Part 7

That the Custom of the World, has put Women, generally speaking, into a State of Subjection, is not denied; but the Right can no more be prov’d from the Fact, than the Predominancy of Vice can justify it. A certain great Man, has endeavour’d to prove, by Reasons not contemptible, that in the Original State of Things the Woman was the Superior, and that her Subjection to the Man is an Effect of the Fall, and the Punishment of her Sin: And, that ingenious Theorist Mr. _Whiston_, asserts, That before the Fall there was a greater Equality between the two Sexes. However this be, ’tis certainly no Arrogance in a Woman to conclude, that she was made for the Service of _GOD_, and that this is her End. Because _GOD_ made all Things for Himself, and a rational Mind is too noble a Being to be made for the Sake and Service of any Creature. The Service she at any Time becomes oblig’d to pay to a Man, is only a Business by the Bye, just as it may be any Man’s Business and Duty to keep Hogs; he was not Made for this, but if he Hires himself out to such an Employment, he ought conscientiously to perform it. Nor can any thing be concluded to the contrary from St. _Paul_’s Argument, 1 _Cor._ xi. for he argues only for Decency and Order, according to the present Custom and State of Things: Taking his Words strictly and literally, they prove too much, in that, _Praying and Prophecying in the Church_ are allow’d the Women, provided they do it with their Head cover’d as well as the Men; and no Inequality can be inferr’d from hence, neither from the Gradation the Apostle there uses, that _the Head of every Man is Christ, and that the Head of the Woman is the Man, and the Head of Christ is_ _GOD_; it being evident from the Form of Baptism, that there is no natural Inferiority among the Divine Persons, but that they are in all Things Coequal. The Apostle, indeed, adds, that _the Man is the Glory of_ _GOD_, _and the Woman the Glory of the Man_, _&c._ But what does he infer from hence? He says not a Word of Inequality, or natural Inferiority; but concludes, that a Woman ought to cover her Head, and a Man ought not to cover his, and _that even Nature it self teaches_ us, that _if a Man have long Hair it is a Shame unto him_. Whatever the Apostle’s Argument proves in this Place, nothing can be plainer, than that there is much more said against the present Fashion of Mens wearing long Hair, than for that Supremacy they lay claim to. For by all that appears in the Text, it is not so much a Law of Nature, that Women should obey Men, as that Men should not wear long Hair. Now how can a Christian Nation allow Fashions contrary to the Law of Nature, forbidden by an Apostle, and declared by him to be a Shame to Men? Or if Custom may make an Alteration in one Case, it may in another, but what then becomes of the Nature and Reason of Things? Besides, the Conclusion the Apostle draws from his Argument concerning Women, _viz._ that they _should have Power on their Heads because of the Angels_, is so very obscure a Text, that that ingenious Paraphrast, who pleads so much for the _Natural Subjection_ of Women, ingenuously confesses, that he does not understand it. Probably it refers to some Custom among the _Corinthians_, which being well known to them, the Apostle only hints at it, but which we are ignorant of, and therefore apt to mistake him. ’Tis like, that the false Apostle whom St. _Paul_ writes against, had _led Captive_ some of their rich and powerful, but _silly Women_, who having as mean an Opinion of the Reason _GOD_ had given them, as any Deceiver could desire, did not, like the noble-minded _Bereans, search the Scriptures whether those things were so_, but lazily took up with having Mens Persons in admiration, and follow’d their Leaders blindfold, the certain Rout to Destruction. And it is also probable, that the same cunning Seducer imploy’d these Women to carry on his own Designs, and putting them upon what he might not think fit to appear in himself, made them guilty of indecent Behaviour in the Church of _Corinth_. And therefore St. _Paul_ thought it necessary to reprove them so severely, in order to humble them; but this being done, he takes care in the Conclusion to set the Matter on a right Foot, placing the two Sexes on a Level, to keep Men, as much as might be, from taking those Advantages which People who have Strength in their Hands, are apt to assume over those who can’t contend with them. For, says he, _Nevertheless_, or notwithstanding the former Argument, _the Man is not without the Woman, nor the Woman without the Man, but all Things of_ _GOD_. The Relation between the two Sexes is mutual, and the Dependance reciprocal, both of them depending intirely upon _GOD_, and upon Him only; which, one would think, is no great Argument of the natural Inferiority of either Sex.

Our _Reflector_ is of Opinion, that Disputes of this kind, extending to Human Nature in general, and not peculiar to those to whom the Word of _GOD_ has been reveal’d, ought to be decided by Natural Reason only. And, that the Holy Scripture should not be interested in the present Controversy, in which it determines nothing, any more than it does between the _Copernican_ and _Ptolomean_ Systems. The Design of those Holy Books being to make us excellent Moralists and perfect Christians, not great Philosophers; and being writ for the Vulgar as well as for the Learned, they are accommodated to the common way of Speech and the Usage of the World; in which we have but a short Probation, so that it matters not much what Part we act, whether of Governing or Obeying, provided we perform it well with respect to the World to come.

One does not wonder, indeed, that when an Adversary is drove to a Nonplus, and Reason declares against him, he flies to Authority, especially to Divine, which is infallible, and therefore ought not to be disputed. But Scripture is not always on their Side who make Parade of it, and through their Skill in Languages, and the Tricks of the Schools, wrest it from its genuine Sense to their own Inventions. And supposing, not granting, that it were apparently to the Womens Disadvantage, no fair and generous Adversary but would be asham’d to urge this Advantage: Because Women, without their own Fault, are kept in Ignorance of the Original, wanting Languages and other Helps to Criticise on the Sacred Text, of which, they know no more, than Men are pleas’d to impart in their Translations. In short, they shew their Desire to maintain their Hypotheses, but by no means their Reverence to the Sacred Oracles, who engage them in such Disputes. And therefore, the Blame be theirs, who have unnecessarily introduc’d them in the present Subject, and who, by saying, that the _Reflections_ were not agreeable to Scripture, oblige the Reflector to shew, that those who affirm it must either mistake her Meaning, or the Sense of Holy Scripture, or both, if they think what they say, and do not find fault meerly because they resolve to do so. For, had she ever writ any thing contrary to those sacred Truths, she would be the first in pronouncing its Condemnation.

But what says the Holy Scripture? It speaks of Women as in a State of Subjection, and so it does of the _Jews_ and _Christians_, when under the Dominion of the _Chaldeans_ and _Romans_, requiring of the one as well as of the other, a quiet Submission to them under whose Power they liv’d. But will any one say, that these had a _Natural Superiority_ and Right to Dominion? that they had a superior Understanding, or any Pre-eminence, except what their greater Strength acquir’d? Or, that the other were subjected to their Adversaries for any other Reason but the Punishment of their Sins, and, in order to their Reformation? Or for the Exercise of their Vertue, and because the Order of the World and the Good of Society requir’d it?

If Mankind had never Sin’d, Reason would always have been obeyed, there would have been no Struggle for Dominion, and Brutal Power would not have prevail’d. But in the lapsed State of Mankind, and now, that Men will not be guided by their Reason but by their Appetites, and do not what they _ought_ but what they _can_, the Reason, or that which stands for it, the Will and Pleasure of the Governor, is to be the Reason of those who will not be guided by their own, and must take Place for Order’s sake, although it should not be conformable to right Reason. Nor can there be any Society great or little, from Empires down to private Families, without a last Resort, to determine the Affairs of that Society by an irresistable Sentence. Now unless this Supremacy be fix’d somewhere, there will be a perpetual Contention about it, such is the Love of Dominion, and let the Reason of Things be what it may, those who have least Force or Cunning to supply it, will have the Disadvantage. So that since Women are acknowledged to have least Bodily Strength, their being commanded to Obey is in pure Kindness to them, and for their Quiet and Security, as well as for the Exercise of their Vertue. But does it follow, that Domestick Governors have more Sense than their Subjects, any more than that other Governors have? We do not find that any Man thinks the worse of his own Understanding, because another has superior Power; or concludes himself less capable of a Post of Honour and Authority, because he is not prefer’d to it. How much Time would lie on Mens Hands, how empty would the Places of Concourse be, and how silent most Companies, did Men forbear to censure their Governors, that is, in effect, to think themselves wiser. Indeed, Government would be much more desirable than it is, did it invest the Possessor with a superior Understanding as well as Power. And if meer Power gives a Right to Rule, there can be no such Thing as Usurpation; but a Highway-Man, so long as he has Strength to force, has also a Right to require our Obedience.

Again, if absolute Sovereignty be not necessary in a State, how comes it to be so in a Family? Or if in a Family why not in a State; since no Reason can be alledged for the one that will not hold more strongly for the other? If the Authority of the Husband, so far as it extends, is sacred and inalienable, why not that of the Prince? The Domestick Sovereign is without Dispute elected, and the Stipulations and Contract are mutual; is it not then partial in Men to the last Degree, to contend for, and practise that Arbitrary Dominion in their Families, which they abhor and exclaim against in the State? For if Arbitrary Power is evil in it self, and an improper Method of Governing Rational and Free Agents, it ought not to be practis’d any where; nor is it less, but rather more mischievous in Families than in Kingdoms, by how much 100,000 Tyrants are worse than one. What though a Husband can’t deprive a Wife of Life without being responsible to the Law, he may, however, do what is much more grievous to a generous Mind, render Life miserable, for which she has no Redress, scarce Pity, which is afforded to every other Complainant, it being thought a Wife’s Duty to suffer every thing without Complaint. If _all Men are born Free_, how is it that all Women are born Slaves? As they must be, if the being subjected to the _inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary Will_ of Men, be the _perfect Condition of Slavery_? And, if the Essence of Freedom consists, as our Masters say it does, in having a _standing Rule to live by_? And why is Slavery so much condemn’d and strove against in one Case, and so highly applauded, and held so necessary and so sacred in another?

’Tis true, that _GOD_ told _Eve_ after the Fall, that _her Husband should Rule over her_: And so it is, that he told _Esau_ by the Mouth of _Isaac_ his Father, that he should _serve_ his _younger Brother_, and should in Time, and when he was strong enough to do it, _break the Yoke from off his Neck_. Now, why one Text should be a Command any more than the other, and not both of them be Predictions only; or why the former should prove _Adam_’s Natural Right to Rule, and much less every Man’s, any more than the latter is a Proof of _Jacob_’s Right to Rule, and of _Esau_’s to Rebel, one is yet to learn? The Text in both Cases foretelling what would be; but neither of them determining what _ought_ to be.

But the Scripture commands _Wives_ to _submit themselves to their own Husbands_. True; for which St. _Paul_ gives a Mystical Reason (_Eph._ v. 22, _&c._) and St. _Peter_, a Prudential and Charitable one (1 _Pet._ iii.) but neither of them derive that Subjection from the Law of Nature. Nay, St. _Paul_, as if he foresaw and meant to prevent this Plea, giving Directions for their Conduct to Women in general, 1 _Tim._ ii. when he comes to speak of _Subjection_, he changes his Phrase from _Women_, which denotes the whole Sex, to _Woman_, which in the New Testament is appropriated to a Wife.

As for his not suffering Women to speak in the Church, no sober Person that I know of pretends to it. That learned Paraphrast, indeed, who lays so much Stress on the _Natural Subjection_, provided this Prerogative be secur’d, is willing to give up the other. For he endeavours to prove, that Inspir’d Women, as well as Men, us’d to speak in the Church, and that St. _Paul_ does not forbid it, but only takes care that the Women should signify their Subjection by wearing a Veil. But the Apostle is his own best Expositor, let us therefore compare his Precepts with his Practice, for he was all of a Piece, and did not contradict himself. Now by this Comparison we find, that though he forbids Women to teach in the Church, and this for several Prudential Reasons, like those he introduces with an _I give my Opinion, and now speak I, not the Lord_, and not because of any Law of Nature, or positive Divine Precept, for that the Words _they are commanded_ (1 _Cor._ xiv. 24.) are not in the Original, appears from the _Italick_ Character, yet he did not found this Prohibition on any suppos’d want of Understanding in Woman, or of Ability to teach; neither does he confine them at all Times to _learn in Silence_. For the eloquent _Apollos_, who was himself a Teacher, was instructed by _Priscilla_, as well as by her Husband _Aquila_, and was improv’d by them both in the Christian Faith. Nor does St. _Paul_ blame her for this, or suppose that she _usurp’d Authority over_ that great _Man_; so far from this, that as she is always honourably mention’d in Holy Scripture, so our Apostle, in his Salutations, _Rom._ xvi. places her in the Front, even before her Husband, giving to her, as well as to him, the Noble Title of, _his Helper in Christ Jesus_, and of one _to whom all the Churches of the_ Gentiles had great Obligations.

But, it will be said perhaps, that in 1 _Tim._ ii. 13, _&c._ St. _Paul_ argues for the Woman’s Subjection from the Reason of Things. To this I answer, that it must be confess’d, that this (according to the vulgar Interpretation) is a very obscure Place, and I should be glad to see a Natural, and not a Forc’d Interpretation given of it by those who take it Literally: Whereas if it be taken Allegorically, with respect to the Mystical Union between Christ and his Church, to which St. _Paul_ frequently accommodates the Matrimonial Relation, the Difficulties vanish. For the Earthly _Adam_’s being _form’d_ before _Eve_, seems as little to prove her Natural Subjection to him, as the living Creatures, Fishes, Birds and Beasts being form’d before them both, proves that Mankind must be subject to these Animals. Nor can the Apostle mean that _Eve_ only sinned; or that she only was _Deceiv’d_, for if _Adam_ sinn’d wilfully and knowingly, he became the greater Transgressor. But it is very true, that the Second _Adam_, the Man Christ Jesus, _was first form’d_, and then his Spouse the Church. He was not in any respect _Deceiv’d_, nor does she pretend to Infallibility. And from this second _Adam_, promis’d to _Eve_ in the Day of our first Parents Transgression, and from Him only, do all their Race, Men as well as Women, derive their Hopes of Salvation. Nor is it promis’d to either Sex on any other Terms besides Perseverance in _Faith, Charity, Holiness and Sobriety_.

If the Learned will not admit of this Interpretation, I know not how to contend with them. For Sense is a Portion that _GOD_ Himself has been pleased to distribute to both Sexes with an impartial Hand, but Learning is what Men have engross’d to themselves, and one can’t but admire their great Improvements! For, after doubting whether there was such a Thing as Truth, and after many hundred Years Disputes about it, in the last Century an extraordinary Genius arose, (whom yet, some are pleased to call a Visionary) enquir’d after it, and laid down the best Method of finding it. Not to the general Liking of the Men of Letters, perhaps, because it was wrote in a vulgar Language, and was so natural and easy as to debase Truth to common Understandings, shewing too plainly, that Learning and true Knowledge are two very different Things. “For it often happens (says that Author) that Women and Children acknowledge the Falsehood of those Prejudices we contend with, because they do not dare to judge without Examination, and they bring all the Attention they are capable of to what they read. Whereas on the contrary, the Learned continue wedded to their own Opinions, because they will not take the Trouble of examining what is contrary to their receiv’d Doctrines.”

Sciences, indeed, have been invented and taught long ago, and, as Men grew better advis’d, new modelled. So that it is become a considerable Piece of Learning to give an Account of the Rise and Progress of the Sciences, and of the various Opinions of Men concerning them. But Certainty and Demonstration are much pretended to in this present Age, and being obtain’d in many Things, ’tis hoped Men will never Dispute them away in that which is of greatest Importance, the Way of Salvation. And because there is not any thing more certain than what is delivered in the Oracles of _GOD_, we come now to consider what they offer in Favour of our Sex.

Let it be premis’d, (according to the Reasoning of a very ingenious Person in a like Case) that one Text for us, is more to be regarded than many against us. Because that _One_ being different from what Custom has established, ought to be taken with Philosophical Strictness; whereas the _Many_ being express’d according to the vulgar Mode of Speech, ought to have no greater Stress laid on them, than that evident Condescension will bear. One Place then were sufficient, but we have many Instances wherein Holy Scripture considers Women very differently from what they appear in the common Prejudices of Mankind.

The World will hardly allow a Woman to say any thing well, unless, as she borrows it from Men, or as assisted by them: But _GOD_ Himself allows that the Daughters of _Zelophehad spake right_, and passes their Request into a Law. Considering how much the Tyranny, shall I say, or the superior Force of Men, keeps Women from Acting in the World, or doing any thing considerable, and remembring withal the Conciseness of the Sacred Story, no small Part of it is bestow’d in transmitting the History of Women, famous in their Generations: Two of the Canonical Books, bearing the Names of those great Women whose Vertues and Actions are there recorded. _Ruth_ being call’d from among the _Gentiles_ to be an Ancestor of the Messiah, and _Esther_ being rais’d up by _GOD_ to be the great Instrument of the Deliverance and Prosperity of the _Jewish_ Church.

The Character of _Isaac_, though one of the most blameless Men taken Notice of in the Old Testament, must give Place to _Rebecca_’s, whose Affections are more reasonably plac’d than his, her Favourite Son being the same who was _GOD_’s Favourite. Nor was the Blessing bestow’d according to his, but to her Desire; so that if you will not allow, that her Command to _Jacob_ superseded _Isaac_’s to _Esau_, his Desire to give the Blessing to this Son, being evidently an Effect of his Partiality; you must at least grant, that she paid greater Deference to the Divine Revelation, and for this Reason, at least, had a Right to oppose her Husband’s Design; which, it seems, _Isaac_ was sensible of, when upon his Disappointment, he _trembled so exceedingly_. And so much Notice is taken even of _Rebecca_’s Nurse, that we have an Account where she died, and where she was buried.

_GOD_ is pleas’d to Record it among His Favours to the ingrateful _Jews_, that He sent before them His Servants _Moses_, _Aaron_, and MIRIAM; who was also a Prophetess, and instructed the Women how to bear their Part with _Moses_ in his Triumphal Hymn. Is she to be blam’d for her Ambition? And is not the High Priest _Aaron_ also, who has his Share in the Reproof as well as in the Crime? nor could she have mov’d Sedition if she had not been a considerable Person, which appears also by the Respect the People paid her, in deferring their Journey till she was ready.

Where shall we find a nobler Piece of Poetry than _Deborah_’s Song? Or a better and greater Ruler than that renowned Woman, whose Government so much excell’d that of the former Judges? And though she had a Husband, she her self judged _Israel_, and consequently was his Sovereign, of whom we know no more than the Name. Which Instance, as I humbly suppose, overthrows the Pretence of _Natural Inferiority_. For it is not the bare Relation of a Fact, by which none ought to be concluded, unless it is conformable to a Rule, and to the Reason of Things: But _Deborah_’s Government was conferr’d on her by _GOD_ Himself. Consequently the Sovereignty of a Woman is not contrary to the Law of Nature; for the Law of Nature is the Law of _GOD_, who cannot contradict Himself; and yet it was _GOD_ who inspir’d and approv’d that great Woman, raising her up to Judge and to Deliver His People _Israel_.

Not to insist on the Courage of that valiant Woman, who deliver’d _Thebez_ by slaying the Assailant; nor upon the Preference which _GOD_ thought fit to give to _Sampson_’s Mother, in sending the Angel to her, and not to her Husband, whose vulgar Fear she so prudently answer’d, as plainly shews her superior Understanding: To pass over _Abigail_’s wise Conduct, whereby she preserv’d her Family and deserved _David_’s Acknowledgments, for restraining him from doing a rash and unjustifiable Action; the Holy Penman giving her the Character of a _Woman of good Understanding_, whilst her Husband has that of a Churlish and Foolish Person, and a Son of _Belial_: To say nothing of the _wise Woman_ (as the Text calls her) of _Tekoah_; or of her of _Abel_, who has the same Epithet, and who by her Prudence delivered the City and appeas’d a dangerous Rebellion: Nor of the Queen of _Sheba_, whose Journey to hear the Wisdom of _Solomon_, shews her own good Judgment and great Share in that excellent Endowment. _Solomon_ does not think himself too wise to be instructed by his Mother, nor too great to record her Lessons, which, if he had followed, he might have spared the Trouble of Repentance, and been delivered from a great deal of that Vanity he so deeply regrets.

What Reason can be assign’d why the Mothers of the Kings of _Judah_, are so frequently noted in those very short Accounts that are given of their Reigns, but the great Respect paid them, or perhaps their Influence on the Government, and Share in the Administration? This is not improbable, since the wicked _Athaliah_ had Power to carry on her Intrigues so far as to get Possession of the Throne, and to keep it for some Years. Neither was there any Necessity for _Asa_’s removing his Mother (or Grandmother) from being Queen, if this were merely Titular, and did not carry Power and Authority along with it. And we find what Influence _Jezabel_ had in _Israel_, indeed to her Husband’s and her own Destruction.