is well considered, something is read twice about the apostle, to which these two raptures can be referred. For in Acts 9, it is read that he stood for three days not seeing and neither eating nor drinking, and to this the first rapture can be referred, namely that then he was rapt as far as the third heaven. But in Acts 22:17 it is read that he fell into a stupor of mind in the temple, and to this the second rapture is referred. But this does not seem probable, because when he fell into the stupor of mind, the apostle had already been sent into prison; but the apostle wrote this epistle long before, hence this epistle was written before the apostle had been in that stupor. And therefore it should be said that this rapture differs from the first as to that into which he was rapt. For in the first he was rapt into the third heaven; but in the second, into the Paradise of God. But if someone were to take the third heaven corporeally, according to the first acceptation of the heavens set down above, or if it were an imaginary vision, he could likewise say that the Paradise was corporeal, so that it would be said that he was rapt into the earthly Paradise. But this is against the intention of Augustine, according to whom we say that he was rapt into the third heaven, that is, into the vision of intelligible things, according as they are seen in themselves and in their own natures, as was said above. Hence according to this it is fitting to understand not one thing by heaven and another by Paradise, but one and the same thing by both, namely the glory of the saints, but according to one aspect and another. For heaven denotes a certain height together with brightness, but Paradise a certain pleasant sweetness. Now in the blessed saints and in the Angels who see God these two things are present in a preeminent way, because in them there is a most excellent brightness by which they see God, and a supreme sweetness by which they enjoy God. And therefore they are said to be in heaven as to brightness, and in Paradise as to sweetness. Isaiah 66:14: "you shall see and rejoice," etc. Both, therefore, were conferred on the apostle, namely that he should be raised up to that most lofty brightness of knowledge, and this he signifies when he says "to the third heaven," and that he should feel the sweetness of the divine delight, hence he says "into Paradise." Psalm 30:20: "great is the multitude of your sweetness," etc. Apocalypse 2:17: "to him who conquers I will give hidden manna," etc. And this sweetness is the joy of divine enjoyment, of which it is said in Matthew 25:21, "enter into the joy of your lord." Thus, then, the terminus of the rapture is clear, since it was into Paradise, that is, into that sweetness by which those who are in the heavenly Jerusalem are unfailingly refreshed.

There follows next the excellence of this rapture itself, because "he heard secret words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak." And this can be expounded in two ways. In one way, so that the word "man" is construed with "lawful" and "to speak"; and the sense is: "he heard secret words," that is, he perceived by intimate knowledge secret things about the essence of God as it were through words, which words, namely, it is not lawful to be told to man. In another way, so that the word "man" is construed only with "it is not lawful," and then the sense is: "he heard words," etc., which words it is not lawful for man to speak, namely for imperfect man. It should be known, however, that according to Augustine, Paul was rapt to see the divine essence, which indeed cannot be seen through any created likeness. Hence it is manifest that what Paul saw of the divine essence no human tongue can utter, otherwise God would not be incomprehensible. And therefore according to the first exposition it should be said "he heard," that is, he considered "secret words," that is, the magnificence of the divinity, which no man can speak. He says, however, "he heard" for "he saw," because that consideration was according to an interior act of the soul, in which hearing and seeing are the same, according as it is said in Numbers 12:8: "he speaks to him mouth to mouth, and openly," etc. That consideration, however, is called vision, insofar as God is seen in it, and speech, insofar as man is instructed in it about divine things. And because things of this spiritual sort are not to be laid open to the simple and imperfect, but to the perfect, according as it is said in 1 Corinthians 2:6, "we speak wisdom among the perfect," therefore, in the second way, it is expounded that the secrets, which he heard there, "it is not lawful for me to speak to man," that is, to the imperfect, but to the spiritual, among whom we speak wisdom. Proverbs 25:2: "it is the glory of God to conceal the word," that is, this very thing, that it is necessary to conceal the great things of God, pertains to the glory of God. The Psalm according to the translation of Jerome: "to you praise is silent, O God," that is, that he is incomprehensible to our words.

Then when he says "for such a one I will glory," etc., he shows how he stands with respect to glory. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows that he does not glory concerning revelations of this sort; second he hints that he has something apart from that in which he can glory, at "for even if I should wish," etc.; third he assigns the reason why he does not glory concerning all things, at "but I spare, lest anyone," etc. Concerning the first, it should be known that this which he says, "but for such a one I will glory," etc., can be read in two ways. In one way, so that the apostle shows that he himself is the one for whom he glories, namely that he himself is the one who saw these visions; in another way, so that he shows that another is the one who saw these visions. For it should be known that in a man two things can be considered, namely the gift of God and the human condition. If, then, someone glories in some gift of God, as received from God, that is a good glorying, because thus he glories in the Lord, as was said above, 10:17. But if he glories concerning that gift, as had from himself, then such a glorying is bad. 1 Corinthians 4:7: "what do you have that you have not received? But if you have received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?" The apostle therefore says, according to this: "for such a one," namely for the visions and gifts of God conferred on me, "I will glory, but for myself I will not," that is, I will not glory on that account, as if I had received it from myself, since I had it from God. But if it is fitting to glory for myself, I will glory in nothing, "except in my infirmities," that is, I have nothing from which I can glory, except concerning my infirm condition. But if it is expounded so as to show that another is the one who saw, even though it is himself, then the sense is, as though he were speaking of a certain other, saying "for such a one I will glory," that is, for that man who saw this and who received these gifts, I will glory; "but for myself," as though wishing to make known that I myself am such a one, "I will glory in nothing, except in my infirmities," that is, concerning the tribulations which I suffer.

But because these people might say to themselves: "O apostle, it is no wonder if you do not glory, because you have nothing from which to glory"; therefore the apostle shows that even apart from those visions he has something from which he can glory, saying: although for such a man I may glory, and not for myself, nevertheless I can also glory well for myself. "For if I should wish to glory," etc., whether for tribulations of this sort, or for other things conferred on me by God, or even for infirmities, "I shall not be foolish," that is, I shall not act foolishly. And why? "For I will speak the truth" concerning other things, concerning which, apart from the said visions, I can glory. He says, however, "I shall not be foolish," because he was glorying concerning things which he had. For when someone glories concerning things which he does not have, he glories foolishly. Apocalypse 3:17: "you say, I am rich, and have need of nothing, and you do not know," etc. And because he was glorying from a sufficient cause, as is manifest from the foregoing.

Then, when he says "but I spare," etc., he shows the reason why he does not glory concerning all things, if he can glory; which reason indeed is, that he may spare them. Hence he says "but I spare," etc., as if he were to say: I could glory concerning many other things, but I spare, that is, I glory sparingly, or I spare you by commending myself, not wishing to be burdensome to you. For God has granted me such things, that if you knew them, you would reckon me much greater, and these are the many gratuitous gifts which the apostle had. From which the men of this world are accustomed to commend men more, and to reckon them greater, than from things done out of grace. And therefore he says: I do not wish to be commended from gratuitous things, and therefore "I spare," that is, I do not glory. And why? "Lest anyone should reckon me" to be commended, or to glory, "above that which he sees," etc. Or otherwise: a man is known in two ways, by his manner of life and his teaching; but the apostle did not wish to say certain things about himself, although he could, which exceeded both his life and his teaching. And therefore "but I spare, lest anyone should reckon me to be above that which he sees," concerning my outward manner of life, "or hears from me," that is, from the teaching of my preaching, and exhortation, and instruction: because perhaps they would believe him to be either immortal, or an Angel. Proverbs 11:12: "a prudent man will be silent." Proverbs 29:11: "a fool utters his whole spirit, but a wise man defers it," etc. Or he says "but I spare," etc., on account of the detractors, namely the pseudo-apostles, who said that he was glorying out of elation and not from a cause, nor concerning things which were in him. And therefore he says "but I spare," that is, I glory sparingly, lest any pseudo-apostle should reckon me to exceed in a spirit of elation, "above that," that is, in anything, which he sees in me, "or hears from me," that is, beyond meritorious ability. Psalm 130:1: "Lord, my heart has not been exalted," etc. Ecclesiasticus 3:20: "how great soever you are," etc.

He here treats of the remedy applied against pride. And concerning this he does three things. For first he sets down the remedy applied; second he shows his own prayer about removing the remedy, at the words for which cause, thrice, the Lord, etc.; third he intimates the Lord's response, assigning the reason for the remedy applied, at the words and the Lord said to me, etc.

Concerning the first, it must be known that quite often a wise physician procures and permits a lesser sickness to come upon the sick person, in order to cure or avoid a greater one — just as, to cure a spasm, he procures a fever. The blessed Apostle shows that this was evidently done in himself by the physician of souls, our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ, as the supreme physician of souls, in order to cure grave sicknesses of the soul, permits many of his elect — even great ones — to be gravely afflicted with sicknesses of the body, and, what is more, in order to cure greater crimes, he permits them to fall even into lesser mortal sins.

Now among all sins, the more grievous sin is pride. For just as charity is the root and beginning of the virtues, so pride is the root and beginning of all vices. Ecclesiasticus 10:15: the beginning of all sin is pride. This is evident as follows: charity is called the root of all the virtues because it joins us to God, who is the last end. Hence, just as the end is the principle of all things that are to be done, so charity is the principle of all the virtues. Pride, however, turns one away from God. For pride is the inordinate desire of one's own excellence. For if someone desires some excellence under God — if indeed he desires it moderately, and for the sake of some good — it can be tolerated; but if not in due order, he can indeed incur other vices, namely of ambition, of avarice, or of vainglory, and the like, yet it is not properly pride, except when someone desires excellence without ordering it to God. And therefore pride, properly so called, separates from God, and is the root of all vices, and the worst of all; for which reason God resists the proud, as is said in James 4:6.

Since, then, the matter of this vice, namely of pride, is found chiefly in goods (for its matter is a good), he sometimes permits his elect to be impeded, in some part of themselves — whether by sickness, or by some defect, and sometimes even by mortal sin — from a good of this kind, so that in this respect they may be humbled, lest in that other respect they grow proud, and man, thus humbled, may recognize that he cannot stand by his own strength. Hence it is said in Romans 8:28: to them that love God, all things, etc. — not indeed from their sin, but from the ordination of God.

Since, then, the Apostle had great matter for pride — both as to the special election by which he was chosen by the Lord, Acts 9:15: he is a vessel of election, etc.; and as to the knowledge of the secrets of God, because here he says that he was caught up into the third heaven and into Paradise, where he heard secret words which it is not lawful for a man to speak; and as to the endurance of evils, because above, 11:23: in prisons more frequently, in infirmities, thrice was I beaten with rods, etc.; and as to virginal integrity, since I would that all were even as myself, 1 Corinthians 7:7; and as to the working of good deeds, since, above, I have labored more than all; and especially as to the greatest knowledge in which he shone, which especially puffs up — therefore the Lord applied a remedy to him, lest he should be lifted up into pride. And this is what he says: and lest the greatness of the revelation made to me should lift me up — into pride. Ecclesiasticus 6:2: lift not yourself up in the thought of your soul like a bull, etc. Psalm 87:16: but exalted, humbled, etc.

And he says, in order to show that the aforesaid revelations were made to him, there was given to me, that is, for my benefit and humiliation. Job 30:22: you have lifted me up, and setting me as it were upon the wind, etc. There was given, I say, to me a sting, torturing my body through a sickness of the body, so that the soul might be healed; for, according to the letter, it is said that he was grievously afflicted with a pain of the flank. Or a sting of my flesh, that is, of the concupiscence arising from my flesh, by which he was greatly harassed. Romans 7:15: for I do not that which I will, etc.; therefore I myself, with the mind, serve the law of God, etc. Hence Augustine says that movements of concupiscence were present in him, which, however, divine grace restrained.

This sting, I say, is an angel of Satan, that is, an evil angel. Now he is an angel sent or permitted by God, but of Satan, because it is Satan's intention that he should overthrow, but God's that he should humble and render approved. Let the sinner fear, if the Apostle, and a vessel of election, was not secure.

Now the Apostle was anxious about the removal of this sting. Hence for this reason he prayed. And this is what he adds: for which cause, thrice, etc. Here it must be known that the sick person, not knowing the physician's procedure in applying a biting plaster, asks the physician to remove it; the physician, however, knowing the reason why he does it, namely for the sake of health, does not grant him as to the will of the one asking, being more concerned for his benefit. Thus the Apostle, feeling the sting to be grievous to him, fled to the help of the singular physician, that he might remove it. For thrice he expressly and devoutly asked that God take it away from him, namely the sting. 2 Chronicles 20:12: since we know not what we ought to do, etc. Perhaps he asked this more often, but expressly and urgently he asked it thrice; or "thrice," that is, many times. For three is a perfect number. And truly he himself is to be besought, because he himself wounds, and heals, Job 5:18. Luke 22:40: pray that you enter not into temptation, etc.

There follows the Lord's response: and the Lord said to me, etc. Here he does two things. First he sets down the Lord's response; second he assigns the reason for the response, at the words for power, etc.

He says therefore: I asked, but the Lord said to me, it is sufficient for you, etc., as if to say: it is not necessary for you that the sickness of the body depart from you, because it is not dangerous, since you are not led into impatience, seeing that my grace comforts you; nor is the sickness of concupiscence, because it will not draw you on to sin, since my grace will protect you. Romans 3:24: justified freely, etc. And truly the grace of God suffices for avoiding evils, for doing good things, and for attaining eternal life. 1 Corinthians 15:10: by the grace of God I am what I am, etc. Romans 6:23: the grace of God, eternal life.

But against this, John 15:16: whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, he will give you, etc. Either, then, Paul asked with discretion, and then he ought to have been heard; or without discretion, and then he sinned. I respond. It must be said that man can speak of one and the same thing in two ways. In one way, according to itself and the nature of that thing; in another way, according to its order to something else. And thus it happens that what is evil in itself is to be avoided, but according to its order to something else it is to be desired. Just as a potion, insofar as in itself it is bitter, is to be avoided, yet whoever considers it in its order to health desires it. Therefore the sting of the flesh too, in itself, as afflicting, is to be avoided; but insofar as it is a way to virtue and an exercise of virtue, it is to be desired. The Apostle, however, because that secret of divine providence had not yet been revealed to him — that it would turn to his benefit — considered it an evil as far as it was in itself, and therefore had asked for its removal, nor did he sin in this; but God, who had ordained this to the good of his humility, did not hear him as to his will; yet knowing this, the Apostle afterward gloried, when he said: gladly will I glory in my infirmities, etc. And although he did not hear him as to his will, yet he did hear him, and he hears his saints, as to their benefit. Hence Jerome says in his letter to Paulinus: the Lord is good, who often does not grant what we wish, that he may grant what we would rather have.

He then adds the reason for his response, when he says for power, etc. A remarkable manner of speaking. Power is made perfect in infirmity: fire grows in water. Now this saying, power is made perfect in infirmity, can be understood in two ways, namely materially and by way of occasion. If it is taken materially, then the sense is: power is made perfect in infirmity, that is, infirmity is the matter for exercising virtue — and first, of humility, as was said above; second, of patience, James 1:3: tribulation works patience; third, of temperance, because from infirmity the tinder is weakened, and one is made temperate. But if it is taken as an occasion, then power is made perfect in infirmity means that infirmity is the occasion of arriving at perfect virtue, because a man knowing himself to be weak is more roused to resist, and from this, that he resists and fights more, he is made more practiced and consequently stronger. And therefore it is read in Leviticus and in Judges 3:1ff, that the Lord did not wish to destroy all the inhabitants of the land, but reserved some, namely so that the children of Israel might be trained by fighting with them. Thus too Scipio did not want the destruction of the city of Carthage, namely so that, while the Romans had enemies outside, they might not feel enemies within, against whom the war is harder than against those outside, as he himself used to say.

Consequently the Apostle sets down the effect of this response of the Lord, saying gladly will I glory, etc. Now he sets down a twofold effect. One is of glorying; hence he says: because my power is made perfect in infirmities, therefore gladly will I glory in my infirmities, that is, in those given to me for my benefit. And this, because he is joined more closely to Christ. But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross, etc., Galatians, last chapter. Ecclesiasticus 10:34: he that glories in poverty, etc. And the reason that gladly will I glory, is that the power of Christ may dwell in me, namely that through infirmities the grace of Christ may dwell in me and be perfected. Isaiah 40:29: who gives strength to the fallen, etc.

The other effect is of joy, hence he says for which cause I am well pleased, etc. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down this effect; second he assigns the reason for this effect, at the words for when I am weak, etc. Now he sets down the effect of joy and the matter of joy.

He says therefore for which cause, because the power of Christ dwells in me in infirmities and in all tribulations, and therefore I am well pleased with myself, that is, I take much delight and rejoice in the said infirmities of mine. James 1:2: count it all joy, brethren, etc. Now he enumerates the defects in which, because of the grace of Christ, he abundantly delights. And first those which are from an interior cause, and such are infirmities, and therefore he says in infirmities. Psalm 15:4: their infirmities were multiplied, afterward they made haste, namely to grace. Second, those which are from an exterior cause. And these indeed as to word, when he says in reproaches, namely inflicted upon me. Acts 5:41: the apostles went rejoicing, etc.; and as to deed — and this either as to the lack of goods, when he says in necessities, that is, in the want of necessary things and in the poverty by which he was pressed down. And in this way "necessity" is taken, when it is said in Romans 12:13: communicating to the necessities of the saints. Or as to the experience of evils inflicted, and this as to exterior things, Matthew 5:10: blessed are they that persecution, etc., when he says in persecutions, namely of the body, which we experience from place to place and everywhere. And as to interior things, saying in distresses, that is, in anxieties of the soul. Daniel 13:22: I am straitened on every side, etc.

But the matter of all these, which conduce to joy, is because for Christ, as if he were to say: I am therefore well pleased, because I suffer for Christ. 1 Peter 4:15: let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief.

And he assigns the reason for this joy, saying for when I am weak, etc., as if he were to say: rightly am I well pleased in these things, because when I am weak, etc. — that is, when from those things which are in me, or from the persecution of others, I fall into any of the aforesaid, divine help is applied to me, by which I am strengthened. Psalm 93:19: your consolations have made my soul joyful. Joel 3:10: let the weak say, that I am strong. Above 4:16: though our outward man is corrupted, etc. Exodus 1:12 it is read, that the more the children of Israel were oppressed, the more they multiplied.

Having proved that he is worthy of commendation, the Apostle consequently excuses himself concerning the things he has said, showing that he was compelled to say the things pertaining to his own glory. And concerning this he does two things. First he lays upon the Corinthians the cause of such glorying; second he expounds and manifests this cause, at ego enim debui, etc. He says therefore: I confess that in all these commendations of mine factus sum insipiens, that is, it seems to you that I have done the work of a fool, but this was not of myself, nor of my own will, rather I did it under compulsion, and it was your fault, because vos me coegistis, that is, you gave me the occasion. For often subjects compel their superiors to do certain things which can be judged to have been done foolishly, but which nevertheless were done wisely for the place and time. Now what he had said in general — namely, that they themselves had been the cause of his self-commendation — he consequently expounds when he says ego enim debui, etc.; where he says that they themselves were the cause of his self-commendation, first by omitting the good things they ought to have done, in which he aggravates their ingratitude; second by committing evils, in which he denounces their malice, at timeo enim ne forte, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he recalls what they ought to have done, showing the cause, at nihil enim minus, etc.; second he removes their excuse, at quid est enim quod minus, etc. He says therefore: truly you compelled me, because you ought to have done that which I did. Hence he says ego debui commendari a vobis, which you did not do when it was necessary, namely when the pseudo-apostles, by disparaging me and preferring themselves, were rendering cheap the doctrine and Gospel of Christ preached by me. Hence, because you did not commend me, lest the faith of Christ should perish among you, I broke out into self-commendation. But against this, above in chapter 3 he says: numquid egemus commendatitiis epistolis, et cetera. Why then did he wish to be commended by these people? I respond. It must be said that the Apostle did not need commendations for his own sake but for the sake of others, namely so that, while he was being commended, his doctrine might be held in greater authority, and the pseudo-apostles might be confuted. But because they might say: we did not commend you for this reason, that there is nothing in you worthy of commendation, on account of this the Apostle proves to them that they could well have commended him, when he says nihil enim, etc., showing that there are in himself many things worthy of commendation. And first as to the past goods which he did; second as to the future things which he intends to do, at ecce tertio hoc paratus, etc. Now he shows the commendable past things which he did, first in general, as to all the Churches; second in particular, as to the things he did among them, at tametsi nihil, etc.; third he excludes an objection, at quid est enim, et cetera. He says therefore: deservedly I ought to have been commended by you, because there are many things in me worthy of commendation. For nihil minus feci ab eis, namely Peter and James and John, qui sunt supra modum apostoli, that is, who seem to some more worthy apostles than I am. For the pseudo-apostles said that they had been taught by Peter and John, who had been taught by Christ, and that Peter and John kept the legal observances, hence they too ought to keep them. But because I did nothing less than they, neither as to preaching, nor as to the conversion of the faithful, the showing of miracles, and the endurance of labors — indeed more, because, as above, I labored more than all, I Cor. c. XV, 10: abundantius omnibus, etc.; therefore I am the more to be commended. Or they are called supra modum apostoli, namely Peter, John and James, because they were converted to Christ first. I Cor. XV, 8: novissime autem visus est et mihi, et cetera. If it is taken according to this, nevertheless he did nothing less than they, because in a short time, and after he was converted, he labored more. But granted that I did nothing as to the Churches by which I might be commended, nevertheless I did many special things among you, concerning which you could have commended me. And therefore he says tametsi nihil, that is, granted that I did nothing in comparison to them, nevertheless the effects of my power manifestly appear among you, and, first, as to our preaching, by which you were converted to the faith. And I am your apostle. And therefore he says signa apostolatus mei, that is, of my preaching, facta sunt supra vos, by God, inasmuch as believing you were converted. I Cor. IX, v. 2: signaculum apostolatus mei vos estis. I Cor. IV, 15: in Christo Iesu per Evangelium ego vos genui. Second, through conduct, by which faith is confirmed, because when life agrees with doctrine, the doctrine is of greater authority. And the power of the preacher appears more through patience. Prov. XIX, 11: doctrina viri per patientiam noscitur. And therefore he says in omni patientia. Third as to the working of miracles. And therefore he says in signis, et cetera. Mc. ult. illi autem profecti, et cetera. And these three are distinguished, because power is common to all miracles. For virtue is the utmost of power. And therefore something is called powerful because it comes from great power. Because therefore miracles are done from great power, namely divine power, therefore they are called powers. A sign, however, is referred to a lesser miracle. A prodigy, however, to the greatest. Or he says signs as to miracles done concerning the present, prodigies as to miracles concerning future things. Or by signs and prodigies he means miracles which are done against nature, such as the illumination of a blind man, the raising of a dead man, et cetera. But he calls virtues those which are according to nature, but not in the manner in which nature does them, as that at the imposition of a hand the sick are immediately healed, which nature also does, but successively. Or by virtues he means virtues of the mind, such as chastity and the like. Consequently he excludes an objection when he says quid enim est quod minus, et cetera. For the Corinthians could respond to the foregoing, and say: it is true that you did many good and great things, and yet others did more and greater things than you, and therefore in comparison with them we do not wish to commend you among them. And therefore he excludes this, showing that he did nothing less than they, but more. And therefore he says quid est enim quod minus habuistis a me prae caeteris Ecclesiis, that is, than the other Churches of Christ had through them as to spiritual things? As if he were to say: nothing; because they preached the faith, and the Apostle preached; they showed signs and powers, and the Apostle likewise. And not only did you have nothing less, but more, because the other apostles lived off the expenses of those to whom they preached; but the Apostle did not, because he received nothing from the Corinthians. And therefore he says nisi quod ego ipse non gravavi vos, receiving your goods, as if he were to say: you had nothing less, unless perhaps you reckon this as less, that I received nothing from you, which nevertheless is more. Act. XX, 34: ad ea quae mihi opus erant, et his qui mecum sunt, necessaria ministraverunt, et cetera. II Thess. III, 8: nocte ac die laborantes, et cetera. Is. XXXIII, 15: qui excutit manus suas, et cetera. But if you reckon this itself an injury, namely that I refused to receive your goods, which I did because I did not love you, and it seems to you that I did wrong, forgive me. And therefore he says, speaking ironically, donate, that is, forgive, mihi hanc iniuriam. In this way donare is taken, Eph. IV, 32: donantes invicem, sicut et Christus vobis donavit.

Here he shows himself to be commendable as to future goods, which he intends to do. And he does three things. First he shows his purpose concerning the future good which he intends; second he assigns the reason for this purpose, at "for I do not seek what is yours," etc.; third, to the reason he applies a comparison, at "for neither ought," etc.

It should be known concerning the first point that it sometimes happens that some do not accept at one time, in order that they may reserve themselves for another time, in which they can both receive more and more boldly. Lest therefore these should believe something similar about the apostle, that he was unwilling to receive from them the first time for this reason, so that afterward he might receive more, he says that he not only did this formerly, but is also prepared to do it in the future. Hence he says "behold now a third time," that is, a third occasion, "I am ready to come to you, and I will not be burdensome to you"; as if to say: not even then will I burden you, by accepting what is yours. Above, II: "in all things I have kept myself without burden, and will keep myself." Job XXVII, 6: "the justification which I have begun to hold," etc.

But he says "a third time I am ready to come," and does not say "a third time I come," because indeed he was ready three times to go to them, but nevertheless he went only twice. For he was ready to go the first time, and then he went, and they were converted. The second time he was ready, and was hindered on account of their sin, and then he did not go, concerning which he excuses himself at the beginning of this epistle. Now he is ready to go a third time, and he went; hence he went twice, and was ready to go three times.

He then adds the reason for this good purpose, saying "for I do not seek," etc., which is as follows: it is agreed that a craftsman arranges his work according to the end which he intends; but among preachers in preaching, some intend gain and temporal goods, and therefore they order and arrange their whole preaching toward this; but some intend the salvation of souls, and therefore they arrange their preaching in this manner, according to what they see to be expedient for the salvation of those to whom they preach. Because therefore the apostle intended in his preaching the salvation of the Corinthians, and saw that it was not expedient that he should receive expenses from them, both in order to refute the false apostles, and also because they were greedy, therefore he was unwilling to accept expenses. And therefore he assigns the reason for this, saying: therefore I will not burden you by accepting expenses, because "I do not seek what is yours" in my preaching, "but you," and I intend to procure your salvation. Phil. IV, 17: "I do not seek the gift, but the fruit." And therefore the Lord said to the apostles: "I will make you become fishers of men," not of money. This is also prefigured in Gen. XLVII, 19, where it is read that Joseph bought the Egyptians into the servitude of the king, because a good preacher ought to strive for this: to convert unbelievers to the service of Christ.

But he adapts a comparison to this reason, when he says "for neither ought," etc. And first he sets forth the comparison; second he adapts it, at "but I most gladly," etc.; third he charges them with ingratitude, at "though loving you more," etc.

He says therefore: that I do not seek what is yours is evident through a comparison. For we see that carnal parents ought to lay up treasure for their carnal children, because children ought not to lay up treasure for parents, but parents for children. Since therefore I am your spiritual father, and you are my children, I do not wish that you should lay up treasure for me, but that I should for you.

But here there is a question concerning carnal fathers. For in Ex. XX, 12 it is said: "Honor thy father," etc. In which it is also commanded to us that we should minister to them the necessities. Therefore children are bound to lay up treasure for their parents.

I answer. It must be said that by precept children are bound to minister to and assist their parents in necessities, but not to gather together and lay up treasure for them. For treasuring up and gathering is done for the future. But we see that according to nature, children succeed parents, and not the contrary, except in some sad occurrence; and therefore the love of parents is naturally directed to this, that they gather for their children. And in this way the apostle speaks. But in Exodus chapter XX, 12 the Lord speaks of assistance in necessities.

Again a question arises from this, that he says "parents for children," etc. Therefore, since prelates are our spiritual parents, it seems that princes and others did wrong in giving riches to prelates.

Response. It must be said that they did not give to the prelates for their own sake, but for the sake of the poor. And therefore they did not give to them, but to the poor. And this the Lord admonishes, Matth. VI, 20: "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven," etc. But it is given to prelates as to dispensers of the poor.

Consequently he adapts the comparison he has set forth. Now in the comparison he proposed two things. One is that children ought not to lay up treasure for parents, and this is already evident; and the other is that parents ought to lay up treasure for children, and give. And as to this he says: since therefore I am your father, therefore I am ready to give to you. And this is what he says, "I will most gladly spend for you" good things, not only spiritual goods, by preaching and showing examples, but also temporal ones, which he also did, insofar as he preached and served them at the expense of other churches. Every prelate ought to minister these three things to his subjects. Hence the Lord said three times to Peter, Jn. XXI, 17: "Feed my sheep," that is, feed by word, feed by example, feed by temporal support. And not only will I spend these for you, but I am ready to die for the salvation of your souls. Hence he says "and I will be spent over and above for your souls." Jn. XV, 13: "Greater love no one has," etc. 1 Jn. III, 16: "If Christ laid down his life for us, you also ought," etc. Jn. X, 11: "The good shepherd his life," etc.

He then rebukes their ingratitude, saying "though loving you more," etc., as if to say: I will gladly be spent for you, although you are ungrateful, because "though loving you more," etc. And this comparison can be explained in two ways. In one way thus: although I love you more than the false apostles, nevertheless I am loved less, namely by you, than the false apostles are loved, whom you love more than me. And thus it is evident that I love you more than they do; because I seek only your salvation, while they seek only your goods. In another way thus: although I love you more than other churches, nevertheless I am loved less by you than by other churches. Phil. I, v. 8: "God is my witness how I long," etc. And that he loved the Corinthians more than other churches is evident, because he labored more for them. For that in which we labor more, we are accustomed to love more.

Consequently, when he says "be it so, I," etc., he removes a suspicion. And first he sets forth the suspicion itself; second he excludes it, at "did I through anyone," etc.; third he assigns the reason for its exclusion, at "again you think that we excuse ourselves," etc. Now their suspicion could be this: that he himself did not accept from them in person for this reason, so that through others he might deceitfully accept more from them. And therefore he says, setting forth this, "be it so," that is, granted and conceded, that I, in my own person and that of those who are with me, did not burden you by accepting anything, "but," as you believed, "being crafty, by guile," etc., that is, through others I withdrew very many of your goods from you: but this is false, because I did nothing by guile. 1 Thess. II, 3: "Our exhortation was not from error, nor from uncleanness, nor in guile." For he himself was a true Israelite, in whom there was no guile, Jn. I, 47.

He then excludes this suspicion, when he says "did I through anyone," etc. And first in general, second in particular. In general thus: if I had wished to steal your goods through others, I would have sent some who would procure this among you. But "did I, through any of those whom I sent to you, circumvent you," by extorting your goods through them? As if to say: no. Above, VII, 2: "We have circumvented no one," etc. 1 Thess. IV, 6: "Let no one circumvent his brother in business."

But in particular he excludes the aforesaid suspicion, when he says "I asked Titus," etc., as if to say: none of those in particular whom I sent to you circumvented you. For I sent Titus to you with entreaties. And this is what he says, "I asked Titus," etc. Concerning this it is had above, VIII, 18. I also sent with him a brother, namely Barnabas, or Luke. Above, ch. VIII, 18: "We sent with him," namely Titus, "a brother" (namely one of those mentioned) "whose praise is in the Gospel." But "did Titus circumvent you," etc., as if to say: no. Above, VIII, 16: "I give thanks to my God, who gave the same solicitude for you in the heart of Titus," etc.

And that Titus did not circumvent them, he proves through the conformity of Titus to the apostle himself, and he sets forth a twofold conformity, namely of heart. And therefore he says "did we not walk by the same spirit," that is, do we have the same will? Or are we stirred by the same spirit to act well and rightly? Above, IV, 13: "But having the same spirit," etc. Likewise a conformity of work. And therefore he says "did we not walk in the same steps," that is, do we press on in the same works, namely the footsteps of Christ? For I follow the footsteps of Christ. Job XXIII, 11: "His footsteps," namely Christ's, "my foot has followed," etc. 1 Pet. II, 21: "Christ suffered," etc., "that you should follow his footsteps." And Titus follows my footsteps. 1 Cor. XI, 1: "Be imitators of me," etc. And thus it is evident that if he is conformed to me in will and work, and I have not circumvented you, nor intend to circumvent you; that he himself likewise did not circumvent you is evident through that saying, Matth. VII, 16: "By their fruits you shall know them," etc.

He then adds the reason for the exclusion, saying "again," or rather "once more," "you think," etc. And first he sets forth their opinion, second he excludes it. Now their opinion was that the apostle, as though accused and culpable, spoke all these words of the epistle for his own excuse, and that they were not true but invented only for the purpose of excusing himself; and therefore, setting forth this opinion of theirs, he says "you think, once more," that is, from the beginning of this epistle, "that we excuse ourselves before you," that is, that these words are not true, but are contrived for the purpose of excusing.

But he excludes this thus: for whoever excuses himself in this way has two things; one is that he does not use true words, but contrived ones; the other is that he does not wish to suffer detriment to his reputation and glory. Hence some excuse themselves especially on account of loss of reputation. But neither of these is in us; your opinion, therefore, is not true.

But that neither of these is in us is evident. For we do not speak false words; which I prove, first through the testimony of God, because "we speak before God." As if to say: with God as witness, I say this in truth. Job XVI, 20: "Behold, my witness is in heaven," etc. Second, through the testimony of Christ, because "we speak in Christ," that is, through Christ, in whom there is no falsity. Above, II, 17: "out of sincerity, as from God, we speak in Christ." Likewise we do not seek our own glory, nor do we fear infamy, because all the things which I have said, both concerning revelations and concerning tribulations, I do, or say, for your edification, namely so that you may remain in virtue, and expel the false apostles. Jn. XIV: "the things that are for mutual edification," etc. 1 Cor. XIV, v. 26: "let all things be done for edification." Jn. XII, v. 30: "This voice came not for me, but for you," etc.

Having secured one ground for commendation, arising from the Corinthians' omission with respect to those good things which they ought to have done, in which he denounces their ingratitude, he here consequently sets down another ground, arising from their commission with respect to the evils which they ought to have avoided, in which he aggravates their malice. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down their fault in general; second he explains it in particular, at *lest perhaps*, etc.

He says therefore: I have not praised myself only on account of this, that you failed to praise me, but also on account of your danger, which lies in this, that you cling to false apostles, because, while they indulge you in your sins, they expose you to great danger. And therefore he says *I fear*, namely lest perhaps *when I come*, to you in person, *I shall not find you such as I wish*, namely just, but sinners and uncorrected, *and I displease you and you me*, because sinners, insofar as they are sinners, do not please the just man. *And I be found by you such* — namely grieving and punishing — *as you do not wish to have me*. For evil men hate correction and truth. Hence: *Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?* etc., Gal. 4:16.

Thus their malice is evident in general, namely that he feared lest they had not yet fully repented. In particular also he makes their malice manifest, when he says *lest perhaps contentions*, etc. And concerning this he does two things. For first he enumerates their present evils; second he calls to mind their past evils, of which they had not yet repented, at *lest again when I come*, etc.

One should know, concerning the first, that the Corinthians after their conversion fell into carnal sin, as is evident concerning the one who had his father's wife, and in this respect they were corrected through the first epistle, yet not fully but something still remained in them; and beyond this there remained in them many spiritual sins, which are properly opposed to charity. Now charity does two things. First it makes the hearts of men agree with one another; second it induces men to mutual advancement. And therefore spiritual sins, on the contrary, first make men dissent from one another; second make them offend one another. And therefore he first enumerates the spiritual sins which pertain to dissension; second those which make for offense, at *detractions*, etc.

Now in dissensions he proceeds in reverse order. For, according to the right order, men first dissent, insofar as one wills one thing, another wills the contrary; second, from this they proceed to inflicting harms, insofar as each one would wish to prevail in his own proposal; third, when one cannot prevail in his proposal, but succumbs, he is inflamed with the zeal of envy; fourth, from this it breaks out into contentions of words. And the Apostle begins from this last, saying *lest perhaps contentions*, etc., as if to say: I fear not only your evils in general, but in particular, lest perhaps there be among you contentions concerning the merits of prelates, and concerning the Baptists, etc. Prov. 20:3: *it is an honor for a man to separate himself from contentions*, etc. Ambrose: *contention is an assault upon the truth, joined with confidence of clamor.* And this contention comes from rivalry; and therefore he says *and rivalries*, that is, envies, in those who are lesser, and have less. James 3:16: *where zeal and contention are, there is inconstancy*, etc. Job 5:2: *envy slays the little one*, etc. Wis. 2:24: *by the envy of the devil*, etc.

And rivalry comes from animosity, whence he says *animosities*, in avenging and inflicting harm. Ecclus. 8:18: *go not with a bold man*, etc. And animosity comes from dissensions, and therefore he says *dissensions*, that is, hatreds and contrariety of minds. Rom., last chapter: *mark them which cause dissensions and offenses*, etc. 1 Cor. 1:10: *that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you.*

Consequently he enumerates their present evils as to offense. And because these are specially evils in the harm of words, and not of deeds, therefore, the harms of deeds being set aside, he enumerates the harms of words, in which likewise he proceeds in reverse order, beginning from the latter; and this is, when someone expressly speaks evil of another, and, if indeed openly, thus he is a detractor, and therefore he says *detractions*, Rom. 1:30: *detractors, hateful to God*, etc.; but if in secret, then he is a whisperer, and therefore he says *whisperings*. For there are whisperers, who secretly sow discords. Ecclus. 28:15: *the whisperer and the double-tongued shall be accursed.*

And these two proceed from pride, which makes a mind swollen against others break out into evil words. And therefore he says *swellings*, 1 Cor. 4:18: *as though I were not to come to you, so puffed up*, etc. And these swellings come from seditions, which are preparations of parties for battle, because *among the proud there are always quarrels*, Prov. 13:10. And therefore he says *seditions*, that is, tumults toward battle. Prov. 17:11: *an evil man always seeks quarrels*.

Thus therefore their malice is evident as to present evils, which are many, both in dissensions and in harms. He manifests their malice also as to past evils, of which they had not repented, when he says *lest again when I come, God humble me*, that is, afflict me, *among you*, so that *I mourn many of those who have sinned before*, that is, before the first epistle, *and have not done penance*, fully after the first epistle. And deservedly might he mourn, because, just as the glory of the father is the glory of the sons, so the confusion of the father is the confusion of the sons. Thus Samuel mourned Saul, 1 Kings 16:1: *how long will you mourn for Saul*, etc. And this because they did not repent, nor did penance for the aforesaid carnal sins, of which some are against nature, and therefore he says *over the uncleanness*, that is, lust against nature. Some are those which are committed with corrupted women, namely widows or married women, and therefore he says *and fornication*. Some are those which are done in the corruption of virgins, and therefore he says *and impurity which they have practiced*. Gal. 5:19: *manifest are the works of the flesh, which are fornication, uncleanness, impurity*, etc.