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.”