[ 167 ]
Choice of the Person, and in the Power of their Will; and therefore, as by the Office of Matrimony appears, it does not say to the Person, Thou shalt take this Man, or thou shalt take this Woman, but Wilt thou take this Man, and Wilt thou take this Woman? and unless the Person says, I WILL, which is a Declaration of free Consent, and indeed strongly implies a free Choice, there can be no Matrimony.
Hence I might enter into a long Discourse of the Justice of young People on either Side, resisting the Perswasions, nay, indeed the Commands of those who otherwise they ought to obey, in a Case of this moment. I should be very loth to say any thing here to encourage Breach of Duty in Children to Parents; but as in this Case the Command seems exorbitant, so the Obedience seems to be more limited than in any other, and therefore I may go farther here than I would do in any of the Points of Subordination in other Cases.
It is a Maxim in Law as well as in Reason, there is no Duty in Obeying where there is no Authority to Command; or, if you will, thus: There is no Obligation to Obey where there is no Right to Command; the Parent has, no question, a right to Command, nay, to govern and over-rule the Child in all lawful Things: But if the Parent commands the Child to do an unlawful Action, the Child may decline it; for a Thing cannot be lawful and unlawful at the same time.
It is evident in the Case before me, if the Parent commands his Child to marry such or such a Person, and the Child either cannot love the Person, or at the same time declares he or she is engaged in Affection to another, theCom-
