[ 101 ]
so he had but her Money, which was, it seems, what he took her for. Now, was this Matrimony? No, no, it might be Marriage, but I deny that it was Matrimony; here was nothing of GOD's holy Ordinance, or taking one another according to that Ordinance; it was all a contradiction of the main Design; in short, it was a something that wants a Name; and what can be said to contradict me if I should call it a Matrimonial Whoredom?
Well might this Couple answer or say after the Parson, I N, take thee N. But they could never have been married if the Office had run, I N. choose thee N, out of my sincere Affection to thee, and for that Reason take thee, &c. What would have become of us all if this had been the solemn Part or Oath of the Marriage Covenant, and that it had been taken upon Pain of Perjury? How few are there that would dare to be married upon that Foot?
Some are of the Opinion, prudential Matches, as they call them, are best. They tell us, 'tis the Parents business to choose Wives for their Sons, and Husbands for their Daughters; that let them be tied together first, they will toy together till they love afterwards; that Property begets Affection, and that if all other Things hit, they may run the risque of the Love with less inconvenience.
But I must enter my Protest here: I think they that make a Toy of the Affection, will make a Toy of the Matrimony; they seem to know little of the Misery of those Matches who think they are to be toyed into Love after Consummation: how often are they cloyed with one another's Company before the Affection comes in? How little Force has the sport of Mar-riage,
