← Back to Distinction 32

Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 6

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 32

Textus Latinus
p. 706

Quaestio VI. Utrum Christus magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum magis dilexerit Ioannem quam Petrum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo per textum Evangelii, Ioannis decimo nono1: Hic est discipulus ille, quem diligebat Iesus; sed hoc non dicitur per discretionem, quia alios non diligeret Iesus: ergo dicitur per excellentiam, quia ipsum prae ceteris diligebat.

2. Item, hoc videtur per verbum Ecclesiae, quod trahitur de verbis Bedae; cantat enim Ecclesia2: «Hic est Ioannes, qui privilegio amoris praecipui ceteris altius a Domino meruit honorari».

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per testimonium Glossae super ultimum Ioannis3, ubi dicit Glossa Augustini, quod Petrus magis amabat, sed Ioannes magis amabatur.

4. Item, hoc videtur per signum familiaritatis divinae. Si enim Christus Ioanni se familiariorem exhibebat et maiora signa dilectionis ostendebat4; cum nihil per fictionem faceret, videtur, quod ipsum Ioannem non solum magis quam Petrum, sed etiam prae ceteris diligebat.

Sed contra: 1. Ioannis ultimo5: Dixit Dominus Petro: Simon Ioannis, diligis me plus his? sed constat, quod non sic quaereret Dominus, nisi sciret, quod eum Petrus plus amaret — unde et Glossa dicit, «quod tacite hoc innuit Iesus, dum, interrogans de amore, dicit hic quod non alibi» — sed Deus magis diligit eos qui magis se diligunt: ergo etc.

2. Item, Deus dicitur diligere quantum ad effectum, et magis diligere quantum ad excellentiorem effectum: si ergo caritas est excellentissimus effectus divinae bonitatis; si ergo maiorem caritatem dederat Petro, quia Petrus magis ipsum amabat, sicut aperte innuit Glossa6; ergo videtur, quod magis dilexit Petrum quam Ioannem.

3. Item, Christus specialissime dilexit Ecclesiam et eam commisit Petro gubernandam7: ergo videtur, quod non solum quantum ad effectum, sed etiam quantum ad signum magis dilexerit Petrum.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quis erat melior, utrum Petrus, an Ioannes? Si enim Petrus magis diligebat; et qui magis diligit melior est: ergo melior erat Petrus quam Ioannes. Rursus, si Christus magis diligebat Ioannem quam Petrum; et qui magis diligitur, ille est melior: ergo melior erat Ioannes quam Petrus; quae duo simul stare non possunt8. p. 707

Conclusio.

Istae dilectiones Christi erga Petrum et Ioannem secundum diversas considerationes se mutuo excedebant.

Respondeo: Ad huius intelligentiam est notandum, quod hic est triplex modus respondendi, quorum unus facit ad explicationem alterius. Primus est secundum Augustinum, alter secundum Bernardum et tertius secundum communem modum dicendi.

Augustinus enim ad istam quaestionem super Ioannem9 dicit respondens, quod est dilectio in signo exteriori et dilectio in effectu interiori. Si loquamur de dilectione in signo exteriori, magis diligebat Christus Ioannem, quia maiorem familiaritatem ei exhibebat, sicut patet, quia super pectus eius recubuit in coena10. Si vero loquamur de dilectione quantum ad effectum interiorem, qui est effectus gratiae; sic magis diligebat Petrum, quia maius munus gratiae sibi dederat. — Et si tu obiicias, quod Deus illi debebat maiora signa dilectionis ostendere, quem magis diligebat secundum veritatem; respondet Augustinus, quod per Ioannem et Petrum significatur duplex vita: per Petrum activa, quae transit, per Ioannem contemplativa, quae manet. Unde Petro dictum est: Sequere me11; de Ioanne vero: Sic eum volo manere. Et quoniam activa laboriosior est et fructuosior, contemplativa vero purior et iucundior; ideo ad significandam differentiam huius duplicis vitae familiarius se exhibebat Dominus Ioanni quam Petro. In cuius rei signum commisit Dominus Ioanni Matrem custodiendam, Petro vero pastoralem curam. Et ex hoc dicit Augustinus, quod Petrus erat melior, sed Ioannes felicior. — Et secundum istum modum dicendi satis patet responsio ad obiecta, quia procedunt secundum diversas vias.

Alius modus respondendi secundum Bernardum12 est, quod Petrus dilexit ferventius et diligebatur fortius; Ioannes vero dilexit dulcius et diligebatur familiarius. Et sic secundum diversas vias de utroque potest concedi, quod magis diligebat, et etiam, quod magis diligebatur, secundum quod rationes ad utramque partem inductae ostendunt.

Tertius est modus dicendi, quod Petrus magis dilexit Deum in proximo; Ioannes magis dilexit Deum in se. Unde Petrus accepit curam regiminis, sed Ioannes gratiam contemplationis; unde Petrus efficaciorem habuit gratiam ad laborem actionis, Ioannes vero efficaciorem ad quietem contemplationis.

Omnes autem hi modi dicendi sunt satis congrui, et unus magis explicat alterum. Ideo enim Ioannes dilexit dulcius et Petrus ferventius, quia Ioan- p. 708 nes accepit specialiter gratiam ad amandum Deum in se per contemplationis saporem; Petrus vero praecipue ad diligendum Deum in proximo per actionis laborem. Et hinc est, quod Petrus diligebatur a Christo fortius quantum ad effectum gratiae interioris; Ioannes vero familiarius quantum ad signa exterioris conversationis. — Haec autem signa familiaritatis Dominus exhibebat Ioanni non solum propter significationem, sed etiam propter qualitatem personae. Diligebat enim Dominus Ioannem, sicut dicit Chrysostomus13, magis familiariter propter ingenitam mansuetudinem et propter virginalem puritatem et etiam propter iuventutem, quae etiam, ceteris paribus, facit hominem diligi magis tenere.

His visis, patet responsio ad quaestionem et ad obiecta, quoniam isti duo in dilectione Dei secundum diversas considerationes se mutuo excedebant. Hinc est, quod secundum quod aliqui diversimode afficiuntur, praeponunt Ioannem Petro, quidam vero sentiunt e converso. — Sed quis eorum apud Deum finaliter fuerit carior, hoc14 melius sciemus in gloria, et melius est exspectare quam hic temere definire. Hoc tantum dixisse sufficiat, quia ille altior est in caelis, qui finaliter maiorem caritatem habuit in terris; et hoc dico quantum ad magnitudinem praemii substantialis. Nam quantum ad decorem aureolae, quae respondet continentiae virginali, non est inconveniens, Ioannem Petro praeponi15.

---

English Translation

Question VI. Whether Christ loved John more than Peter.

Sixthly and lastly it is asked, whether He loved John more than Peter. And that [He did], seems to be the case:

1. First by the text of the Gospel, John, chapter nineteen1: This is that disciple whom Jesus loved; but this is not said by way of distinction, as if Jesus did not love the others: therefore it is said by way of excellence, because He loved him above the rest.

2. Likewise, this seems [to be the case] by the word of the Church, which is drawn from the words of Bede; for the Church sings2: «This is John, who by the privilege of His special love merited to be honored by the Lord more highly than the rest».

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to be the case] by the testimony of the Gloss on the last [chapter] of John3, where the Gloss of Augustine says that Peter loved more, but John was loved more.

4. Likewise, this seems [to be the case] by the sign of divine familiarity. For if Christ showed Himself more familiar to John and displayed greater signs of love4; since He did nothing by pretense, it seems that He loved John not only more than Peter, but also above the rest.

On the contrary: 1. John, the last [chapter]5: The Lord said to Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? but it is settled that the Lord would not ask thus, unless He knew that Peter loved Him more — whence also the Gloss says, «that Jesus tacitly intimates this, when, asking about love, He says here what [He says] nowhere else» — but God loves more those who love Him more: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, God is said to love as to the effect, and to love more as to a more excellent effect: if therefore charity is the most excellent effect of divine goodness; if therefore He had given a greater charity to Peter, because Peter loved Him more, as the Gloss openly intimates6; therefore it seems that He loved Peter more than John.

3. Likewise, Christ in a most special way loved the Church and entrusted it to Peter to be governed7: therefore it seems that not only as to the effect, but also as to the sign He loved Peter more.

In connection with this it is asked: which was the better, Peter or John? For if Peter loved more; and he who loves more is the better: therefore Peter was better than John. Again, if Christ loved John more than Peter; and he who is loved more, he is the better: therefore John was better than Peter; which two things cannot stand together8.

Conclusion.

These loves of Christ toward Peter and John, according to diverse considerations, mutually exceeded each other.

I respond: For the understanding of this it must be noted that here there is a threefold mode of responding, of which one serves for the explanation of the other. The first is according to Augustine, the second according to Bernard, and the third according to the common mode of speaking.

For Augustine, in responding to this question on John9, says that there is a love in the exterior sign and a love in the interior effect. If we speak of the love in the exterior sign, Christ loved John more, because He showed him greater familiarity, as is clear, since he reclined upon His breast at the supper10. But if we speak of the love as to the interior effect, which is the effect of grace; thus He loved Peter more, because He had given him a greater gift of grace. — And if you object that God ought to show greater signs of love to the one whom He loved more according to truth; Augustine responds that by John and Peter a twofold life is signified: by Peter the active [life], which passes away, by John the contemplative, which remains. Whence to Peter it was said: Follow me11; but of John: So I will have him to remain. And since the active [life] is more laborious and more fruitful, but the contemplative purer and more delightful; therefore, to signify the difference of this twofold life, the Lord showed Himself more familiar to John than to Peter. As a sign of this, the Lord entrusted to John His Mother to be guarded, but to Peter the pastoral care. And from this Augustine says that Peter was the better, but John the happier. — And according to this mode of speaking the response to the objections is sufficiently clear, because they proceed along diverse paths.

Another mode of responding, according to Bernard12, is that Peter loved more fervently and was loved more strongly; but John loved more sweetly and was loved more familiarly. And thus, along diverse paths, of each it can be conceded that he loved more, and also that he was loved more, according as the reasons adduced for each side show.

The third is the mode of speaking, that Peter loved God more in [his] neighbor; John loved God more in Himself. Whence Peter received the care of government, but John the grace of contemplation; whence Peter had a more efficacious grace for the labor of action, but John a more efficacious [grace] for the rest of contemplation.

Now all these modes of speaking are sufficiently fitting, and one explains the other more [fully]. For John loved more sweetly and Peter more fervently, because John re-ceived specially the grace for loving God in Himself through the savor of contemplation; but Peter chiefly for loving God in [his] neighbor through the labor of action. And hence it is that Peter was loved by Christ more strongly as to the effect of interior grace; but John more familiarly as to the signs of exterior conversation. — But these signs of familiarity the Lord showed to John not only because of their signification, but also because of the quality of the person. For the Lord loved John, as Chrysostom says13, more familiarly because of his inborn meekness and because of his virginal purity and also because of his youth, which also, other things being equal, makes a man to be loved more tenderly.

These things seen, the response to the question and to the objections is clear, since these two, in the love of God, according to diverse considerations mutually exceeded each other. Hence it is that, according as some are differently affected, they prefer John to Peter, but certain others judge the reverse. — But which of them was finally dearer in the sight of God, this14 we shall better know in glory, and it is better to wait than rashly to define it here. Let it suffice to have said only this, that he is higher in heaven who finally had the greater charity on earth; and this I say as to the magnitude of the substantial reward. For as to the beauty of the aureole, which corresponds to virginal continence, it is not unfitting that John be preferred to Peter15.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 26, ubi tamen verba Hic est discipulus ille non habentur, sed tantum illa quem diligebat Iesus. Verba priora leguntur Ioan. 21, 24. — Superius pro quam Petrum plurimi codd. an Petrum. In minori pro quia, quae lectio est in codd., Vat., quasi, edd. 1, 2 quod.
    Verse 26, where however the words This is that disciple are not had, but only those, whom Jesus loved. The former words are read in John 21:24. — Above, for quam Petrum very many codices [read] an Petrum. In the minor [premise] for quia, which is the reading in the codices [and in the] Vatican edition, quasi, editions 1, 2 quod.
  2. In festo S. Ioan. (27. Dec.) resp. lect. 2. Noct. I. — Beda, l. Homil. homil. 8. in die natali S. Ioan. ait: Diligebat autem eum Iesus non, exceptis ceteris, singulariter solum, sed prae ceteris, quos diligebat, familiarius unum, quem specialis praerogativa castitatis ampliori dilectione fecerat dignum... hunc prae ceteris diligit, qui virgo electus ab ipso, virgo in aevum permansit. Cfr. eius Exposit. in Evang. Ioan. 21, 23.
    On the feast of St. John (27 Dec.), responsory, lection 2, Nocturn I. — Bede, in the book of Homilies, homily 8, on the natal day of St. John, says: Now Jesus loved him not singularly alone, the rest being excepted, but above the rest whom He loved [He loved] more familiarly the one whom the special prerogative of chastity had made worthy of a fuller love... He loves above the rest this one, who, a virgin chosen by Him, remained a virgin forever. Cf. his Exposition on the Gospel of John 21:23.
  3. Vers. 20. seqq. — Glossa sumta est ex August. Exposit. in hunc loc. tr. 124. n. 4-8. — A Vat. absunt verba amabat, sed Ioannes magis.
    Verse 20 ff. — The Gloss is taken from Augustine's Exposition on this passage, tr. 124, n. 4-8. — From the Vatican edition the words loved, but John more are absent.
  4. Ioan. 13, 23: Erat ergo recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Iesu, quem diligebat Iesus. Et ibid. 19, 26. seq.: Mulier, ecce filius tuus. Deinde dicit discipulo: Ecce mater tua etc. — Pro se familiariorem exhibebat cod. A per familiaritatem se exhibebat.
    John 13:23: There was therefore reclining one of His disciples in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus loved. And ibid. 19:26 f.: Woman, behold thy son. Then He says to the disciple: Behold thy mother etc. — For se familiariorem exhibebat codex A [reads] per familiaritatem se exhibebat.
  5. Vers. 15. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum sic sonat: Iesus scit quod interrogat, an plus diligat; Petrus quod de se novit dicit, id est quod amat; et quia de aliis quantum diligant, nescit, ideo utrum plus illis diligat, tacet. Ecce docet non temere definire de occultis... Pasce agnos meos. Si me diligis, pasce agnos meos, non ut tuos; gloriam meam in eis quaere, non tuam... Haec autem caritas ex divina datur gratia. Quod tacite innuit Iesus, dum, interrogans de amore, dicit hic quod non alibi: Simon Ioannis, id est obediens Dei gratiae, quia quod ardentius ceteris diligit et obedit, non est nisi Dei gratia. — In textu Glossae plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 omittunt quod ante non alibi. Paulo superius pro non sic quaereret... nisi sciret... plus amaret cod. Z non sic quaerebat... nisi quia sciebat... plus amabat. In fine arg. pro se diligunt cod. G diligunt eum.
    Verse 15. — The Ordinary Gloss in Strabo runs thus: Jesus knows what He asks, whether [Peter] loves more; Peter says what he knows of himself, that is, that he loves; and because he does not know how much the others love, therefore he is silent as to whether he loves more than they. Behold, He teaches [us] not to define rashly about hidden things... Feed my lambs. If thou lovest me, feed my lambs, not as thine own; seek my glory in them, not thine own... Now this charity is given from divine grace. Which Jesus tacitly intimates, when, asking about love, He says here what [He says] nowhere else: Simon, son of John, that is, obedient to God's grace, because that he loves and obeys more ardently than the rest is nothing but God's grace. — In the text of the Gloss very many codices and editions 1, 2 omit quod before non alibi. A little above, for non sic quaereret... nisi sciret... plus amaret codex Z [reads] non sic quaerebat... nisi quia sciebat... plus amabat. At the end of the argument, for se diligunt codex G [reads] diligunt eum.
  6. In Ioan. 21, 20. seqq.; vide supra arg. 3. pro parte affirm. De maiori cfr. supra q. 2. in corp.
    On John 21:20 ff.; see above, arg. 3 for the affirmative side. On the major [premise] cf. above, q. 2, in the body.
  7. Cfr. Matth. 16, 18. seq. et Ioan. 21, 18. seqq.
    Cf. Matt. 16:18 f. and John 21:18 ff.
  8. Cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 124. n. 4, ubi hae aliaeque similes quaestiones tractantur.
    Cf. Augustine, on the Gospel of John, tr. 124, n. 4, where these and other similar questions are treated.
  9. Tract. 124. n. 4-8. — Subinde pro dicit respondens codd. G K dicit respondendo, codd. A N U Z bb docet respondere, cod. 1 videtur respondere, cod. H dicitur respondere. Mox et aliquanto inferius iterum pro in effectu interiori edd. perperam substituunt (cfr. arg. 2. pro parte negativa) in affectu interiori. Denique post Ioannem edd. supplent quam Petrum.
    Tract. 124, n. 4-8. — Thereupon for dicit respondens codices G K [read] dicit respondendo, codices A N U Z bb docet respondere, codex 1 videtur respondere, codex H dicitur respondere. Soon, and somewhat lower down again, for in effectu interiori the editions wrongly substitute (cf. arg. 2 for the negative side) in affectu interiori. Finally, after Ioannem the editions supply quam Petrum.
  10. Ioan. 21, 20.
    John 21:20.
  11. Ioan. 21, 19. et 22, ubi et seq. testimonium. — Paulo inferius pro purior cod. K praeclarior.
    John 21:19 and 22, where also the following testimony [is found]. — A little below, for purior codex K [reads] praeclarior.
  12. Serm. 29. de Diversis, n. 5. et Serm. 20. in Cant. n. 5, ubi Petri amor fortis fuisse praedicatur. Cfr. Guerici abbat. Serm. in Assumt. B. M. V. n. 3. (inter opera Bernardi). — Paulo superius pro diversas vias cod. k duas vias.
    Sermon 29, On Various [Topics], n. 5, and Sermon 20 on the Canticle, n. 5, where Peter's love is proclaimed to have been strong. Cf. the Sermon of Abbot Guerric on the Assumption of the B. V. M., n. 3 (among the works of Bernard). — A little above, for diversas vias codex k [reads] duas vias.
  13. In Ioan. homil. 33. (alias 32.) n. 3: Quid ergo illi hunc eximium amorem conciliavit? Videtur mihi ille modestiam et mansuetudinem magnam exhibuisse; quapropter saepe non ita libere et fidenter agere deprehenditur. — Pro ingenitam mansuetudinem cod. W rectius (quia respondet textui Graeco πολλὴν πρᾳότητα) ingentem mansuetudinem. — Cfr. Hieron., l. adversus Iovinian. n. 26, ubi pro ratione praedilectionis affertur iuventus et virginitas Ioannis.
    On John, homily 33 (elsewhere 32), n. 3: What then won for him this exceptional love? It seems to me that he displayed great modesty and meekness; wherefore he is often found not acting so freely and confidently. — For ingenitam mansuetudinem codex W more correctly (since it corresponds to the Greek text πολλὴν πρᾳότητα) [reads] ingentem mansuetudinem. — Cf. Jerome, the book against Jovinian, n. 26, where the youth and virginity of John are adduced as the reason for [Christ's] special love.
  14. Multi codd. et hoc. Mox pro Hoc tantum... quia codd. A X Hic tamen... quod.
    Many codices [read] et hoc. Soon, for Hoc tantum... therefore codices A X [read] Hic tamen... quod.
  15. Vide scholion ad 4. quaest.
    See the scholion to question 4.
← Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 5Dist. 32, Dubia→