Some Reflections Upon Marriage. / With additions.

by Mary Astell

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?

’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.