Dist. 26, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/4/d/26/q/bon-sent-IV-d26-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II.
### *On the integrity of matrimony.*

Next, as to the second article, inquiry is made *concerning the integrity of matrimony*, and about this three questions are asked. First it is asked concerning integrity as regards *signification*. Second, as regards *causality*. Third, as regards *both*.

### Question I.
### *What in marriage is the sign, and what is signified.*

It is asked therefore first, what in the Sacrament of matrimony is the *sign*, and what the *thing signified*.

1. And since in the Sacraments the sign is an *element*, as Hugh says, that «a Sacrament is an element etc. representing by a likeness»; and since here there is no element, it does not seem to have the signification of a Sacrament. *If you say* to me, that man and woman stand in the character of an element; *on the contrary*:
an element differs from him who receives the Sacrament: therefore if that Sacrament belongs to man and woman as *receptive*, then not as *figurative*.

2. Likewise, as the time of truth drew near, the signs of the Sacraments ought to have been more evident: since therefore man and woman have always been the matter of this Sacrament, it seems that in the new law they are not the matter or element. — *If you say* that the *word*, by which consent is expressed, is the element; *against* this is that this was always fitting. — *If you say* that the *blessing* of the ring and of the nuptials has been added; this is nothing, because these are not of the substance of the Sacrament.

Likewise I ask, what is the *thing signified* in this Sacrament; and the Apostle seems to say to the Ephesians, chapter five, that [it is] *the conjunction of Christ and the Church*, where he says: *This is a great Sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.*

3. But if man had not sinned, Christ would not have been incarnate, according to the more common and more probable opinion; and nonetheless it would have been a great Sacrament: therefore not only the conjunction of Christ and the Church is the thing signified.

4. Likewise, if it signifies *the conjunction of the faithful soul* with God; but this is separable and dissoluble: therefore also marriage [is]. If [it signifies] *both*; then therefore, since the conjunction is twofold, and one [is] without the other, it seems therefore that this Sacrament is not one, but many.

5. Likewise, since in the other Sacraments there is something which is *thing only*, something which is *sign only*, something which is *thing and sign*; I ask whether that is in this [Sacrament]; and if it is, I ask what it is. *If you say* that the *outward consent* is the sign, the *inward* [consent] the thing and sign, the *union of Christ and the Church* the thing only; *it is objected*: because, just as they are ordered according to causality, so they are ordered according to signification: therefore if the first is not the cause of the second, but rather the reverse: it is evident etc.

### Conclusion.

> *In marriage the principal sign is the word, or the nod expressing consent, and as annexed the carnal union; but the principal thing signified is the twofold conjunction of Christ and the Church.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in the other Sacraments there is something which is *thing only*, something which is *sign only*, something which is *thing and sign*, so too in marriage. And this is general in all the Sacraments, yet it differs in the manner of comparison, and this because certain Sacraments are *wholly from institution*, certain are *partly from the dictate of nature, partly from institution*. Those are wholly from institution whose use regards the things that are of faith purely, as baptism and the eucharist; and these have signs signifying according to *institution, inwardly and outwardly*; and therefore such [Sacraments] have suitable elements, instituted and outwardly applied; and in such it is true that these signs become more evident according to the approach of the truth; and in such it is true that the first sign is the *cause of the second*, and the second in a certain manner the *cause of the third*, as is evident in baptism. — There are also others which in a certain manner are *from the instinct of nature* — such as *matrimony*, in which there is the conjunction of male and female; and *penance*, in which there is the amendment of an offense — *partly from faith*, namely that that conjunction should signify the conjunction of God and the soul, and that amendment should effect the reconciliation of God with the soul. And such [Sacraments] indeed had their *first institution* in paradise, but matrimony more [so]. And because in a certain manner they are *from nature*; and *in the state of nature* man ought not to be made subject to an element: therefore they do not come about in an *outward sensible element*; yet they have an *outward sign*, which indeed signifies the inner conjunction by the nature of its *signification*, like a *word*, or a *nod*, and *another added thing* which naturally signifies the inner consent of minds, namely the carnal union; according to which it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church, or of God and the soul, and this is according to *faith and institution*. For it is *apt by nature* and *signifies by institution*, because the one is male and signifies Christ, the other female and signifies the soul.

And from this the answer to the first [point] is evident, what the sign is here, because *first and principally* it is the *word*, or the *nod*, in which consent is expressed; while as *annexed* [there] is the distinction of the sexes.

1. 2. It is also evident why it does not have an *element*, as the other Sacraments [do]. — It is also evident why the sign did not *grow in evidentness*, because it was not wholly according to institution; therefore it is unchangeable as regards *the signifying [element] itself*, yet there is an increase in the *evidentness of signifying*, because it is now more certainly known what marriage signifies than was known before.

To that which is asked, what is *the thing signified* there; it must be said that there is one *principal* thing signified, namely the conjunction of Christ and the Church; and because this conjunction is twofold, namely through *charity* and through *conformity of nature*, it is signified in a twofold way in this Sacrament: the first through the consent of minds, the second through the mingling of the sexes.

3. To that which is objected, if man had not fallen etc.; it must be said that it would still have signified the union of Christ or of God with the Church, though not so expressly, and the conjunction with the faithful soul; but nevertheless the Lord had foreseen that it would be so, and therefore had so instituted [it]. Yet even if man had not sinned, the Sacrament would not have been empty of signification.

5. To that which is objected, that the first is not the cause of the second; it must be said that where there is signification according to institution, the first can be the cause of the second; but where [it is] by nature, the second, which is inward, is the cause of the outward, because the outward effect is the sign of the inward cause, as the word of consenting is the sign of the inward consent, as was seen in penance.