cannot help it, for how much soever I may be their Friend and humble
Servant, I am more a Friend to Truth. Truth is strong, and some time or
other will prevail; nor is it for their Honour, and therefore one would
think not for their Interest, to be partial to themselves and unjust to
others. They may fancy I have made some Discoveries, which, like _Arcana
Imperii_, ought to be kept secret; but, in good earnest, I do them more
Honour than to suppose their lawful Prerogatives need any mean Arts to
support them. If they have usurp’d, I love Justice too much to wish
Success and Continuance to Usurpations, which, though submitted to out
of Prudence, and for Quietness sake, yet leave everybody free to regain
their lawful Right whenever they have Power and Opportunity. I don’t say
that Tyranny _ought_, but we find in _Fact_, that it provokes the
Oppress’d to throw off even a lawful Yoke that fits too heavy: And if he
who is freely elected, after all his fair Promises, and the fine Hopes
he rais’d, proves a Tyrant, the Consideration that he was one’s own
Choice, will not render one more Submissive and Patient, but I fear,
more Refractory. For though it is very unreasonable, yet we see ’tis the
Course of the World, not only to return Injury for Injury, but Crime for
Crime; both Parties indeed are Guilty, but the Aggressors have a double
Guilt, they have not only their own, but their Neighbour’s Ruin to
answer for.
As to the Female Reader, I hope she will allow I’ve endeavoured to do
her Justice; not betray’d her Cause as her Advocates usually do, under
Pretence of defending it. A Practice too mean for any to be guilty of
who have the least Sense of Honour, and who do any more than meerly
pretend to it. I think I have held the Balance even, and not being
conscious of Partiality, I ask no Pardon for it. To plead for the
Oppress’d, and to defend the Weak, seem’d to me a generous Undertaking;
for though it may be secure, ’tis not always Honourable, to run over to
the strongest Party. And if she infers from what has been said, that
Marriage is a very happy State for Men, if they think fit to make it so;
that they govern the World, they have Prescription on their Side; Women
are too weak to dispute it with them, therefore they, as all other
Governors, are most, if not only, accountable for what’s amiss; for
whether other Governments in their Original, were or were not confer’d
according to the Merit of the Person, yet certainly in this Case, if
Heaven has appointed the Man to govern, it has Qualified him for it: So
far I agree with her: But if she goes on to infer, that therefore, if a
Man has not these Qualifications, where is his Right? That if he
misemploys, he abuses it? And if he abuses, according to modern
Deduction, he forfeits it, I must leave her there. A peaceable Woman,
indeed, will not carry it so far, she will neither question her
Husband’s Right, nor his Fitness to govern, but how? Not as an absolute
Lord and Master, with an arbitrary and tyrannical Sway, but as Reason
governs and conducts a Man, by proposing what is just and fit. And the
Man who acts according to that Wisdom he assumes, who would have that
Superiority he pretends to, acknowledged just, will receive no Injury by
any thing that has been offered here. A Woman will value Him the more
who is so wise and good, when she discerns how much he excels the rest
of his noble Sex; the less he requires, the more will he merit that
Esteem and Deference, which those who are so forward to exact, seem
conscious they don’t deserve. So then the Man’s Prerogative is not at
all infring’d, whilst the Woman’s Privileges are secured; and if any
Woman think her self injur’d, she has a Remedy in reserve, which few Men
will envy, or endeavour to rob her of, the Exercise and Improvement of
her Vertue Here, and the Reward of it Hereafter.
When I made these Reflections, I was of Opinion, that the Case of
married Women, in comparison of that of their Husbands, was not a little
hard and unequal. But as the World now goes, I am apt to think, that a
Husband is in no desirable Situation; his Honour is in his Wife’s
keeping, and what Man of Honour can be satisfied with the Conduct which
the Licentiousness of the Age not only permits, but would endeavour to
authorize as a Part of good Breeding? And what makes his Case the worse,
he must dissemble his Uneasiness, stifle his Resentments, and not dare
to take the proper Methods of preventing and curing the Disorder.
So great is our Corruption, that such as pretend to make a true Estimate
of Human Life, and very freely Satirize both Sexes for lesser Crimes,
are not asham’d to recommend this, prescribing a known Sin as a Cure for
what is not absolutely unlawful in it self, though very pernicious in
its Consequences, when carried to Excess.
Not that I would in any manner apologize for Gaming, which, when carried
to Excess, is ruinous to both Sexes, especially to Women; who, when
given to this Vice, disregard their Husbands, and Oeconomy, neglect the
Education of their Children, spend their Fortunes as much as they can,
and, which is not the least Inconveniency, when they lose to Men more
than they are able to pay, they give their Creditor Opportunity to make
insolent Demands. But sure, any Husband, who is not sunk to the lowest
Degree of Infamy, had rather his Wife should waste his Money at
_Quadrille_, than Intrigue with a _Colonel_. _If Sin you must_ (says an
admirable Author, whose Panegyricks are Satires, and his Satires
Panegyricks)
——_take Nature for your Guide,
Love has some soft Excuse to sooth your Pride._
Can we read this excellent Advice of this very moral Satirist, without
remembring what the _Psalmist_ says of some of his Cotemporaries; _When
thou sawest a Thief thou consentedst unto him, and hast been Partaker
with the Adultery_? For, sure of all other Thieves he is the most
criminal, who (under Pretence of Friendship, perhaps) robs a Man of his
most valued Effects, deprives him of his Honour, and of the Quiet and
Comfort of his Life.
Nature and Love, as they, injuriously to both, miscall their brutal
Appetite, are very different from what our Author would represent them.
Variety by no Means answers the End of Nature in providing for
Posterity. And enough has been said, to shew, that such Professions of
Love are most abusive, and the Effect of their Passion the most
outrageous Injury that Hatred can produce: A Woman is never so
effectually _humble_, as the Scripture elegantly expresses it, than when
a Man obtains his Desires. And if she consents, she renders her self
despicable in his Eyes as well as in the Eyes of others. Thus the
_English_ Muse very truly sings:
“_That wretched She, who yields to guilty Joys,
“A Man may_ Pity, _but he_ MUST Despise.”
Whoever makes a true Estimate of Christianity, who does not profess it,
because as yet, ’tis the Religion of his Country, or for his Interest,
or some such worthy Motive; but upon full Conviction of its Divine
Authority, which he cannot want if he examines impartially, as a Matter
of this Consequence deserves; such a Man will find Christianity requires
the strictest Purity of Heart and Imagination, since in the thickest
Darkness our Thoughts, as well as our Actions, are manifest to our
Judge; and, that whoever looks upon a Woman to Lust after her, has
committed Adultery with her already in his Heart.
_Horses and Bulls, and all the brutal Kind, }
Range o’er the Field, to no one She confin’d, }
They know not Love, for Love is in the Mind. }
These following Nature are exempt from Blame,
Unconscious or of Guilt, Remorse and Shame._
_But Man, unhappy Man! puts out his Light,
Reason forsakes, to follow Appetite.
Sinks down to Brute, and labours but in vain, }
To be like them, without Remorse or Shame; }
To Guilt, inevitably follows Pain. }
No Deeds of Darkness are conceal’d by Night, }
He sees Who dwells in everlasting Light, }
And ev’ry Thought is open to His Sight._ }
[Illustration]
APPENDIX.
The _Reflector_, who hopes _Reflector_ is not bad _English_, (now
_Governor_ is happily of the Feminine Gender) guarded against Curiosity
in vain: For a certain ingenuous Gentleman, as she is inform’d, had the
Good-nature to own these Reflections, so far, as to affirm that he had
the Original _MS._ in his Closet, a Proof she is not able to produce;
and so to make himself responsible for all their Faults, for which, she
returns him all due Acknowledgment. However, the Generality being of
Opinion, that a Man would have had more Prudence and Manners than to
have Publish’d such unseasonable Truths, or to have betray’d the _Arcana
Imperii_ of his Sex; she humbly confesses, that the Contrivance and
Execution of this Design, which is unfortunately accus’d of being so
destructive to the Government, (of the Men, I mean) is intirely her own.
She neither advis’d with Friends, nor turn’d over antient or modern
Authors, nor prudently submitted to the Correction of such as are, or
such as _think_ they are good Judges, but with an _English_ Spirit and
Genius, set out upon the Forlorn Hope, meaning no Hurt to any body, nor
designing any thing but the publick Good, and to retrieve, if possible,
the Native Liberty, the Rights and Privileges of the Subject.
Far be it from her to stir up Sedition of any sort: none can abhor it
more; and she heartily wishes, that our Masters would pay their Civil
and Ecclesiastical Governors the same Submission, which they themselves
exact from their Domestick Subjects. Nor can she imagine how she any way
undermines the Masculine Empire, or blows the Trumpet of Rebellion to
the Moiety of Mankind. Is it by exhorting Women, not to expect to have
their own Will in any thing, but to be intirely Submissive, when once
they have made Choice of a Lord and Master, though he happen not to be
so wise, so kind, or even so just a Governor as was expected? She did
not, indeed, advise them to think his Folly Wisdom, nor his Brutality,
that Love and Worship he promised in his Matrimonial Oath; for this
required a Flight of Wit and Sense much above her poor Ability, and
proper only to Masculine Understandings. However, she did not in any
manner prompt them to Resist, or to Abdicate the Perjur’d Spouse, though
the Laws of _GOD_, and the Land, make Special Provision for it, in a
Case, wherein, as is to be fear’d, few Men can truly plead Not Guilty.
’Tis true, through want of Learning, and of that Superior Genius which
Men, as Men, lay claim to, she was ignorant of the _Natural Inferiority_
of our Sex, which our Masters lay down as a Self-evident and Fundamental
Truth. She saw nothing in the Reason of Things, to make this either a
Principle or a Conclusion, but much to the contrary; it being Sedition
at least, if not Treason, to assert it in this Reign. For if by the
Natural Superiority of their Sex, they mean, that _every_ Man is by
Nature superior to _every_ Woman, which is the obvious Meaning, and that
which must be stuck to if they would speak Sense, it would be a Sin in
_any_ Woman, to have Dominion over _any_ Man, and the greatest Queen
ought not to command, but to obey, her Footman: because no Municipal
Laws can supersede or change the Law of Nature: So that if the Dominion
of the Men be such, the _Salique Law_, as unjust as _English Men_ have
ever thought it, ought to take Place over all the Earth, and the most
glorious Reigns in the _English_, _Danish_, _Castilian_, and other
Annals, were wicked Violations of the Law of Nature!
If they mean that _some_ Men are superior to _some_ Women, this is no
great Discovery; had they turn’d the Tables, they might have seen that
_some_ Women are superior to _some_ Men. Or had they been pleased to
remember their Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, they might have known,
that _One_ Woman is superior to _All_ the Men in these Nations, or else
they have sworn to very little Purpose. And it must not be suppos’d,
that their Reason and Religion would suffer them to take Oaths, contrary
to the Law of Nature and Reason of Things.
By all which it appears, that our Reflector’s Ignorance is very
pitiable; it may be her Misfortune, but not her Crime, especially since
she is willing to be better inform’d, and hopes she shall never be so
obstinate as to shut her Eyes against the Light of Truth, which is not
to be charg’d with Novelty, how late soever we may be bless’d with the
Discovery. Nor can Error, be it as antient as it may, ever plead
Prescription against Truth. And since the only way to remove all Doubts,
to answer all Objections, and to give the Mind entire Satisfaction, is
not by _Affirming_, but by _Proving_, so that every one may see with
their _own_ Eyes, and judge according to the best of their _own_
Understandings; she hopes it is no Presumption to insist on this Natural
Right of Judging for her self, and the rather, because by quitting it,
we give up all the Means of Rational Conviction. Allow us then as many
Glasses as you please to help our Sight, and as many good Arguments as
you can afford to convince our Understandings: But don’t exact of us, we
beseech you, to affirm that we see such Things as are only the Discovery
of Men who have quicker Senses; or, that we understand, and know what we
have by Hear-say only; for to be so excessively Complaisant, is neither
to see nor to understand.
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?