Did I make a gain - In refuting this slander, Paul appeals boldly to the facts, and to what they knew. "Same the man," says he, "who has thus defrauded you under my instructions. If the charge is well-founded, let him be specified, and let the mode in which it was done be distinctly stated." The phrase "make a gain" (from πλεονεκτέω pleonekteō), means properly to have an advantage; then to take advantage, to seek unlawful gain. Here Paul asks whether he had defrauded them by means of anyone whom he had sent to them.

Did I make a gain of you - Did any person I ever sent to preach the Gospel to you, or help you in your Christian course, ever get any thing from you for me? Produce the proof if you can.

Did I make a gain of you,.... He appeals to the Corinthians against such calumnies and false insinuations, whether ever he had circumvented them in such a manner, or had ever used such artful methods to pillage them; or whether ever he had discovered any covetous disposition towards anything of theirs; or had employed any persons to draw out their substance from them, and get it for himself: he owns he had sent some persons to them on different errands, and asks if he had dealt fraudulently with them,
by any of them whom, says he,
I have sent to you: he desires them to name one single person of the many who came to them from him, that had received any money from them for him; or that they had any reason to believe he had employed for such purposes; and if they could not pitch on a single instance, they ought therefore to look upon this as a downright slander and calumny.

Paul's reply: You know well I did not. My associates were as distinterested as myself. An important rule to all who would influence others for good.

I answer this lying accusation by appealing to plain fact. Did I make a gain of you by Titus - Or any other of my messengers? You know the contrary. It should be carefully observed, that St. Paul does not allow, but absolutely denies, that he had caught them with guile; so that the common plea for guile, which has been often drawn from this text, is utterly without foundation.