Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Super I Epistolam ad Corinthios Lectura)

Above he warned to beware of eating things sacrificed to idols in the presence of the weak, on account of scandal to the weak brethren; here he sets himself forth as an example, because for the sake of others he abstains from things lawful to himself, namely from the acceptance of expenses. Here first he sets forth in many ways that it is lawful to accept expenses; secondly, that nevertheless he does not wish to accept them, at the point "but I have used none of these things," etc.

In the first part, that it is lawful to accept expenses, he proves in three ways. First by authority; second by reason, at "if we have sown spiritual things for you," etc.; third by the likeness of examples, at "do you not know that they who," etc.

In the first, he first proves by the authority of apostolic dignity; second by the authority of human custom, at "who serves as a soldier at his own expense," etc.; third by the authority of divine law, at "do I say this according to man," etc.

In the first he first proves that he is an apostle generally; second, that he is their apostle specially, at "and if to others I am not an apostle"; third, that he can lawfully accept expenses, at "do we not have," etc.

In the first, he first asks whether he has the liberty of accepting expenses; second, whether he is an apostle, at "am I not an apostle," etc.; third he proves by a twofold reason that he is free, and an apostle, at "have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ," etc.

He says therefore, "Am I not free?" etc., as if to say: abstain from this lawful thing, namely from the eating of things sacrificed to idols, because I too abstain from wages, although I nevertheless have the liberty of accepting them. For am I not an apostle? Indeed, I am truly an apostle. Gal. 2:8: "he who worked in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision worked also in me among the Gentiles." His reasoning, then, is this: every apostle, by reason of his apostolate, has the liberty of accepting expenses; but I am an apostle — he proves both afterward; therefore, etc.

Then, when he says "have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ," etc., here he proves by a twofold reason that he is an apostle: first by the cause, second by the effect, at "are not you my work," etc. The first reason is taken from the side of Christ who sends; the second from the side of the Corinthians to whom he is sent. The first reason is this: I have seen the Lord who sent me to preach; therefore I am an apostle. And this is what he says, "have I not," etc.; as if to say: truly I am an apostle — have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ? He says this on account of the pseudo-apostles, who said that he was not an apostle, because he had not been in the company of the Lord as the rest of the apostles were. But he saw him already immortal, according to the Gloss, either on the road, Acts 3:9, or in the temple, Acts 22:19. Hence, Acts 9:27, Barnabas took hold of him and led him to the apostles, and related how he had seen the Lord on the road. Below, 15:8: "last of all, as to one born out of due time, he was seen also by me."

"Are not you my work," etc. Behold, the second reason is this: you have been converted to the faith through me, sent for this purpose; therefore I am an apostle. Are not you my work, O Corinthians? As a temple is the architect's, above 3:10: "as a wise architect I laid the foundation." Likewise, as a son is the work of the begetter, above 4:15: "in Christ Jesus through the Gospel I begot you." "My work," I say, "and this in the Lord," that is, with the Lord cooperating. Or "in the Lord," that is, to the glory of the Lord, as if to say: thus you are.

Then when he says "and if to others an apostle," etc., here he proves that he is their apostle specially. Here first he sets forth that he is their apostle specially; second he proves this by the effect, at "for the seal of my apostleship," etc.; third he shows that by that effect he defends that he is an apostle, at "my defense to those," etc. He says therefore, "and if," etc., as if to say: truly you are my work, because even if to others — namely to the Jews, whose law I empty out — I am not, that is, I do not seem to be, an apostle, yet to you I am, who through me have been converted specially. Rom. 11:13: "as long as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honor my ministry." And truly I am your apostle, for you are the seal of my apostleship, that is, the form and seal, because my apostleship has been impressed in you, as the form of a seal in wax. The Gloss: in you it appears that I am an apostle, since you have through me what you have also through the other apostles. 1 Cor. 9:2: "the signs of my apostleship have been wrought upon you." "You are," I say, "in the Lord," that is, with the Lord as the principal author. And truly it is so, because my defense to those who question me — namely, whether I am an apostle — is this: you are it; for through you I show that I am an apostle.

Then when he says "do we not have," etc., here he shows that he can lawfully accept expenses. Here first he asks whether he has this power generally; second, with respect to specific persons in particular, at "do we not have the power," etc.; third, whether he and Barnabas alone are deprived of this power, at "or I alone," etc. He says therefore, "do we not," etc., as if to say: for since I am an apostle, do we not have — I and mine — the power of eating and drinking of our own, that is, of living by our own wages? Augustine: the Lord permitted, but did not command, the apostles to accept necessities from their subjects. Do we not have the power of leading about with us a woman, a sister — namely in faith — for the sake of providing expenses? Ambrose, in the Gloss: women, desirous of the Lord's teaching and eager for the virtues, followed the apostles, and ministered to them expenses and services. And likewise they followed Christ, Lk. 8:2ff and 23:27, as did the rest of the apostles, as is found Acts 6:1, and as the brothers, that is, the kinsmen, of the Lord, who are greater. Gal. 2:9: "James and John, who seemed to be pillars," etc., "and Cephas," who is greatest among the apostles, whence Cephas is interpreted "head." Ambrose: the apostle does not reprove these, but by their custom proves that it is lawful for himself; and for this reason, as Augustine says, the Lord willed that women who would minister should follow, showing what is owed to evangelists by the people. Or also for this reason, lest they should seem to be strangers to salvation. Or, do I alone and Barnabas (for these were joined together for preaching to the Gentiles, Acts 13:2: "separate for me Barnabas and Paul unto the work to which I have taken them") not have, according to your opinion, the power of doing this? Namely, of leading about women, and of accepting expenses; as if to say: rather we do have it as the others do, but all the others lawfully accept it, therefore it is lawful also for us.

Then when he says "who serves as a soldier at his own expense," etc., here secondly he proves that it is lawful to accept expenses by the authority of human custom: and first in the state of a soldier; second, of a farmer, at "who plants a vineyard," etc.; third, of a shepherd, at "who feeds a flock," etc. The prelate is compared to a soldier on account of support, to a farmer on account of the word, to a shepherd on account of example. For he ought to defend his subjects by support, to plant by the word, to feed by example. The first regards those existing outside the Church, the second those entering the Church, the third those remaining within the Church. He says therefore, "who serves as a soldier," as if to say: indeed we have the power of accepting expenses, and rightly so — "who serves as a soldier at his own expense?" As if to say: never anyone; for wages were given to soldiers from the commonwealth. Whence John says: "be content with your wages." Thus preachers and prelates can accept expenses from their subjects. 1 Tim. 1:18: "that you may war in them a good warfare." For who plants a vineyard, and does not eat of its fruit? The Lord's vineyard is the Church. Is. 5:7: "the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaoth is the house of Israel." For the apostles were the planters of this vineyard. Above 14:6: "I planted, Apollo watered." Who also feeds a flock, and does not eat of its milk? As if to say: no one. The Lord's flock are the faithful of the Church. Ez. 24:31: "you are the flocks of my pasture." The shepherds of this flock are the prelates and preachers. Whence it was said to the first prelate: "feed my sheep," Jn. 21:17. Such men can be fed from the milk of the flock, because they can accept expenses from their subjects. If therefore we defend, plant, and feed after the manner of a good soldier, a good farmer, a good shepherd, it is lawful for us to accept expenses. But because today there are many who accept wages, and do not fight; who eat the fruit of the vineyard, and do not plant; who eat the milk, and do not feed the flock. Ez. 34:3: "you ate the milk, but you did not feed my flock."

It should be noted, on that phrase "have I not seen the Lord Jesus," that we read of a manifold vision of the Lord. One bodily, which has passed, concerning which Bar. 4:38: "after this he was seen on earth, and conversed with men." A second, spiritual, which is present. Ps. 45:11: "be still and see, that I am God," etc. A third, eternal, which is future, concerning which Jn. 17:24: "I will that where I am, they also may be with me, that they may see my glory." Job 19:26: "in my flesh I shall see God." A fourth, momentary, which is also future, concerning which Lk. 21:27: "then they shall see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with great power." The first was in the world, the second is in the soul, the third will be in heaven, the fourth will be at the judgment. The first vision gives an example of living; the second, help toward progress; the third, desire of arriving; the fourth, hatred of sinning.

The first gives an example of living in three ways, because he was seen poor and ragged, that the desire for riches might be curbed. Ps. 68:30: "I am poor and sorrowful," etc., and v. 33: "let the poor see, and rejoice." Thus the shepherds saw, Lk. 2:16. Vile and abject, that the ambition for honors might be curbed. Is. 53:2: "we saw him, and there was no beauty, and we desired him, a man despised." Therefore it is said, Matt. 11:29: "learn from me, for I am meek and humble." Afflicted and suffering, that the concupiscence of pleasures might be curbed. Lam. 1:12: "O all you who pass by the way, behold," etc.

The second vision gives help toward progress in three ways: because it gives strength to those doing penance, by showing faults and punishments, as the sun shows motes. Dan. 5:5: "Belshazzar saw the hand of one writing." Job 42:5: "now my eye ... see," etc. Hope to those struggling, by manifesting the reward, as a lord to one working. Acts 7:55: "behold, I see the heavens," etc. Joy to those contemplating, by offering foretastes, as a tavern-keeper a little wine. Ps. 33:9: "taste and see, that the Lord is sweet." Gen. 32:30: "I have seen the Lord face to face," as Paul here.

The third, eternal vision gives the desire of arriving on account of three things, namely, on account of true delight. Isaiah, last chapter: "you shall see, and your heart shall rejoice"; because light is sweet and delightful, etc. This was signified in Jn. 20:20: "the disciples rejoiced, when they saw the Lord." On account of the manifoldness, or plurality, of the delight. Is. 60:5: "then you shall see, and abound," etc.; for indeed we shall see him as he is, and he himself will be all in all. For there will be, to the reason, fullness of light; to the will, abundance of peace; to the memory, the continuation of eternity. On account of the eternity of purity. Apoc., last chapter: "his servants shall serve him, and shall see his face, and shall reign for ever and ever." Ps.: "you shall fill me with joy," etc.

The fourth vision gives hatred, or terror, of sinning, on account of three things: namely, on account of the theft to be exposed before the judge who sees. Mal. 3:2: "behold he shall come, and who shall stand to see him? For he is like a refining fire," etc. On account of the severe vengeance upon evildoers. For a thief, seeing his companion hanged, fears the more to steal. Jer. 7:12: "go to my place in Shiloh, and see what I did there." Shiloh is interpreted "torn away." Apoc. 1:13: "I saw one like the Son of Man," and below, v. 16: "out of his mouth went a sword sharp on both sides," etc. On account of the seen rewarding of the good; for a cleric, seeing another given a benefice because he is good, is wary of evil. Ps. 106:42: "the just shall see, and rejoice, and all iniquity shall stop its mouth."

Then when he says "do I say this according to man," etc., here he proves thirdly that it is lawful to accept expenses by the authority of divine law. Here first he sets forth that the law says this; second he sets down the word of the law, at "for it is written," etc.; third he shows how it is to be understood, at "is it for oxen that there is care," etc. He says therefore, "do I," etc., as if to say: I have proved by the reason of human custom that it is lawful for us to accept expenses; but do I say this according to man, that is, according to human custom or likeness only? Or does not the law of Moses, divinely promulgated, say this? As if to say: indeed it does say it. For it is written in the law of Moses, Deut. 25:4, and the same is found in 1 Tim. 5:18: "you shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain," that it may be able to live from its labor, that is, you shall not forbid the preacher to live from the Gospel. For to thresh is to separate the grain from the chaff, which the preacher does by drawing souls away from earthly things, by discerning virtues from vices, by separating useful things from vain ones. Jer. 15:19: "if you separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as my mouth."

Then when he says "is it for oxen," etc., here he shows how the aforesaid authority is to be understood. And first, that it is to be understood literally of oxen; second, that it is to be understood not only literally of oxen, but spiritually of preachers, at "or is it for our sakes," etc.; third he repeats that it is lawful to accept expenses, at "for indeed it was written for our sakes," etc. He says therefore, "is it," etc.; as if to say: this authority is understood of spiritual oxen, that is, of preachers. For is there care to God for material oxen, that he should command concerning them by law? Or does he indeed say this for our sakes? As if to say: he indeed says this for our sakes. For these and similar things were written for our sakes. Rom. 15:4: "whatever things were written, were written for our instruction." "For our sakes," I say; for this reason, because the preacher, who opens hearts to the faith, ought to plow in hope of temporal wages, yet not for the sake of this hope. For he ought first to seek the kingdom of God. And he who threshes — that is, who by preaching discerns the good from the bad, as grain from chaff, namely as to morals — ought to do this in hope of receiving fruit. 2 Tim. 2:6: "the farmer who labors must first partake of the fruits." Ecclus. 6:19: "he who plows and he who sows draws near to her, and awaits her good fruits."

Above he proved by authority that it is licit to accept expenses; here he proves the same thing by reason. And first he proves this from their obligation; second from the comparison to the false apostles who accept from them, at "if others of your power," etc.; third he says that nonetheless he was unwilling to use this power, at "but we have not used," etc. The first reason is this: it is greater to give spiritual things than to receive temporal things; therefore if the apostle gives spiritual things, it is licit for him to receive temporal things. First therefore he explains the benefit conferred; second he explains the stipend to be shown, at "is it a great thing if we," etc. He says therefore "if we," etc., as if to say: truly we have the power of accepting expenses from you; for "if we have sown for you spiritual things," namely faith and the sacraments nourishing the spirit, ministered by the Holy Spirit, "is it a great thing if we reap," for our sustenance, "carnal things"? That is, things granted for the sustenance of the flesh. As if to say: it is not a great thing. Rom. XV, 27: "if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they ought to minister in carnal things." Then when he says "but if others," etc. Behold the second reason to the same effect is this: true apostles more licitly share in the goods of their subjects than false ones do, but the false apostles do share, therefore much more ought the true apostles to share. First therefore he sets down the antecedent; second the consequent, at "why not rather we," etc. He says therefore "but if others," namely the false apostles, whom he does not express by name, lest they be confounded, he calls them "others" as if strangers from the fellowship of the Church. For all Catholics are one. Jn. XVII, 11: "that they may be one," etc. "If," I say, "others are partakers of your power," that is, use your goods so powerfully, "why not rather we" the apostles, "who labor for the cause of your salvation"? Eccli. XII, 5: "give to the good, and receive not a sinner." Then when he says "but we have not used," here he shows that he was unwilling to use this power. Where he says first that he did not accept expenses; second he says that nonetheless he was in need, at "but we suffer all things," etc.; third he assigns the reason for both, at "lest we give any hindrance," etc. He says therefore "but we have not," etc., as if to say: behold it is clear that it is licit for us to accept expenses, but nevertheless we have not used this power. Above VI, 12: "all things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." "We have not," I say, "used it," not because we did not need it; "but we suffer all things," because even if we suffer want, nevertheless we suffer it patiently. II Cor. XI, 9: "when I was with you and was in want, I was chargeable to no man." And I did this so that "we might not give any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ." Now this could happen either because he would give an example of accepting to the false apostles; or because the Corinthians were greedy and would be scandalized if he accepted from them, or perhaps they would think they had bought a license to sin and the apostle's authority to reprove would be diminished, and in these ways he would give a hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. Prov. XV, 19: "the way of the just is without offense." Then when he says "know you not that they who work in the sanctuary," etc. He proved that it is licit to accept expenses, first by authority, second by reason; third he proves the same thing here by a multitude of examples. Where first he introduces the likeness of those who repair temples; second, of those who minister to the temple, at "and they that serve the altar," etc.; third he adapts the likeness to those who preach, at "so also the Lord ordained for them," etc. As if to say: and truly it is licit for me to accept expenses: "know you not that they who work in the sanctuary," that is, the temple of the Jews or the Gentiles, as craftsmen, "eat the things that are of the sanctuary"? For craftsmen were sustained from the coins that were offered in the treasury of the temple, as is clear in the time of Joas, IV Kings XII, 4 ff. And "they that serve the altar" of the temple of Jerusalem, or even the temple itself, as priests, that is, devoutly serve — for one of the twelve abuses is irreverence before the altar — "partake with the altar"? Because they have a share of those things which are offered on the altar, as is clear throughout Leviticus, and especially chapters VI and VII, and as is done here. "So also the Lord ordained," that is, reasonably disposed, "for them that preach the Gospel, to live by the Gospel." This he ordained, saying Matt. X, 10 and Lk. X, v. 7: "for the workman is worthy of his hire." It is to be noted here that the apostle designates the preacher here by the names of many offices, because he first calls him a soldier, on account of the office of defending the Church against adversaries. II Cor. X, 4: "the weapons of our warfare," etc. II Tim. II, 3: "labor as a good soldier of Christ." Second, a vine-dresser, on account of the office of cutting off superfluous, that is, bad, branches. Hos. II, v. 15: "I will give her her vine-dressers out of the same place." But alas, Cant. I, 5 it is said, "my vineyard I have not kept." Third, a shepherd, on account of the office of feeding his subjects by good example. I Pet. V, 2: "feed the flock that is among you." But alas, because today that is fulfilled, Zach. XI, 17: "O shepherd and idol that forsakes the flock," etc. Fourth, an ox, on account of the office of proceeding with maturity in all things. Prov. XIV, 4: "where there are no oxen, the crib is empty." Job I, v. 14: "the oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them," etc. Fifth, a plowman, on account of the office of opening hearts to faith and penance. Hos. X, v. 11: "Judah shall plow, Jacob shall break his furrows for himself," etc. Sixth, a thresher, on account of the office of discerning the bad from the good. Is. XLI, 15: "I have made thee as a new threshing wain, having teeth like a saw, and thou shalt thresh the mountains," etc. Seventh, a sower, on account of the office of preaching frequently and usefully. Lk. VIII, 5: "he that sows went out to sow his seed." Ps. CXXV, 6: "going they went," etc. Eighth, the architect of the temple, on account of the office of building and repairing the Church. Above III, 10: "as a wise architect I have laid the foundation," etc. Ninth, a minister of the altar, on account of the office of devoutly rendering to God. Above IV, 1: "so let a man account us," etc.

It is asked here concerning that word "I am not free," the Gloss: "for he, having power by apostolic dignity not to work with his hands, but to live by the Gospel." Objection: therefore those who preach, not having apostolic dignity, cannot without the work of their hands live by the Gospel. Response. The Gloss speaks of the power by which he can compel the unwilling to this, not of the voluntary power, by which he can ask and receive from those who give willingly. Again, from the said Gloss it seems that prelates are not bound to work with their hands. Objection, Gen. III, 19: "in the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread." They themselves are not exempt from this curse; therefore, etc. Response. They are bound to spiritual labor, not bodily, yet they would do well if they occupied themselves in honest things before they had leisure. Again, on that word: "is not this my work?" the Gloss: "perfect." Objection: they themselves were imperfect. Response. They were called a perfect work, because the apostle had preached to them, or because he had taught them perfectly as far as was in him. Again, on that word: "have we not power to eat?" Objection, Matt. X, 8: "freely you have received, freely give." Response. Freely, that is, without price, but not without stipend. Again, on that word: "who feeds the flock," the Gloss: "living from the Gospel, they ate free bread." Objection, subjects were bound to give. Response. The freeness was on the part of the recipients, because they received humbly, not as a matter of power, although it was owed on the part of the givers. Again: "is it of oxen God has care?" As if to say: no. Objection, Wis. c. VI, 8: "he has care of all things." I respond. There he speaks of general care, namely of providence; here of special care, namely of discipline. Again, "he that plows ought to plow in hope." Objection: hope is not of visible things, but of eternal things. Response. Hope is taken equivocally. Again, "in hope of receiving fruit." Objection: the lamp of preaching ought not to be put under the bushel of a temporal thing. I respond. To preach in hope of a temporal thing is not to put the lamp under the bushel, but to preach for the sake of hope. Again, "if we have sown for you spiritual things," etc. Objection, Gal. VI, 6: "what a man shall sow, that shall he also reap"; therefore he who sows spiritual things ought to reap spiritual things, not carnal things, etc. I respond. There he speaks of the reaping of reward, here of the reaping of stipend.

Above he proved in many ways that it is lawful for him to accept support; here he shows that nonetheless he does not wish to accept, but to abstain, for three reasons. First, the intention of reward; second, love of the Gospel, where "for when I was free from all," etc.; third, the finishing of his own race, where "do you not know that those who run in a race." In the first, he first says why he does not want to accept, namely lest his glory be emptied; second he shows that by accepting it would be emptied, where "for if I preach the gospel, there is no glory to me," etc.; third that by not accepting it is preserved, where "what then is my reward," and so forth. In the first, he first shows that he did not want to use the power of accepting; second that he does not intend to use it, where "but I have not written this, that," etc. He says therefore "But I," etc., as if to say: it is established in so many ways that it is lawful for me to accept support, yet I have used none of these — authority, reasoning, example — for the purpose of accepting. For he either accepted from other Churches, as II Cor. XI, 8: "I despoiled other Churches," etc., or worked with his hands, Acts XX, v. 34. "But not," etc., as if to say: I have not used it, nor do I even wish to use it. For I have not written these things, namely that it is lawful for me to accept, that it should be so done to me, as I have written, that is, that I should accept, because I do not seek the gift but the fruit.

Then when he says "for it is good for me," etc., here he shows why he did this, namely lest his glory be emptied. Where first he multiplies bodily affliction; second he places under it the diminishment of glory, where "than that my glory," and so forth. He says therefore "it is good," etc., as if he were saying: I will not accept, for if I did accept, I would empty my glory, which I would in no way do. "For it is good for me to die," not only to be afflicted by want of support, rather than that my glory — which I have from the gratuitous sincerity of preaching, from the reward of supererogation, by abstaining from things lawful — should anyone empty, by accepting importunely from someone, or for the sake of gospel support. Many modern doctors, however, empty this glory, either for the intention of support, or for human favor, as Job XII, 19 says: "he leads priests away without glory, and supplants the great."

It should be noted here that glory is lost in seven ways, on account of seven vices. For the glory of the gluttonous is emptied. Hence it is said here: "it is good for me rather," and so forth. The glory of the lustful is stained. Ecclus. c. XLVII, 21 f.: "you bowed your loins to women, you gave a stain to your glory." The glory of the proud is taken captive. I Mach. c. II, 9: "the vessels of his glory were led away captive." The glory of the wrathful is interrupted. Ps. XII, v. 5: "if I have repaid those repaying me evils," etc., and afterward: "let the enemy persecute my soul," etc., and afterward: "and bring my glory down into the dust." The glory of the envious is excluded. Rom. III, 27: "where is your boasting?" The glory of the avaricious is annihilated. Ps.: "fear not when a man shall be made rich," and so forth. The glory of the slothful is blamed. I Mach. IX, v. 10: "let us die in valor for our brethren, and let us not bring a charge upon our glory." Ecclus. XXXIII, 44: "be excellent in your works, and give no stain to your glory."

Therefore through gluttony the glory of sobriety is emptied; through lust the glory of chastity is stained; through pride the glory of humility is taken captive; through wrath the glory of gentleness is interrupted; through envy the glory of charity is excluded; through avarice the glory of liberality is annihilated; through sloth the glory of strenuousness is blamed. Of these it is said, Hosea IV, 7: "I will change their glory into shame." Of the first, an example in Esau, Gen. XXV, v. 29, in Holofernes, Judith XIII, 1; of the second in Solomon, III Kings II, 13; of the third in Lucifer, Isa. XIV, 12; of the fourth in Achitophel, II Kings XVI, 20; of the fifth in Cain, Gen. IV, v. 3; of the sixth in Giezi, IV Kings V, 20; of the seventh in the spies, Num. XIII and XIV.

"For if I preach the gospel," and so forth. Here he shows that by accepting support his glory would be emptied, because he would not be doing more than his due. And his reasoning is this: glory, which is the reward of supererogation, is not owed to works of necessity, to which we are bound by precept; but he was bound by precept to preach the gospel, therefore from this he did not have the glory of supererogation, but rather from the fact that he did not accept support. First therefore he touches on the emptying of glory; second the reason for the emptying, where "for necessity is laid upon me," etc.; third the declaration of the reason, where "for woe is unto me," etc.; fourth the reward of those rightly preaching the gospel, where "if I do this willingly," and so forth.

He says therefore "for if I preach the gospel," etc., as if he were saying: truly my glory would be emptied, for if I preach the gospel, so that I accept support, there is no glory to me, that is, no reward of supererogation; for necessity is laid upon me, Acts XXII, 21: "go, for I will send you far off to the nations." And truly it is a necessity: "for woe is unto me," that is, the penalty of transgression remains in me, if I do not preach the gospel, Isa. VI, 5: "woe is me, for I kept silence." It is read otherwise according to the Gloss, and this in two ways.

In the first way thus: "for if," etc., as if he were saying: indeed my heavenly glory would be emptied, namely if I preached for the purpose of accepting support. For if I preach the gospel only in such a way that I do not do this from love of God and neighbor, nor by free will, there is no glory to me before God; for the necessity of the precept, which I do not dare to omit, is laid upon me; hence if I preach from servile fear alone, "for woe," that is, eternal damnation, is to me if I do not preach the gospel, as it has been enjoined upon me. "But if willingly," and so forth. As if he were saying: if I do this out of necessity, there is no glory to me; but "if I do this willingly," that is, if I join the will to the necessity, "I have an eternal reward"; hence Ps. LIII, 8 says: "I will freely sacrifice to you, and I will confess," etc. But "if unwillingly," that is, if compelled by precept alone I preach the gospel, "a dispensation is entrusted to me," as to a servant, namely that I should dispense for the benefit of others, not my own; as if he were saying, I profit others, not myself. For he understands this of a servile dispensation, not a filial one; according to the Gloss of Augustine, no one who acts unwillingly does well, even if what he does is good. Below XIII, 3: "if I have not charity, I have become as sounding brass," and so forth.

In the second way it is read thus: "for if I preach the gospel" for the sake of receiving support, there is no glory to me from supererogation in preaching. For I ask against myself (Matt. X, 8: "freely you have received, freely give"); for the necessity of sustaining life is laid upon me; because I preach for the necessity of life. "For woe is unto me," that is, the torment of hunger, if I do not preach the gospel. "But if willingly," that is, if I do this not for the necessity of livelihood, but out of charity, "I have an eternal reward"; "but if unwillingly," that is, compelled by necessity, "a dispensation is entrusted to me as to a servant," and so forth.

Then when he says "what then is my reward," etc., here he shows that by not accepting support, his glory is preserved. Where first he asks, second he answers, where "that preaching the gospel," and so forth. He says therefore "what is my reward," that is, what shall I do to receive a reward? Because this is the merit of the reward, namely that I, preaching the gospel without support, should "set," that is, establish, "the gospel," Isa. XXVIII, 25: "he will set the wheat in order," and so forth. He did this, however, according to the Gloss, lest the gospel be thought venal. "Without support," I say, and this "that I may not abuse my power," that is, entrusted to me in preaching the gospel, which would be the case if I accepted indiscriminately, because I would lose the authority to reprove freely: because, Ecclus. XX, 31, "gifts and presents blind the eyes of judges, and as one mute in the mouth he turns away correction."

Ecclesiastical utility, therefore, is implied in this solution, namely the confirmation of good, because "that preaching the gospel," and the avoidance of evil, because "lest I abuse my power." And it should be noted that he touches on four differences among those who are bound to preach. For some are bound, but do not preach the gospel; these merit punishment. Some are bound and preach the gospel, but under compulsion; these do not merit reward, but avoid punishment. Some are bound and preach the gospel willingly, but accept support, and these merit reward, and avoid punishment, but do not have the glory of supererogation. Some are bound and preach the gospel willingly, and do not accept support, and these merit reward, and avoid punishment, and have the glory of supererogation. He touches on the first state, where "woe is unto me," etc.; the second, where "for if unwillingly," etc.; the third, where "but if willingly," etc.; the fourth, where "what then is my reward," and so forth.

Above he showed that he does not wish to accept expenses, and this on account of the intention of a reward; here he shows that he did the same thing on account of love of the Gospel. Where first he says that he made himself the servant of all; second, that he strove to accommodate himself to all, there "and I became to the Jews," etc.; third, he subjoins the reason why he did this, there "but all things I do on account of the Gospel," etc. In the first he implies a threefold commendable condition in servitude: which are generality, liberality, usefulness. He serves therefore freely or liberally, there "when I was free," etc.; generally, there "of all... me," etc.; usefully, there "that I might gain the more," etc.

He says therefore "for when I was," etc., as if to say: I will set forth the Gospel without expense, for I have done even more, namely that although "I was free from all," etc., that is, obligated by no one's merits, "I made myself the servant of all," accommodating myself to all through lowliness, and as it were constituting myself a debtor — 2 Cor. 4:5: "but we are your servants through Jesus." And this "that I might gain the more," that is, that I might make a gain of my preaching and servitude. For he sought not things, but souls — 2 Cor. 12:14: "I seek not your things, but you." For if it is commendable to serve in temporal things for temporal gain, how much more in spiritual things for spiritual gain?

Then, when he says "and I became to the Jews," etc., here he shows that he strove to accommodate himself to all. And first he says that he accommodated himself to those not yet converted; second, that also to those already converted, there "I became to the weak," etc.; third, that generally to all, there "I became all things to all," etc. In the first he first says that he accommodated himself to the Jews; second, that to the Samaritans, there "and to those who are under the law," etc.; third, that to the Gentiles, there "to those who were without the law," etc. In the first, he first touches the accommodation; second, the reason for the accommodation, there "that the Jews," etc.

He says therefore: "and I became to the Jews as a Jew," namely by observing certain legal things, as in the distinction of foods, in the circumcision of Timothy, Acts 16:3, in the legal purification, Acts 21:24. But this can be understood in two ways. In one way, according to Jerome, "I became to the Jews as a Jew" through a dispensation of simulation — for he pretended to observe certain legal things, which nevertheless he did not observe. In another way, according to Augustine, "I became a Jew," etc. — for he truly condescended to them in the observance of certain legal things on account of pious compassion; and he did this that he might gain the Jews for Christ, that is, that he might convert them to the faith of Christ.

Then, when he says "and to those who are under the law," etc., here he says that he was accommodating himself to the Samaritans. Where three things are noted about him: first, his sagacity in that he accommodated himself; second, his freedom in that he was not under the law; third, his usefulness in that he was gaining them.

He says therefore: "I am also to those who are under the law of Moses," that is, to the Samaritans, who are not Jews but Assyrians, who were brought to inhabit the land of Israel, 4 Kings 17:24 ff. These also were under the law of Moses, because they received only the five books of Moses. To these therefore "I became as if I were under the law," namely by approving the law, and by teaching Christ from it, although "I myself was not under the law," according to literal observance, or servilely, because "the law is not laid down for the just man," 1 Tim. 1:9. And I did this therefore "that I might gain those who were under the law," namely the Samaritans themselves, by converting them to the faith of Christ.

Then, when he says "to those who were without the law," etc., here he says that he accommodated himself to the Gentiles. Where first he touches his conformity; second, the truth of his faith, there "although without the law," etc.; third, the rectitude of his intention, there "that I might gain," etc.

And this is: "and I became to those who were without the law," that is, to the Gentiles — Rom. 2:14: "for the Gentiles, who do not have the law" — "as if I were without law," that is, by assenting to their reasonings, and to the good positions of the philosophers, as is clear in Acts 17; "although I was not without law" — Rom. 7:25: "with the mind I serve the law of God" — "but I was in the law," not the Jewish law, but of Christ, who is God, and not Moses. Concerning which, Gal. 6:2: "bear one another's burdens, and thus you will fulfill," etc. And I did this therefore "that I might gain those who were without the law," by converting the Gentiles to the faith. O happy zealot! Gregory: "there is no sacrifice like the zeal of souls."

Then, when he says "I became to the weak," etc., here he shows that he accommodated himself to those already converted. Where first he sets forth the good manner, second the due end, there "that the weak." He says therefore: "I became also to the weak," in faith, "weak," by abstaining from lawful things — 2 Cor. 11:29: "who is weak, and I am not weak?" So does the good physician, who eats the food of the sick man, that he may provoke him to eat, and so heal him. And this I did "that I might gain the weak," strengthening them in the faith.

And briefly, "I became all things to all," as if I were of every sect. Therefore it is said below, 10:33: "as I also please all in all things." And this "that I might make all safe." In the ankle-length vestment which Aaron had, the whole world was depicted, Wisdom 18:24. And, 4 Kings 4:34, Elisha contracted himself to the manner of the boy, and thus revived him. And because, according to Boethius, every otherness is discordant, but likeness truly is to be sought, therefore spiritual men, saving the observance of their life and religion, ought to conform themselves to all.

Then, when he says "all things I do on account of the Gospel," above he showed that he strove to accommodate himself to all; here he subjoins the reason why he does this, and this is twofold: one on the part of the Gospel, namely that it may have a free course; the other on his own part, namely that he may obtain the promised reward, there "that a partaker," etc. And this is what he says: "but all things I do on account of the Gospel," to be preached without impediment, "that I may become a partaker of it," that is, of the promises which are contained in it — Matt. 5:19: "whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Above he showed that he proposed to abstain from taking expenses: first on account of the intention of a reward, secondly on account of love of the Gospel, here, thirdly, on account of the expedition of his race and of his contest. First indeed he shows that one must run swiftly in the stadium; secondly, that likewise one must contend swiftly in the contest, there "for everyone who in the contest," etc.; thirdly, that he himself does both, there "I therefore so run," etc. In the first part, first he sets forth the example of those running swiftly; secondly he admonishes them to run in like manner, there "so run," etc.

In the first, first he touches on the exercise of running; secondly the agreement of those running, there "all indeed run," etc.; thirdly the difference of those arriving, there "but one receives the prize," etc. In the first is noted the condition of wayfarers; in the second, the multitude of those called; in the third, the fewness of the elect. Matthew 20:16: "Many are called, but few are chosen." But he describes the condition of wayfarers from three things: from certainty, when he asks "do you not know"; from brevity, when he adds "in the stadium"; from labor, when he adds "they run."

He says therefore "do you not know." This is connected in three ways. In the first way thus, as if he were to say: rightly do I abstain from taking expenses, that I may be made a partaker. For if I did not abstain from things contrary to the Gospel, I would not be a partaker of it. For do you not know that these, etc. Or thus: do you not know that I do this, that I may be made a partaker of the Gospel? And indeed I can be a partaker. For it is not so with the reward of the Gospel as with the prize of the race, because here one receives the prize, but there all can receive it. In the third way thus: "do you not know," as if he were to say: therefore I so run because, although there are many who run, yet few are those who arrive. For do you not know that those who run in the stadium, all indeed run, are equal in labor, but only one receives the prize, that is, the reward of the race?

For the stadium is the space in which foot-runners run, which Hercules is said to have established. Now they complete the stadium in 125 paces. And it is called "stadium" from standing, because Hercules would run that many paces and afterward would stand and catch his breath; at the end of this space something was placed which was the reward of the race, such as a horse and a purple cloth, and this is called the prize. And although in this stadium all would run, yet only one alone received the prize, namely he who arrived more quickly. So in the spiritual race only one, namely he who perseveres, receives the prize. For he who shall have persevered even to the end, this one shall be saved.

Then, when he says "so run," etc., he admonishes them to run. Where he implies three things: the vigorous act, "run"; the due manner, "so"; the best end, "that you may obtain." He says therefore "so," etc., as if he were to say: because one receives the prize, run so, persevering through the way of truth, that you may obtain the prize of eternal life. Hebrews 12:1: "let us run by patience to the contest set before us."

Then, when he says "but everyone who in the contest," etc., he shows that in the contest one must contend swiftly. Where first he touches on the struggle of those contending; secondly the firm form of fighting, there "abstains from all things," etc.; thirdly the due reward of those so fighting, there "and they indeed, that a corruptible," etc. The first belongs to necessity, namely to fight; the second to virtue, namely to abstain; the third to happiness, namely to receive the crown. He says therefore "everyone who in the contest," etc., as if he were to say: truly it must be so done, which is clear from the example: because everyone who contends in the contest abstains from all things that hinder. Hence also they used to contend naked in the wrestling-school. Observe, as Augustine says, that many comparisons are drawn from things not praiseworthy.

Then, when he says "and they indeed, that a corruptible," etc., he touches on the reward of those fighting, and first of those fighting materially; secondly of those fighting spiritually, there "but we an incorruptible," etc. He says therefore, "and they indeed abstain, that they may receive a corruptible crown," which is a small thing. But we ought to abstain, that we may receive "an incorruptible" one, namely the crown of life, concerning which James 1:12: "Blessed is the man who endures temptation, because when he shall have been proved," etc.

Then, when he says "I therefore so run," etc., he sets forth the example of both, namely of running and of fighting. Where first he touches on his own race in the advancement of good; secondly his own fight in the victory over evil, there "so I fight," etc.; thirdly the reason of both deeds, there "but I chastise," etc. He says therefore "I therefore," etc., as if he were to say: because such a crown is kept, therefore I so run, working good, not as into uncertainty, that is, so that I be uncertain about the reward. For he runs into uncertainty who does such things that from some he can hope, but from others he can despair. All things instruct toward the good: both the apostolic person, which is noted there in "I"; and the implied manner, which is noted there in "so"; and the vigorous action, which is noted there in "I run"; and the hoped-for reward, which is noted there in "not as into uncertainty." Philippians 2:16: "I have not run in vain, nor labored in vain."

So I fight against enemies, contending against evil, not as one beating the air, that is, not by words only, but by deeds. For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in power, above 4:20. Or, "not as one beating the air," that is, not fatiguing myself in vain, not harming the adversary.

Thus a man will be perfect if he so holds himself that he be:

Intent in confession — Isaiah 38:15: "I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul."
Devout in prayer — Matthew 6:9: "thus therefore you shall pray: Our Father, who art in heaven," etc.
Effective in preaching — James 2:12: "so speak, and so do."

These three pertain to the act of a right mouth, yet in such a way that confession is directed to God and to the neighbor, prayer to God alone, preaching to the neighbor alone.

Strong in fighting — hence "so I fight," etc. Revelation 3:5: "he who shall overcome, so shall be clothed in a white garment."
Patient in enduring — Judith 8:23: "so Isaac, so Jacob, so Moses, and all who pleased God, passed through many tribulations, being faithful."
Cautious in guarding himself — Joshua 2:16: "go up to the mountains, lest perhaps those returning meet you," etc. "And so you shall go your way."

The first is on account of the evil of fault, namely fighting; the second against the evil of punishment, namely patience; the third against the evil of temptation, namely caution.

Kind in forgiving — Matthew 18:14: "so it is not the will before the Father," etc.
Reckoning himself unprofitable — Luke 17:10: "so you also, when you shall have done all the things that were commanded," etc.
Careful, examining himself — below 11:28: "but let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread," etc.

The first reproves the malice of the neighbor; the second proves the goodness of God; the third, the doubtfulness of one's own state.

Humble in obeying — Matthew 3:15: "so it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness."
Agile in advancing — hence here v. 24: "so run," that is, advance in the good, that you may obtain.
Steadfast in persevering — hence here v. 24: "so run." Philippians 4:1: "so stand in the Lord, dearest."
Renowned in conduct — above 4:1: "so let a man esteem us," etc.

The first regards those beginning; the second, those advancing; the third, those persevering; the fourth, the perfect.

Then, when he says "but I chastise my body," etc., he touches on the reason for both of the aforesaid. Where first he touches on the austerity of life; secondly the commendation of doctrine, there "lest perhaps," etc.; thirdly the reason for the agreement of both, there "I myself reprobate," etc. Therefore he fulfills in deed what he teaches in word, lest he condemn himself by his own mouth.

And this is what he says, "but I chastise my body," by the avoidance of evil, repressing the illicit movements of the flesh. I chastise, therefore, not kill, my body — not only another's. Romans 12:1: "that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your reasonable service." And "I bring it into servitude" through the working of good, namely by compelling the body to serve the spirit and subjecting sensuality to reason, just as is read of blessed Martin: "he compelled the flesh to serve the spirit."

And this I do, "lest perhaps, when I have preached to others," etc. Augustine: by his own fear the Apostle has terrified us; for what will the lamb do, where the ram fears and trembles? "I myself reprobate," that is, rejected by God, "should become" — which would be shameful. Romans 2:21: "you who preach that one should not steal, steal." Of such a one could truly be said that word of Job 4:3: "behold, thou hast taught many," etc.: "but now the scourge has come upon thee, and thou hast fainted."

Here it is asked, there "it is better for me to die," etc. On the contrary: glory is not made void except through sin; therefore to receive it would be a sin for him, therefore it would not be lawful.

I respond. Essential glory would not be made void by this, but accidental glory concerns this work of supererogation.

Again: "if I preach the gospel, it is not a glory to me." On the contrary: to one who preaches the gospel and receives expenses is owed both the aurea and the aureola. But the Gloss explains: when it is preached out of necessity of fear, or out of desire for a temporal reward.

Again, upon that word "a dispensation has been entrusted to me," the Gloss: "we ought not to preach the gospel that we may eat." On the contrary: therefore mercenary preachers sin mortally, because they do what they ought not.

I respond. If they do it principally for the sake of gain, they sin; but if for the sake of the spiritual fruit arising from it, they do well. Likewise there the Gloss: on account of the kingdom of God we ought to do all things, not only that, but also to keep in mind a temporal reward along with the kingdom of God. On the contrary: therefore those who go to church for the sake of distributions sin.

I respond. It is true, if they go only or principally on account of this.

Again, upon this, "that I may not abuse my power," the Gloss: which would be so, if he received it — which he proved above, in the same place, that it is lawful for him to receive.

I respond. It is to be understood if it were received indiscreetly and inordinately and immoderately.

Again, "I have made myself the servant of all." On the contrary, above 7:23: "be not made the servants of men."

I respond. Here he speaks of the servitude of charity, namely in good; there of the servitude of iniquity, namely in evil.

Again, "I became to the Jews a Jew," the Gloss: "in accepting foods, or not accepting them." Against the Gloss: therefore he unjustly rebuked Peter concerning the discernment of foods, Galatians 2:11.

Nay rather, well, because Peter made the discernment with scandal to the Gentiles, namely in the places of the Gentiles, but Paul did not.

Again, there the Gloss: "on account of the scandal of the Jews he circumcised Timothy," Acts 16:3. On the contrary: the truth of doctrine, of life, and of righteousness ought not to be given up on account of scandal.

I respond. Until the spreading of the Gospel, it did not belong to the truth of doctrine or of life that men should not be circumcised, but that they should not place their hope in circumcision.

Again, "that I might make all men safe." On the contrary, he knew that not all would be saved.

I respond. He willed all in particular, that is, each one by himself, not all together.

Again, upon that word "all indeed run," the Gloss: "in the spiritual contest, however many run, if they run spiritually, they receive it; and he who has come first waits, that he may be crowned along with the one who comes later." On the contrary, each one is crowned at death.

I respond. This is understood of the glory of the body, not of the soul.

Again, upon that word "lest perhaps, when I have preached," the Gloss: "by his own fear the Apostle terrifies us." On the contrary, 1 John 4:18: "perfect charity casts out fear."

It is true of the fear of punishment, but not of the fear of separation or of offense.