Dist. 42, Art. 3, Q. 2
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/42/q/bon-sent-IV-d42-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *Whether second marriages are sacramental.*

Secondly it is asked whether second marriages are sacramental, or have the character of a Sacrament. And that they do, it seems:

1. Because the Sacrament of marriage is effected by the consent of minds expressed through outward words between *legitimate* persons; but such [consent] exists in second marriages: therefore etc. That these persons are *legitimate* is proved from the fact that by no law are they prohibited from marriage.

2. Likewise, intercourse is excused in second marriages, otherwise the Apostle would not concede them; but intercourse in marriage is excused by reason of a sacramental remedy: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, second marriages are indissoluble just as the first are; but indissolubility in marriage does not come from the good of fidelity nor of offspring: therefore from the good which is the Sacrament.

4. Likewise, one who knows a second woman by fornicating intercourse is not made irregular, but one who knows a second woman with whom he has contracted [marriage] is made irregular: therefore this union is greater than that one; but [it is not greater] except sacramentally: therefore etc.

**Contra:**
1. One who repeats a Sacrament does it an outrage, and therefore accomplishes nothing by repeating; but in second marriages the Sacrament of marriage is repeated: therefore there is no reception of a Sacrament there, but an outrage.

2. Likewise, the bond of marriage is contracted from mutual consent; but consent is a bond of minds, and marriage is a bond which is not dissolved while the extremes remain: therefore, since souls are incorruptible, the bond of the first marriage always remains. But one bound to one person sacramentally cannot be sacramentally bound to another: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in second marriages there is a division of the flesh on the part of the man or the woman; but Christ is undivided, and the Church likewise is undivided and the spouse of one alone, and human nature is undivided from the divine: therefore the signification does not remain: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, a Sacrament is worthy of blessing, because it is sacred and sanctifying; but second marriages are not blessed: therefore there does not seem to be a Sacrament there.

### Conclusio

> Second marriages are in themselves a Sacrament, but in comparison to first marriages they have less completely the character of sacramental signification.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that there is a twofold way of speaking of second marriages, either *in themselves*, or in *relation* to the first. If *in themselves*; then, since there is there a consent expressed between legitimate persons, they are indeed a Sacrament, nor is there a division of the flesh, but a union of the flesh of man and woman. But if we speak *in comparison* to the preceding [marriages]; then there remains in them the character of the Sacrament *incomplete* on account of the division of the flesh, because in the first she united her flesh with one, in the second with another; and such division takes away from the fullness of the signification.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that the Sacrament is repeated; it must be said that a Sacrament is not said to be repeated except while the first remains; but the first is dissolved, the wife having died.

2. To that which is objected, that it is a bond of souls, which are perpetual; it must be said that the soul is both *soul* and *spirit*; and it is not a bond of souls except insofar as they are *joined to bodies*; for this bond is ordered to the commingling of the flesh: therefore it is dissolved when the soul is separated and ceases to animate.

3. 4. To that which is objected, that second marriages divide the flesh; it must be said that this is *per accidens*, because *they first unite*, and *consequently divide*; and they are a Sacrament by reason of *union*, not by reason of *division*. Yet because *division* accompanies *union* and is not part of the perfection of the Sacrament; therefore so great a solemnity is not owed to it; and because blessing pertains to solemnity, therefore such marriages are not blessed. — And thus the following is clear. — But it must be noted that marriages can be second on the part of the man and first on the part of the woman, or conversely, or on the part of both. In the first case the character of the Sacrament is more fully preserved — for Christ is united to many souls and espouses them to himself — in the second case less; in the third least of all. And therefore in the first case, when the woman is a virgin, although the man be twice-married, the marriage is blessed.

---