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.