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

After the Apostle has set forth his excuse, in which he sought the goodwill of his hearers, here he consequently pursues his intention, namely treating of the ministers of the new testament. And concerning this he does two things. For first he commends the dignity of good ministers; but second he sets out at length the malice of evil ministers, and this from chapter 10 onward. Concerning the first he does two things. For first he commends the ministry of the new testament; second he commends the use of this ministry in others, exhorting them to it, at chapter 6: "but helping," etc. Concerning the first he commends this ministry of the new testament from three things. First from its dignity, in this chapter; second from its use, in chapter 4, at "therefore having," etc.; third from its reward, in chapter 5, at "for we know that if," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he removes a certain objection; second he commends the ministers of the new testament, at "who has also made us fit," etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that the Apostle intends to commend the ministers of the new testament, of whom he himself was one. And therefore, lest the Corinthians should object to him that in this he wished to commend himself, he immediately excludes this, saying, "we begin again ourselves," etc. Where he does two things. First he raises a question; second he responds, at, namely, "or do we need," etc. His question is this: I say that we are not adulterating the word of God, as the pseudo, but from sincerity, as from God. But by saying this, do we begin again to commend ourselves, that is, do we say these things because we wish to seek our own glory and not God's? And he says "again," because in the first epistle he had commended himself enough, when he said: "as a wise master-builder," etc. Therefore we do not say this in order to seek our own glory, but God's. Prov. 27:2: "let a stranger praise you," etc.

But he responds to this question when he says, "or do we need," etc. And he shows that he does not gladly commend himself. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that he does not need the commendation of men; second, that he does not even require this from them, at "but such confidence," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he does not need their commendation for his own glory; second he assigns the cause of this, at "you are our epistle," etc.

He says therefore: I say that we do not begin to commend ourselves, because we do not need commendation. And this is what he says: "or do we need," we true ministers, as certain ones, namely the pseudo, letters of commendation, that is, praises sent, to you, from others, or from you, sent to others? But against this, in Col. 4:10 it is said: "Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received a command," etc. Also, the legates of the Pope always carry letters of commendation. Therefore it is not evil.

I respond. It must be said that to receive letters of this kind from famous persons, so that only through them are they commended and honored, until they themselves come into notice from their own good works, this is not evil; this the legates of the Pope do. But the Apostle was already so known and commended among these people through his own works, that he did not need letters of commendation. And therefore, immediately assigning the cause of this, he adds: "you are our epistle." As if he were to say: I have good letters, I do not need others. And therefore concerning this he does two things. For first he shows what this letter is that he has; second he explains this same thing, at "manifested," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows what that letter is; second he shows it to be sufficient for his own commendation, at "written," etc.

He says therefore thus: "you are our epistle," that is, the epistle through which our dignity is manifested, by which we are commended, so that we do not need other letters. Above, chapter 2: "you are our glory." Gal. 4:19: "my little children, whom I am again in labor for," etc. But is this letter sufficient? Yes, because "written," etc. Where he touches on two things that cause the sufficiency of letters of this kind. One is that it be understood and known by him for whom it is sent, otherwise he would still be seeking it, unless he knew that he had it. And as to this he says, "written in our hearts," because we always hold you in memory, having a special care for you. Phil. 1:7: "because I hold you," etc. The second is that he to whom it is sent should read and know it, otherwise he would not care about its commendation. And as to this he says, "which is known and read by all men." It is known, I say, because you have been instructed and converted through us. But it is read, because by our example others also imitate you. Hab. 2:2: "write the vision, and make it plain upon tablets, that he who reads it may run."

But how this epistle is known, he explains, saying "manifested," etc. And concerning this he does three things. First he explains whose this letter is; second, how it is written; and third, in what. But whose it is, he shows thus, that it is Christ's. And therefore he says, "manifested, that you are of Christ," that is, formed and led by Christ, namely principally and authoritatively. Matt. 23:8: "one is your master." But by us secondarily and instrumentally. And therefore he says, "ministered by us." 1 Cor. 4:1: "let a man so regard us," etc. 1 Cor. 3:4: "what then is Cephas," etc.

But how it is written, he shows, that it is not with ink, that is, not mixed with errors, as the pseudo-apostles; not changeable and imperfect, like the old law, which brought no one to perfection, Heb. 7:19. For ink is black, by which error is understood, and erasable, by which changeableness is understood. It is not, I say, written with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, that is, with the Holy Spirit, by whom you live, and by whose teaching you have been instructed. Eph. 1:13: "in whom you have been sealed." But where it is written he suggests, adding, "not on tablets of stone," as the old law, so as to exclude hardness, as if he were to say: not in hearts of stone having hardness, like the Jews. Acts 7:51: "stiff-necked," etc. But "on the fleshly tablets of the heart," that is, in hearts wide from charity, and fleshly, that is, soft from an affection of fulfilling and understanding. Ezek. 36:26: "I will take away from you the heart of stone," etc.

"But such confidence," etc. The Apostle above excused himself, that he did not seek his own glory because he did not need it; but here he proves that he himself does not seek his own glory, indeed he does not attribute all the good that he does to himself, but to God. And concerning this he does two things. For first he attributes all the good that he has and does to God; second he assigns the cause of this, at "not that we are sufficient," etc.

He says therefore first: I say that we do not need letters of commendation, and that you are our epistle, ministered by us. Nor do we even seek our own glory, but Christ's. And "such confidence," that is, of saying such things, "we have toward God," that is, we refer it to God. Or a confidence tending toward God, from whose strength I say this, because he himself works in me. Which confidence indeed we have "through Christ," through whom we have access to the Father, as it is said in Rom. 5:2, who has united us to God. Jer. 17:7: "blessed is the man," etc. And because united to God through Christ, I have this confidence. Ps. 11:6: "I will act with confidence," etc.

But the cause of this confidence is that whatever I do, even the very beginning of the work, I attribute to God. And therefore he says, "not that we are sufficient to think," let alone to say, or to fulfill. For in any process of a work, first there is assent, which comes about through thinking, then a bringing together through the word, and afterward fulfillment through the deed; hence it follows that thus no one has even the thinking from himself, but from God; for there is no doubt that not only the perfection of a good work is from God, but also its beginning. Phil. 1:6: "who has begun a good work in you," etc. And this is against the Pelagians, who say that the beginning of a good work is from us, but the perfection is from God. Isa. 26:12: "all our works," etc.

But from this, lest he should seem to take away the freedom of the will, he says "from us, as it were from ourselves," as if he were to say: I can indeed do something, which belongs to free will, but this, which I do, is not from me, but from God, who confers this very power; so that thus he both defends the freedom of man when he says "from us," that is, from our part, and commends the divine grace, when he says "as it were," namely that it proceeds from ourselves, but is from God. The Philosopher also holds this, that man can never do a certain good by free will, without the help of God. And his reasoning is this, that in those things which we do, that must be sought for the sake of which we do them. But it is not possible to proceed to infinity, but one must arrive at something first, namely at counsel. So therefore I do good, because counsel toward this is present in me, and this is from God. Hence he says that the counsel of good is from someone who is above man, moving him to act well. And this is God, who moves both men and all things that act, to their actions, but in different ways. For since a motion of this kind is something received in the thing moved, it is necessary that this come about according to the manner of its own nature, that is, of the thing moved. And therefore he moves all things according to their natures. Those things, therefore, whose nature it is to be of free will, having dominion over their own actions, he moves freely to their operations, as rational and intellectual creatures. But other things not freely, but according to the manner of their nature.

But although we are not sufficient to think anything from ourselves, as it were from ourselves, nevertheless we have some sufficiency, by which, namely, we can will the good and begin to believe, and this is from God. 1 Cor. 4:7: "what do you have, that you have not received?"

Having commended the ministry of the new testament, here he consequently commends its ministers. And first he sets down two things which correspond to the words stated before. For he had premised the gift received from God, when he said: our sufficiency, etc.; and the confidence conceived from the gift, when he said: such confidence, etc. First, therefore, he determines those things which pertain to the gift received; second, those which pertain to the confidence conceived, there: having therefore such, etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows the gift received from God, namely the ministry of the new testament; second he describes the new testament, there: not of the letter, but of the spirit; third, from the dignity of the new testament he shows the dignity of its ministers, there: if the ministration, etc.

He says therefore: I say that our sufficiency is from God, who also made us fit ministers of the new testament, Is. 61:6: ministers of our God, it shall be said to you. And in this we hold the place of the Angels. Ps. 103:4: who makes his Angels, etc. But he not only made us ministers, but fit ones. For God gives to each thing those things by which it can attain the perfection of its nature. Hence, because God appointed the ministers of the new testament, he also gave them fitness for exercising this office, unless there be an impediment on the part of those receiving it. Above 2:16: and for these things who is so fit, namely as the apostles instituted by God?

But what this new testament is, he describes, adding: not of the letter, etc. And he describes it as to two things, namely as to that in which it consists, and as to the cause on account of which it was given, there: for the letter kills, etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that the apostle speaks profoundly. For it is said Jer. 31:31 ff.: I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the pact which I made with your fathers. And afterward: I will give my law in their inward parts, and I will write it upon their heart, etc. The old testament, therefore, is written in a book, and afterward by the sprinkling of blood, as is said Heb. 9:19: he took blood and sprinkled the book, etc., saying: this is the blood, etc. And thus it is clear that the old law is the testament of the letter. But the new testament is the testament of the Holy Spirit, by whom the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, as is said Rom. 5:5. And thus, while the Holy Spirit works in us charity, which is the fullness of the law, it is the new testament — not of the letter, that is, to be written by the letter, but of the spirit, that is, by the spirit which gives life. Rom. 8:2: the law of the spirit of life, that is, of the life-giving spirit.

But the cause why the new testament was given through the spirit is added, because the letter kills occasionally. For the letter of the law gives only the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20: but through the law is the knowledge of sin. But from this, that I know sin, only two things follow. For the law, while it is known through it, does not repress concupiscence, but rather occasionally increases it, inasmuch as concupiscence is carried more fervently toward the forbidden thing. Hence such knowledge, the cause of concupiscence not yet being destroyed, kills; and from this it also adds transgression. For it is more grave to sin against the written law and the natural law together than against the natural law alone. Rom. 7:8: sin, the occasion being taken, not given, etc. But although it kills occasionally, inasmuch namely as it increases concupiscence and adds transgression, nevertheless the old law is not evil, because at least it forbids evils. It is nevertheless imperfect, inasmuch as it does not remove the cause. The law, therefore, without the spirit interiorly imprinting the law in the heart, is an occasion of death. And therefore it was necessary to give the law of the spirit, which, working charity in the heart, gives life. Jn. 6:64: it is the spirit that gives life.

Consequently, from these things he shows the dignity of his ministry. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that the ministry of the new testament is preferred to the ministry of the old testament; second, that it is not only preferred, but that the ministry of the old testament has, as it were, nothing of glory in comparison to the new, there: for neither was that glorified, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the ministry of the new testament is preferred to the old; second he assigns the reason for this, there: for if the ministration, etc.

Concerning the first it must be known that the apostle argues from that which is found in Exodus 24, where our text has it that Moses had a horned face, so that they were not able, etc. Another text has "a shining face," which is better said. For it is not to be understood that he had horns literally, as some paint him; but he is called horned on account of the rays, which seemed to be, as it were, certain horns.

He argues from this thus. And first through one similitude, and it is an argument from the lesser. For it is clear that if something which is lesser has something of glory, much more does that which is greater. But the old testament is lesser than the new; since therefore that was in glory, so that they were not able, etc., it seems that much more is the new in glory. But that the old testament is lesser than the new he proves in three ways.

First as to the effect, because that is the testament of death, this of life, as has been said. And as to this he says that if the ministration of death, that is, the old, which is the occasion of death. And this corresponds to that where it is said: the letter kills, etc.

Second as to the manner of its delivery, because the old was delivered in letters on tablets of stone, but the new was impressed by the spirit on fleshly hearts. And this he hints at, when he says formed in letters, that is, perfectly formed, in stones, that is, in tablets of stone. And this corresponds to that where it is said: not of the letter, but of the spirit, etc.

Third as to perfection, because the glory of the old testament is without confidence, because the law brought no one to perfection. But in the new there is glory with hope of a better glory, namely an everlasting one. Is. 51:6: my salvation shall be forever. And this he hints at, when he says which is done away, Gal. 5:2: for if you be circumcised, Christ nothing, etc.

The conclusion is set down when he says how shall not rather, which is plain.

But he assigns the reason for these things consequently, when he says for if the ministration, etc. And his reason is this: glory is owed more to justice than to damnation, but the ministry of the new testament is a ministry of justice, because it justifies interiorly by giving life. But the ministry of the old testament is, occasionally, a ministry of damnation. Above, in the same place: the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. Since therefore the ministration of damnation, that is, the ministration of the old testament, which is occasionally the cause of damnation, as has been said, is in glory, which appeared in the face of Moses, it is clear that much more does it abound in glory, that is, gives abundant glory to its ministers, the ministry of justice, that is, of the new testament, through which the spirit is given, through whom is justice and the consummation of the virtues. Prov. 3:35: the wise shall possess glory.

Questions are wont to be raised in this place about the comparison of Moses and Paul, but, if the words of the apostle are rightly considered, they are not necessary, because here the comparison is not made of person to person, but of ministry to ministry. But because the pseudo-apostles could say that although the ministry of the new testament is greater than the ministry of the old testament, nevertheless it is not much greater, and therefore it is good that we attend to that ministry and to this one — which they also were doing, because they observed the legal precepts together with the Gospel at the same time. Therefore here consequently the apostle disproves this, when he says for neither was that glorified, etc.

And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows that the ministry of the new testament exceeds the ministry of the old without any comparison; second he assigns the cause of this, there: for if that which is done away, etc.

He says therefore: I said that the ministry of justice abounds in glory, and to such an extent that the glory of the old ministry is not to be called glory, because neither was that glorified, etc.: which is explained in two ways. In the first way thus: for neither, etc., that is, that glory is nothing in comparison to this one of the new testament, because that glory was not conferred on all the ministers, but on Moses alone, and it did not shine forth in the whole Moses, but in part, that is, in the face only, particularly. And therefore neither was it glorified, that is, nor ought it to be glorified, on account of the excelling glory, that is, in comparison with the excelling glory of the new testament, which abounds in grace, so that men, purified through it, might be able to see not the glory of man, but of God.

In the second way, so that it be punctuated thus: neither was that glorified which shone forth; as if he were to say: for in this part, that is, in respect of this particular nature, we who are servants — it was not glorified, that is, that which shone forth in the old testament was not glorious; and this on account of the excelling glory which is in the new, because that is the glory of God the Father.

But he assigns the cause of this consequently, when he says for if that which is done away, etc. And his reason is this: that which is given so that it may pass away is nothing in respect to that which is given so that it may always remain. If therefore the old testament, which is done away, is taken away — 1 Cor. 13:10: when that which is perfect has come, that which is in part shall be done away, etc. For through the glory of Moses it was ministered, at least through a particular glory. It is clear that the new testament remains, because it is begun here, and is perfected in the homeland. Lk. 21:33: heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. It will be much more in eternal glory, in which it will be perfected. It will be, I say, for us, who are its ministers.

Having set down the things that pertain to the commendation of the gift received from God, here he consequently sets down the things that pertain to the commendation of the confidence conceived concerning this gift. Now concerning this he does two things. First, he sets down the confidence conceived from the gift; second, he compares the confidence of the old and the new testament, at *and not as Moses*.

He says therefore first: *having therefore such hope* — namely from this, that it has been said to us, namely of seeing the glory of God, Rom. 8:24: *for by hope we are saved* — *we use much confidence*, that is, we work confidently at those things which pertain to the use of this ministry, from which hope grows in us. Prov. 28:1: *The just, like a confident lion, will be without terror.* Jer. 17:7: *Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.*

Consequently, just as he preferred gift to gift, so he prefers the confidence of the new testament to the confidence of the old testament, when he says *and not as Moses, etc.* And concerning this he does two things: first he sets forth the deed in the old testament; second he explains it, at *which is done away, etc.* Now the deed which he sets forth is read in Exodus 34:34, where it is said that Moses, when he spoke to the people, veiled his face, because on account of the brightness of his countenance the children of Israel could not look upon him. And therefore he says *and not as Moses, etc.*, as if to say: I say that we use much confidence, and so much, that it does not happen to us as Moses did to them, namely by not revealing his face to the people, because the time for revealing the brightness of the truth had not yet come. We therefore have confidence without a veil.

Consequently he explains what he had said about the veil, saying *which is done away, etc.* For that veil was the obscurity of the figures, which was done away through Christ. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets down the doing away of this veil; second, how this doing away has place among the Jews, at *but blunted, etc.*; third, how it has no place among the ministers of the new testament, at *but we with unveiled, etc.*

He says therefore that Moses put a veil, namely of the figure, over his face, which — namely the veil — *is done away*, that is, it is taken away through Christ, namely by fulfilling in truth what Moses handed down in figure, because all things happened to them in figure. For thus Christ, through his death, removed the veil from the slaying of the paschal lamb, and therefore as soon as he gave up his spirit, the veil of the temple was torn. Likewise, in sending the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers, that they might understand spiritually what the Jews understand carnally. And he removed this veil, when he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, Lk., last chapter.

But what effect this doing away has among the Jews, he shows, saying *but blunted, etc.* And concerning this he does two things. First he shows that it was not removed from them in the state of unbelief; second he shows that it will be removed at their conversion, at *but when it shall be converted, etc.* Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the reason why this doing away has no place among the Jews; second, from this he shows that they still have the veil, at *but even to this present day, etc.*

He says therefore that it is done away in those who believe, but not as regards the unbelieving Jews. And the reason for this is, because *their senses are blunted*, that is, their reason is dull, and their senses are weak and blunted, nor can they see the brightness of the divine light, that is, of the divine truth, without the veil of the figures. And the reason for this is that they close their eyes, so that they may not see that the veil of the temple has been torn. And therefore it is from their own fault of unbelief, not from a defect of the truth, because, the veil having been removed, to all who open the eyes of the mind through faith, the truth is most clearly manifested. Rom. 11:25: *blindness in part has happened in Israel.* Jn. 9:39: *for judgment I have come into this world, etc.* For thus Isaiah had prophesied in chapter 6: *blind the heart of this people, etc.* And truly their senses are so blunted, that even to this present day they do not understand the truth manifested to us.

But that very veil, which was in the old testament, before the veil of the temple was torn, remains in the reading of the old testament, because they understand it no differently than before, because they still lean upon the figures, so that they do not reveal the truth, that is, they do not understand it; thus they believe the veil of God is not the figure, but the truth — which, namely, is done away as regards believers, and as far as is in itself, for all through Christ, that is, in the faith of Christ, but in them it does not remain, because they do not believe that Christ has come.

Consequently when he says *but even to this present day, etc.*, he shows how the veil still exists among the Jews as regards unbelievers, although it has been removed through Christ. Concerning this it must be known, that a veil is said to be put upon someone in two ways: either because it is put upon the thing seen, so that it cannot be seen, or because it is put upon the one seeing, so that he may not see. But for the Jews, under the old law, the veil was put on in both ways. For both their hearts were blinded, lest they should know the truth, on account of their hardness, and the old testament was not yet completed, because the truth had not yet come. Hence, as a sign of this, the veil was on the face of Moses and not on their faces; but, when Christ came, the veil was removed from the face of Moses, that is, from the old testament, because it is now fulfilled, but nevertheless it is not removed from their hearts.

And this is what he says *but even to this present day*, as if to say: the veil has been taken away from the believers of the old testament, but still, when Moses is read, that is, when the old testament is expounded to them — Acts 15:21: *Moses from ancient times has in every city those who preach him in the synagogues, etc.* — a veil, that is, blindness, is placed over their heart. Rom. 11:25: *blindness in part has happened, etc.*

But when and how that veil is removed from them, he shows consequently, when he says *but when it shall be converted, etc.* And first he describes the manner of removing this veil; second he gives the reason for this, at *but the Lord is the Spirit, etc.* He says therefore, that that veil is still in them, not that the old testament is veiled, but because their hearts are veiled. And therefore, in order that it may be removed, nothing remains except that they be converted, and this is what he says *but when it shall have been converted*, namely someone of them to God through faith in Christ, from that very conversion the veil will be taken away. Isa. 10:21: *the remnant shall be converted, etc.* And this same thing is found in Rom. 9:27.

And note, that when he was treating of blindness, he speaks in the plural, hence he says *over their hearts*; but when he speaks of conversion, he speaks in the singular, saying *but when it shall be converted*, in order to show their readiness toward evil, and their difficulty toward good, as if few are converted.

But the reason why they should be converted, and the veil removed, is in this way, because God wills it. For someone could say, that that veil was put on by the precept of the Lord, and therefore it cannot be removed. But the Apostle shows, that it not only can be removed, indeed that it is removed by him who is the Lord. And this is what he says *for the Lord, etc.* This can be read in two ways.

In one way, that "Spirit" be taken on the part of the subject, so that it is said: *the Spirit*, that is, the Holy Spirit, namely who is the author of the law, *is the Lord*, that is, he works from his own free choice. Jn. 3:8: *the spirit breathes where it wills.* 1 Cor. 12:11: *dividing to each as he wills.* *But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty*; as if to say: because the Spirit is the Lord, he can give liberty, that we may be able to use the Scripture of the old testament freely, without a veil. And therefore, those who do not have the Holy Spirit, cannot use it freely. Gal. 5:13: *you have been called unto liberty.* 1 Pet. 2:16: *as free, and not as having liberty as a veil of malice.*

In another way, that by "Lord" Christ be understood, and then it is read thus: *the Lord*, that is, Christ, *is spiritual*, that is, a spirit of power, and therefore *where the Spirit of the Lord is* — that is, the law of Christ understood spiritually, not written in letters, but impressed on hearts through faith — *there is liberty*, from every hindrance of the veil.

But it must be known, that on occasion of these words, namely *where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty*, and of those, namely *the law is not laid down for the just*, some have erroneously said that spiritual men are not bound by the precepts of the divine law. But this is false; for the precepts of God are the rule of the human will. But there is no man, nor even an Angel, whose will it is not necessary to be regulated and directed by the divine law. Hence it is impossible for any man not to be subject to the precepts of God. But this that is said, *the law is not laid down for the just*, is explained thus: that is, on account of the just, who are moved by an interior habit to those things which the law of God commands, the law is not laid down; but on account of the unjust — not but that the just also are bound to it.

And likewise *where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty* is understood, because he is free who is his own cause; but a servant is for the sake of a master. Whoever therefore acts from himself, acts freely; but he who is moved by another, does not act freely. He therefore, who avoids evils, not because they are evil, but on account of the commandment of the lord, is not free; but he who avoids evils, because they are evil, is free. But this the Holy Spirit does, who perfects the mind inwardly through a good habit, so that thus he takes care out of love, as if the divine law commanded it; and therefore he is called free, not but that he is subject to the divine law, but because from a good habit he is inclined to do this, which the divine law ordains.

Then, when he says *but we all, etc.*, he shows how the faithful of Christ are entirely free from this veil. He says therefore: I say that this veil is taken away from them, when someone shall have been converted as we are — not merely someone, but all of us who are faithful of Christ. Lk. 8:10: *to you it has been given, etc.* *With face unveiled*, not having a veil over the heart, as they do. And by "face" is understood the heart, or the mind, because just as by the face one sees bodily, so by the mind one sees spiritually. Ps. 118:18: *uncover my eyes, etc.*

*The glory of the Lord*, not of Moses: for glory signifies brightness, as Augustine says. But the Jews saw a certain glory in the face of Moses from this, that he had spoken with God. But this glory is imperfect, because it is not the brightness by which God himself is glorious; and this is to know God himself. Or *the glory of the Lord*, that is, the Son of God. Prov. 10: *the glory of a father is a wise son, etc.*

*Beholding* is not taken here from a watchtower, but from a mirror, that is, knowing the glorious God himself through the mirror of reason, in which there is a certain image of him. And we behold him thus when a man, from consideration of himself, rises up into some knowledge of God, and is transformed. For since all knowledge is through an assimilation of the knower to the known, it is necessary that those who see be transformed in some way into God. And if indeed they see perfectly, they are perfectly transformed, as the blessed in the fatherland through the union of enjoyment, 1 Jn. 3:2: *but when he shall appear, etc.* But if imperfectly, imperfectly, as here through faith, 1 Cor. 13:12: *we see now through a mirror in an enigma.*

And therefore he says *into the same image*, that is, as we see, *we are transformed*, I say, *from brightness into brightness*, in which he distinguishes a threefold degree of knowledge in the disciples of Christ: the first is from the brightness of natural knowledge into the brightness of the knowledge of faith. The second is from the brightness of the knowledge of the old testament, into the brightness of the knowledge of the grace of the new testament. The third is from the brightness of natural knowledge and of the old and new testament, into the brightness of eternal vision. Below, 4:16: *although the one who is outward, etc.*

But whence is this? Not from the letter of the law, but as from the Spirit of the Lord. Rom. 8:14: *whoever are led by the Spirit of God.* Ps. 142:10: *your good spirit shall lead, etc.*