Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 6
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/32/q/bon-sent-III-d32-a1-q6
----------------------------------------
### 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 nineteen: *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 sings: «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 John, 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 love; 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]: *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 intimates; 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 governed: 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 together.

### 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 John, 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 supper. 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 me*; 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 *Bernard*, 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 says, 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, this 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 Peter.

---