hurch is able to diminish
the evils of its doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage by the number
of impediments to marriage it admits, thus affording free scope for
dispensations from marriage. This scarcely seems to be the case. Dr. P.J.
Hayes, who speaks with authority as Chancellor of the Catholic Archdiocese
of New York, states ("Impediments to Marriage in the Catholic Church,"
_North American Review_, May, 1905) that even in so modern and so mixed a
community as this there are few applications for dispensations on account
of impediments; there are 15,000 Catholic marriages per annum in New York
City, but scarcely five per annum are questioned as to validity, and these
chiefly on the ground of bigamy.

[331] The Canonists, say Pollock and Maitland (loc. cit.), "made a
capricious mess of the marriage law." "Seldom," says Howard (_op. cit._,
vol i, p. 340), "have mere theory and subtle quibbling had more disastrous
consequences in practical life than in the case of the distinction between
_sponsalia de praesenti_ and _de futuro_."

[332] Howard, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 386 et seq. On the whole, however,
Luther's opinion was that marriage, though a sacred and mysterious thing,
is not a sacrament; his various statements on the matter are brought
together by Strampff, _Luther ueber die Ehe_, pp. 204-214.

[333] Howard, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 61 et seq.

[334] Probably as a result of the somewhat confused and incoherent
attitude of the Reformers, the Canon law of marriage, in a modified form,
really persisted in Protestant countries to a greater extent than in
Catholic countries; in France, especially, it has been much more
profoundly modified (Esmein, op. cit., vol. i, p. 33).

[335] The Quaker conception of marriage is still vitally influential.
"Why," says Mrs. Besant (_Marriage_, p. 19), "should not we take a leaf
out of the Quaker's book, and substitute for the present legal forms of
marriage a simple declaration publicly made?"

[336] Howard, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 456. The actual practice in
Pennsylvania appears, however, to differ little from that usual in the
other States.

[337] Howard, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 109. "It is, indeed, wonderful,"
Howard remarks, "that a great nation, priding herself on a love of equity
and social liberty, should thus for five generations tolerate an invidious
indulgence, rather than frankly and courageously to free herself from the
shackles of an ecclesiastical tradition."