This is a modern-English version of The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women, originally written by Knox, John. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women

John Knox

1558.

Edited by EDWARD ARBER, F.S.A., etc.,
LECTURER IN ENGLISH LITERATURE, ETC.,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.

SOUTHGATE, LONDON, N.
15 August 1878.
No. 2.
(All rights reserved.)

SOUTHGATE, LONDON, N.
15 August 1878.
No. 2.
(All rights reserved.)

[Transcribers Note: The image source for this book was a .pdf of the above edition. The production of the pdf seems to have generated some errors e.g. royal1 for royall. Such errors have been fixed but otherwise the text aims to be true to the printed book.]

[Transcribers Note: The image source for this book was a .pdf of the above edition. The creation of the pdf seems to have caused some errors e.g. royal1 for royall. Such errors have been corrected, but otherwise, the text aims to stay true to the printed book.]


CONTENTS.

Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
Extracts from Mr. DAVID LAING’S Preface
The First Blast of the Trumpet &c.
The First Blast of the Trumpet, etc.

The wonderful silence of the godly and zealous preachers, the learned men and of grave judgment, now in exile, that they do not admonish the inhabitants of “greate Brittanny” how abominable before GOD is the Empire or Rule of Wicked Woman, yea, of a traitress and bastard.

The amazing silence of the devout and passionate preachers, the wise men with serious judgment, now in exile, who do not warn the people of "great Britain" how terrible in the eyes of God is the Empire or Rule of a Wicked Woman, yes, of a traitor and illegitimate child.

This is contrary to the examples of the ancient prophets.

This goes against the examples set by the ancient prophets.

I am assured that GOD hath revealed unto some in this our age, that it is more than a monster in nature that a Woman shall reign and have empire above Man.

I am sure that God has revealed to some in our time that it is more than just unnatural for a woman to rule and have authority over a man.

Why no such doctrine ought to be published in these our dangerous days.

Why no such belief should be made public in these risky times.

(a) It may seem to tend to sedition.

(a) It might seem to encourage rebellion.

(b) It shall be dangerous not only to the writer or publisher, but to all as shall read the writings, or favour this truth spoken.

(b) It will be dangerous not just for the writer or publisher, but for everyone who reads the writings or supports this truth being spoken.

(c) It shall not amend the chief offenders, because
1. It shall never come to their ears
2. They will not be admonished.

(c) It won't change the main offenders, because
1. They will never hear about it
2. They won't take any advice.

If any think that the Empire of Women is not of such importance that for the surpressing of the same any man is bound to hazard his life: I answer, that to suppress it, is in the hand of GOD alone; but to utter the impiety and abomination of the same, I say, it is the duty of every true messenger of GOD to whom the truth is revealed in that behalf.

If anyone thinks that the Empire of Women is not important enough for any man to risk his life to suppress it, I reply that only GOD has the power to suppress it; however, to speak against its wickedness and immorality is the responsibility of every true messenger of GOD to whom the truth has been revealed about it.

THE DECLAMATION.

THE DECLAMATION.

The Proposition. To promote a Woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation or city is
A. Repugnant to nature.
B. Contumely to GOD.
C. The subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

The Proposition. Promoting a woman to hold power, superiority, dominion, or rule over any realm, nation, or city is
A. Against nature.
B. An insult to GOD.
C. A disruption of good order, fairness, and justice.

A. Men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and determined that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, that Women rule and govern over men.

A. Men illuminated only by natural light have recognized and concluded that it is something very disturbing to nature for women to rule and govern over men.

B. 1. Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him.

B. 1. A woman at her best was created to serve and support a man, not to rule over him.

2. After the fall, she was made subject to man by the irrevocable sentence of GOD. In which sentence there are two parts.
(a) A dolour, anguish and pain as oft as ever she shall be a mother.
(b) A subjection of her self, her appetites and will to her husband and his will.

2. After the fall, she was put under male authority by God's unchangeable decree. This decree has two parts.
(a) Sorrow, anguish, and pain every time she becomes a mother.
(b) A submission of herself, her desires, and her will to her husband and his desires.

From the former part of this malediction can neither art, nobility, policy nor law made by man deliver women: but, alas, ignorance of GOD, ambition and tyranny have studied to abolish and destroy the second part of GOD’s punishment.

From the earlier part of this curse, no art, nobility, politics, or laws made by humans can save women: but, unfortunately, ignorance of God, ambition, and tyranny have worked to eliminate and ruin the second part of God's punishment.

3. This subjection, understood by many to be that of the wife to the husband, is extended by Saint PAUL to women in general To which consent TERTULLIAN, AUGUSTINE, AMBROSE, CHRYSOSTOM, BASIL

3. This idea of submission, often thought to refer to the wife’s role in relation to the husband, is expanded by Saint Paul to apply to all women. This view is supported by Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Basil.

4. The two other Mirrors, in which we may behold the order of Nature. (a) The natural body of man
(b) The civil body of that Commonwealth [of the Jews] in which GOD by his own word hath appointed an order.

4. The two other Mirrors, where we can see the order of Nature. (a) The natural body of man
(b) The civil body of that Commonwealth [of the Jews] where GOD has established an order through his own word.

C. The Empire of a Woman is a thing repugnant to justice, and the destruction of every commonwealth where it is received.
(a) If justice be a constant and perpetual will to give to every person their own right: then to give or to will to give to any person that which is not their right, must repugn to justice. But to reign above Man can never be the right to Woman: because it is a thing denied unto her by GOD, as is before declared.
(b) Whatsoever repugneth to the will of GOD expressed in His most sacred word, repugneth to justice. That Women have authority over Men repugneth to the will of GOD expressed in His word. Therefore all such authority repugneth to justice.

C. A woman's rule is contrary to justice and leads to the downfall of any society that accepts it.
(a) If justice means constantly and consistently giving each person what they deserve, then giving or intending to give someone something that isn't theirs cannot be just. To rule over man can never be a woman's right, because it has been denied to her by God, as previously stated.
(b) Anything that contradicts God's will as expressed in His most sacred word goes against justice. The idea that women have authority over men contradicts God's will as laid out in His word. Therefore, all such authority is unjust.

1. The examples of DEBORAH [Judges iv. 4] and HULDAH [2 Kings xxii 14.]

1. The examples of DEBORAH [Judges iv. 4] and HULDAH [2 Kings xxii 14].

2. The law of MOSES for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD [Numb. xxvii. 7, and xxxvi. 11]

2. The law of MOSES for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD [Numb. xxvii. 7, and xxxvi. 11]

3. The consent of the Estates of such realms as have approved the Empire and Regiment of Women.

3. The approval of the Estates from those regions that have endorsed the Empire and Government of Women.

4 [The long custom which hath received the Regiment of Women. The valiant acts and prosperity. Together with some Papistical laws which have confirmed the same.

4 [The long-standing tradition of women's leadership. The brave deeds and success. Along with some Catholic laws that have reinforced this.

*** This objection was not directly replied to; but instead, the two following ones.]
(a) Albeit Women may not absolutely reign by themselves; because they may neither sit in judgment, neither pronounce sentence, neither execute any public office: yet may they do all such things by their Lieutenants, Deputies, and Judges substitutes.
(b) A woman born to rule over any realm, may choose her a husband; and to him she may transfer and give her authority and right.

*** This objection wasn't directly addressed; instead, here are the following two points.]
(a) Even though women can't rule on their own; since they can't judge, issue sentences, or hold any public office, they can still do all of these things through their Lieutenants, Deputies, and appointed Judges.
(b) A woman who is destined to rule a kingdom can choose a husband and transfer her authority and rights to him.

And now to put an end to the First Blast. Seeing that by the Order of Nature; by the malediction and curse pronounced against Woman; by the mouth of Saint PAUL, the interpreter of GOD’s sentence; by the example of that Commonwealth in which GOD by His word planted order and policy; and finally, by the judgment of the most godly writers: GOD hath dejected women from rule, dominion, empire and authority above man. Moreover, seeing that neither the example of DEBORAH, neither the law made for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD, neither yet the foolish consent of an ignorant multitude: be able to justify that which GOD so plainly hath condemned. Let all men take heed what quarrel and cause from henceforth they do defend. If GOD raise up any noble heart to vindicate the liberty of his country and to suppress the monstrous Empire of Women: let all such as shall presume to defend them in the same, most certainly know; that in so doing they lift their hand against GOD, and that one day they shall find His power to fight against their foolishness.

And now to conclude the First Blast. Considering that by the Order of Nature; by the curse placed upon Woman; by the words of Saint PAUL, the voice of GOD’s decree; by the example of that society where GOD established order and governance; and finally, by the judgments of the most righteous writers: GOD has rejected women from rule, dominion, empire, and authority over man. Furthermore, since neither the example of DEBORAH, nor the law made for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD, nor the ignorant agreement of a foolish crowd can justify what GOD has clearly condemned. Let all men be careful about what conflicts and causes they choose to support from now on. If GOD inspires any noble heart to uphold the freedom of his country and to challenge the monstrous power of Women: let all those who dare to defend them know for sure that in doing so, they are standing against GOD, and one day they will realize His power is working against their foolishness.

1559.

1559.

1561.

1561.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The First Blast of the Trumpet etc.

The First Blast of the Trumpet etc.

ISSUES IN THE AUTHOR’S LIFETIME.

ISSUES DURING THE AUTHOR'S LIFE.

A. As a separate publication.

A. As a standalone publication.

1. 1558. [i.e. early in that year at Geneva. 8vo.] See title at p. 1.

1. 1558. [i.e. early in that year at Geneva. 8vo.] See title at p. 1.

B. With other Works.

B. With Other Works.

None known.

None known.

ISSUES SINCE HIS DEATH.

ISSUES SINCE HIS PASSING.

A. As a separate publication.

A. As a standalone publication.

2. [?1687? Edinburgh.] 8vo. The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous Regimen[t] of Women.

2. [?1687? Edinburgh.] 8vo. The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Rule of Women.

4. 15. Aug. 1878. Southgate London N. English Scholar’s Library.
The present impression.

4. 15. Aug. 1878. Southgate London N. English Scholar’s Library.
This edition.

B. With other Works.

B. With Other Works.

1846-1848. Edinburgh. 8vo. Bannatyne Club. The Works of JOHN KNOX. Collected and edited by DAVID LAING. In 6 Vols. A special and limited edition of 112 copies of the First Two Volumes was struck off for this Printing Club.

1846-1848. Edinburgh. 8vo. Bannatyne Club. The Works of JOHN KNOX. Collected and edited by DAVID LAING. In 6 Vols. A special and limited edition of 112 copies of the First Two Volumes was printed for this Printing Club.

1846-1848. Edinburgh. 8vo. Wodrow Club. The same Two Volumes issued to this Society.

1846-1848. Edinburgh. 8vo. Wodrow Club. The same two volumes were issued to this society.

1854-1864. Edinburgh. 8vo. The remaining Four Volumes published by Mr. T. G. STEVENSON. The First Blast &c. is at Vol. iv. 349.

1854-1864. Edinburgh. 8vo. The other Four Volumes were published by Mr. T. G. STEVENSON. The First Blast &c. is in Vol. iv. 349.

Early Replies to the First Blast etc.

Early Replies to the First Blast etc.

1. 26 Apr. 1559. Strasburgh. 4to. [JOHN AYLMER, afterwards Bishop of LONDON]. An Harborovve for faithfull and trewe subiectes, agaynst the late blowne Blaste, concerninge the Gouernmente of VVemen wherin he confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe, with a breife exhortation to Obedience. Anno. M.D. lix.

1. 26 Apr. 1559. Strasburgh. 4to. [JOHN AYLMER, later Bishop of LONDON]. A Safe Haven for faithful and true subjects, against the recent outburst regarding the Governance of Women, where he refuted all the arguments made by a stranger recently on this matter, along with a brief call to Obedience. Year 1559.

[This calling John Knox a “stranger” sounds to us like a piece of impudence, but may bring home to us that Scotland was then to Englishmen a foreign country.]

[Calling John Knox a “stranger” might seem rude to us, but it reminds us that Scotland was considered a foreign country by the English at that time.]

2. 1565-6. Antwerp. 8vo. PETRUS FRARINUS, M.A. Oration against the Vnlawfull Insurrections of the Protestantes of our time, under the pretence to refourme religion.

2. 1565-6. Antwerp. 8vo. PETRUS FRARINUS, M.A. Speech against the unlawful uprisings of the Protestants of our time, under the guise of reforming religion.

Made and pronounced in the Schole of Artes at Louaine, the xiiij of December. Anno 1565. And now translated into English with the aduise of the Author. Printed by JOHN FOWLER in 1566.

Made and declared in the School of Arts at Louvain, the 14th of December. Year 1565. And now translated into English with the author's advice. Printed by JOHN FOWLER in 1566.

The references to KNOX and GOODMAN are at E. vj and F. ij. At the end of this work is a kind of Table of Contents, each reference being illustrated with a woodcut depicting the irightful cruelties with which the Author in the text charges the Protestants. One woodcut is a curious representation of GOODMAN and NOKES.

The references to KNOX and GOODMAN are at E. vj and F. ij. At the end of this work is a sort of Table of Contents, each reference being illustrated with a woodcut showing the shameful cruelties that the Author accuses the Protestants of in the text. One woodcut is an interesting depiction of GOODMAN and NOKES.

Doctor FULKE wrote a Confutation of this work.

Doctor FULKE wrote a Confutation of this work.

3. 1579. Paris. 8vo. DAVID CHAMBERS of Ormond. Histoire abregée de tous les Roys de France, Angleterre et Escosse, etc. In three Parts, each with a separate Title page.

3. 1579. Paris. 8vo. DAVID CHAMBERS of Ormond. A Concise History of All the Kings of France, England, and Scotland, etc. In three parts, each with its own title page.

The Third Part is dated 21 August 1573; is dedicated to CATHERINE DE MEDICI; and is entitled

The Third Part is dated August 21, 1573; is dedicated to CATHERINE DE MEDICI; and is titled

Discours de la legitime succession des femmes aux possessions de leurs parens: et du gouernement des princesses aux Empires et Royaumes.

Discours on the rightful inheritance of women to their parents' possessions: and the governance of princesses in Empires and Kingdoms.

4. 1584. [Printed abroad]. 8vo. JOHN LESLEY, Bishop of ROSS. A treatise towching the right, title and interest of the most Excellent Princesse MARIE, Queen of Scotland, And of the most noble King JAMES, her Graces sonne, to the succession of the Crowne of England. ... Compiled ahd published before in Latin, and after in English. The Blast is alluded to at C. 2.

4. 1584. [Printed abroad]. 8vo. JOHN LESLEY, Bishop of ROSS. A treatise regarding the right, title, and interest of the most Excellent Princess MARIE, Queen of Scotland, and of the most noble King JAMES, her son, to the succession of the Crown of England. ... Compiled and published earlier in Latin, and later in English. The Blast is mentioned at C. 2.

5. 1590. [Never printed.] Lord HENRY HOWARD [created Earl of NORTHAMPTON 13 March 1604.], a voluminous writer, but few of whose writings ever came to the press.

5. 1590. [Never printed.] Lord HENRY HOWARD [made Earl of NORTHAMPTON on March 13, 1604], a prolific writer, but very few of his works were ever published.

A dutifull defence of the lawfull Regiment of women deuided into three bookes. The first conteyneth reasons and examples grounded on the law of nature. The second reasons and examples grownded on the Ciuile lawes. The third reasons and examples grounded on the sacred lawes of god with an awnswer to all false and friuolous obiections which haue bene most vniustlie cowntenaunced with deceitfull coulores forced oute of theis lawes in disgrace of their approued and sufficient authorytie. Lansd. MS. 813 and Harl. MS. 6257.

A dutiful defense of the lawful rule of women divided into three books. The first contains reasons and examples based on the law of nature. The second offers reasons and examples based on civil laws. The third presents reasons and examples based on the sacred laws of God, along with answers to all false and trivial objections that have been unjustly supported with misleading interpretations forced out of these laws to discredit their well-established and sufficient authority. Lansd. MS. 813 and Harl. MS. 6257.

INTRODUCTION.

At the time this tract was written the destinies, immediate and prospective, of the Protestant faith seemed to lay wholly in the laps of five women, viz:—

At the time this document was written, the immediate and future fates of the Protestant faith seemed to rest entirely in the hands of five women, namely:

CATHERINE DE MEDICI, Queen of France.

CATHERINE DE MEDICI, Queen of France.

MARIE DE LORRAINE, Queen Regent of Scotland, whose sole heir was her daughter MARY, afterwards Queen of Scots.

MARIE DE LORRAINE, Queen Regent of Scotland, whose only heir was her daughter MARY, later known as Queen of Scots.

MARY TUDOR, Queen of England, having for her heir apparent the Princess ELIZABETH.

MARY TUDOR, Queen of England, has the Princess ELIZABETH as her heir apparent.

Of these, the last—also of least account at this moment, being in confinement—was the only hope of the Reformers. The other four, largely directing the affairs of three kingdoms, were steadfastly hostile to the new faith. Truly, the odds were heavy against it. Who could have anticipated that within three years of the writing of this book both MARY TUDOR and MARY DE LORRAINE would have passed away; that KNOX himself would have been in Scotland carrying on the Reformation; and that ELIZABETH would have commenced her marvellous reign. So vast a change in the political world was quite beyond all reasonable foresight.

Of these, the last—who was also the least significant at the moment since he was in confinement—was the only hope for the Reformers. The other four, who were mainly managing the affairs of three kingdoms, were firmly against the new faith. The odds were truly stacked against it. Who could have predicted that within three years of writing this book, both MARY TUDOR and MARY DE LORRAINE would be gone; that KNOX would be in Scotland advancing the Reformation; and that ELIZABETH would begin her remarkable reign? Such a massive shift in the political landscape was completely beyond any reasonable expectation.

Meanwhile there was only present to the vision and heart of the Reformer as he gazed seaward, from Dieppe, but the unceasing blaze of, the martyr fires spreading from Smithfield all over England. Month after month this horrid work was deliberately carried on and was increasing in intensity.

Meanwhile, the only thing in the mind and heart of the Reformer as he looked out to sea from Dieppe was the constant flames of the martyr fires spreading from Smithfield all over England. Month after month, this terrible act continued deliberately and was growing in intensity.

We se our countrie set furthe for a pray to foreine nations, we heare the blood of our brethren, the membres of Christ Iesus most cruellie to be shed, and the monstruous empire of a cruell women (the secrete counsel of God excepted) we knowe to be the onlie occasion of all the miseries: and yet with silence we passe the time as thogh the mater did nothinge appertein to vs. p. 3.

We see our country being offered up as prey to foreign nations. We hear the blood of our fellow countrymen, members of Christ Jesus, being cruelly shed, and we know that the monstrous empire of a cruel woman (except for God's secret counsel) is the only cause of all these miseries. Yet we quietly let time pass as if this matter has nothing to do with us. p. 3.

The vigour of the persecution had struck all heart out of the Protestants. Was this to go on for ever? Heart-wrung at the ruthless slaughter—as we, in our day, have been by the horrors of the Indian mutiny or of the Bulgarian atrocities—the Reformer sought to know the occasion of all these calamities. At that moment, he found it in the Empire of Woman. Afterwards he referred much of this book to the time in which it was written [pp. 58 and 61]. Shall we say that his heart compelled his head to this argument, that his indignation entangled his understanding on this subject? Just as MILTON was led to the discussion of the conditions of divorce, through his desertion by his wife MARY POWELL; so the fiery martyrdoms of England led KNOX to denounce the female sex in the person of her whom we still call “Bloody MARY” that was the occasion of them all.

The intensity of the persecution had drained all the spirit out of the Protestants. Was this going to continue forever? Heartbroken by the brutal killings—just as we have been by the horrors of the Indian mutiny or the atrocities in Bulgaria—the Reformer wanted to understand the cause of all these disasters. At that point, he found it in the Empire of Woman. Later, he attributed much of this book to the era in which it was written [pp. 58 and 61]. Should we say that his emotions led his reasoning to this conclusion, that his anger clouded his judgment on this topic? Just as MILTON was prompted to discuss divorce after his wife MARY POWELL left him, the violent martyrdoms in England drove KNOX to criticize women through the lens of the individual we still refer to as “Bloody MARY,” who was the root of it all.

If in the happiest moment of his happiest dream, JOHN KNOX could have foreseen our good and revered Queen VICTORIA reigning in the hearts of the millions of her subjects, and ruling an Empire wider by far than those of Spain and Portugal in his day; if he could have seen England and Scotland ONE COUNTRY, bearing the name which, as almost of prophecy, he has foreshadowed for them in this tract, “the Ile of greate Britanny;” if he could have beheld that one country as it now abides in its strength and its wealth, the most powerful of European states; if he could have realized free Italy with Rome, the Popes without temporal power, and modern civilisation more than a match for Papal intrigues; if he could have known that the gospel for which he lived had regenerated the social life of Great Britain, that it was tha confessed basis of our political action and the perennial spring of our Christian activities, so that not merely in physical strength, but in moral, force and mental enlightenment we are in the van of the nations of the world: if the great Scotch Reformer had but had a glimpse of this present reality, this tract would never have been written, and he would willingly have sung the paean of aged SIMEON and passed out of this life.

If in the happiest moment of his happiest dream, JOHN KNOX could have foreseen our good and respected Queen VICTORIA reigning in the hearts of millions of her subjects, and ruling an Empire much larger than those of Spain and Portugal in his time; if he could have seen England and Scotland as ONE COUNTRY, bearing the name he almost prophetically suggested in this text, “the Isle of Great Britanny;” if he could have envisioned that one country as it now exists in its strength and wealth, the most powerful of European states; if he could have realized free Italy with Rome, the Popes without political power, and modern civilization more than capable of countering Papal schemes; if he could have known that the gospel for which he lived had transformed the social life of Great Britain, that it was the acknowledged foundation of our political actions and the ongoing source of our Christian efforts, so that not only in physical strength but in moral authority and mental enlightenment we are leading the nations of the world: if the great Scotch Reformer had just caught a glimpse of this current reality, this text would never have been written, and he would have gladly sung the song of aged SIMEON and exited this life.

But this work was the offspring of the hour of darkness, if not of despair. Something must be done. A warrior of the pen, he would forge a general argument against all female rule that would inclusively destroy the legal right of MARY to continue these atrocities.

But this work was born from a time of darkness, if not despair. Something had to be done. As a warrior of words, he would create a strong argument against all female leadership that would completely dismantle MARY's legal right to continue these atrocities.

II.

The first note of this trumpet blast, “The Kingdom apperteineth to our GOD,” shows us the vast difference between the way in which men regarded the Almighty Being then and now. Shall we say that the awe of the Deity has departed! Now so much stress is laid on the Fatherhood of GOD: in KNOX’S time it was His might to defend His own or to take vengeance on all their murderers. Both views are true. Nevertheless this age does seem wanting in a general and thorough reverence for His great name and character.

The first note of this trumpet blast, “The Kingdom belongs to our GOD,” highlights the significant difference between how people viewed the Almighty then and now. Can we say that the awe of the Deity has faded? Today, there is so much emphasis on the Fatherhood of GOD; during KNOX’S time, it was His power to protect His own or to take revenge on all their killers. Both perspectives are valid. Nonetheless, this era does seem to lack a widespread and genuine respect for His great name and character.

KNOX seems like some great Hebrew seer when he thus pronounces the doom of MARY and her adherents.

KNOX sounds like a powerful Hebrew prophet when he declares the fate of MARY and her supporters.

The same God, who did execute this greuous punishment, euen by the handes of those, whom he suffred twise to be ouercomen in batel, doth this day retein his power and iustice. Cursed Iesabel of England, with the pestilent and detestable generation of papistes, make no litle bragge and boast, that they haue triumphed not only against Wyet, but also against all such as haue entreprised any thing against them or their procedinges. But let her and them consider, that yet they haue not preuailed against god, his throne is more high, then that the length of their hornes be able to reache. And let them further consider, that in the beginning of their bloodie reigne, the haruest of their iniquitie was not comen to full maturitie and ripenes. No, it was so grene, so secret I meane, so couered, and so hid with hypocrisie, that some men (euen the seruantes of God) thoght it not impossible, but that wolues might be changed in to lambes, and also that the vipere might remoue her natural venom. But God, who doth reuele in his time apointed the secretes of hartes, and that will haue his iudgementes iustified euen by the verie wicked, hath now geuen open testimonie of her and their beastlie crueltie. For man and woman, learned and vnlearned, nobles and men of baser sorte, aged fathers and tendre damiselles, and finailie the bones of the dead, as well women as men haue tasted of their tyrannie, so that now not onlie the blood of father Latimer, of the milde man of God the bishop of Cantorburie, of learned and discrete Ridley, of innocent ladie Iane dudley, and many godly and worthie preachers, that can not be forgotten, such as fier hath consumed, and the sworde of tyrannie moste vniustlie hath shed, doth call for vengeance in the eares of the Lord God of hostes: but also the sobbes and teares of the poore oppressed, the groninges of the angeles, the watch men of the Lord, yea and euerie earthlie creature abused by their tyrannie do continuallie crie and call for the hastie execution of the same. I feare not to say, that the day of vengeance, whiche shall apprehend that horrible monstre Iesabal of England, and suche as maintein her monstruous crueltie, is alredie apointed in the counsel of the Eternall; and I verelie, beleue that it is so nigh, that she shall not reigne so long in tyrannie, as hitherto she hath done, when God shall declare him selfe to be her ennemie, when he shall poure furth contempt vpon her, according to her crueltie, and shal kindle the hartes of such, as sometimes did fauor her with deadly hatred against her, that they may execute his iudgementes. And therfore let such as assist her, take hede what they do.

The same God who carried out this severe punishment, even through those whom He allowed to be defeated in battle, still maintains His power and justice today. Cursed Jezebel of England, along with the poisonous and detestable generation of papists, proudly claims to have triumphed not only over Wyat but against anyone who has challenged them or their actions. But let her and them remember, they have not yet prevailed against God; His throne is higher than their reach. They should also consider that at the start of their bloody reign, the harvest of their wickedness had not fully matured. No, it was so green, so secret—I mean, so covered and hidden with hypocrisy—that some people, even God’s servants, thought it possible for wolves to turn into lambs and for the viper to lose its venom. But God, who reveals the secrets of hearts in His appointed time, and who will have His judgments justified even by the wicked, has now publicly shown her and their brutal cruelty. For men and women, educated and uneducated, nobles and commoners, aged fathers and young maidens, and indeed the bones of the dead, both women and men, have suffered under their tyranny. Now, not only the blood of Father Latimer, the gentle man of God the Bishop of Canterbury, of learned and wise Ridley, of innocent Lady Jane Dudley, and many godly and worthy preachers who cannot be forgotten—those consumed by fire and unjustly shed by the sword of tyranny—call for vengeance in the ears of the Lord God of Hosts; but also the sobs and tears of the poor oppressed, the groans of the angels, the watchmen of the Lord, and every earthly creature abused by their tyranny continuously cry out for swift justice. I am not afraid to say that the day of vengeance, which will bring down that horrible monster Jezebel of England and those who support her monstrous cruelty, is already determined in the counsel of the Eternal; and I truly believe it is near enough that she will not reign in tyranny much longer than she has already, when God declares Himself her enemy, when He pours out contempt upon her according to her cruelty, and ignites the hearts of those who once favored her with deadly hatred against her, so they may carry out His judgments. Therefore, let those who support her take heed of what they do.

III.

There are some notable incidental matters in this tract. First in matters of State. As

There are some notable incidental matters in this tract. First in matters of State. As

The spaniardes are Iewes and they bragge that Marie of England is the roote of Iesse. p. 46.

The Spaniards are Jews, and they boast that Mary of England is the root of Jesse. p. 46.

That most important testimony that the Reformation under EDWARD VI was mainly the work of the King and his court; as it had been in the days of his father HENRY VIII.

That crucial evidence shows that the Reformation during EDWARD VI's reign was primarily driven by the King and his court, just like it had been during his father HENRY VIII's time.

For albeit thou diddest not cease to heape benefit vpon benefit, during the reigne of an innocent and tendre king, yet no man did acknowledge thy potent hand and meruelouse working. The stoute courage of capitaines, the witte and policie of counselers, the learning of bishoppes[1], did robbe the of thy glorie and honor. For what then was heard, as concerning religion, but the kinges procedinges, the kinges procedinges must be obeyed? It is enacted by parliament: therefore it is treason to speake in the contrarie. p. 30.

For even though you continued to shower benefits upon benefits during the reign of an innocent and gentle king, no one recognized your powerful hand and remarkable work. The bold courage of captains, the wisdom and strategy of advisors, the knowledge of bishops[1], stripped you of your glory and honor. For what was heard regarding religion, other than that the king's decisions must be followed? It is established by parliament: therefore, it's treason to speak against it. p. 30.

The political shrewdness of the Writer on the entanglement of England in the Spanish War against France, whereby we lost Calais on the 6th January 1558.

The political cleverness of the Writer regarding England's involvement in the Spanish War against France, which led to the loss of Calais on January 6, 1558.

They see their owne destruction, and yet they haue no grace to auoide it. Yea they are becomen so blinde, that knowing the pit, they headlong cast them selues into the same, as the nobilitie[2] of England, do this day, fighting in the defense of their mortall ennemie the Spaniard. Finallie they are so destitute of vnderstanding and iudgement, that althogh they knowe that there is a libertie and fredome, the whiche their predecessors haue inioyed; yet are they compelled to bowe their neckes vnder the yoke of Satan, and of his proude ministres, pestilent papistes and proude spaniardes. And yet can they not consider that where a woman reigneth and papistes beare authoritie, that there must nedes Satan be president of the counsel, p. 31.

They see their own destruction, yet they have no grace to avoid it. They have become so blind that, knowing the pit, they recklessly throw themselves into it, just like the nobility of England do today, fighting to defend their mortal enemy, the Spaniard. They are so lacking in understanding and judgment that even though they know there is freedom that their predecessors enjoyed, they are still forced to bend their necks under the yoke of Satan and his proud ministers, the harmful papists, and arrogant Spaniards. And yet they fail to realize that where a woman reigns and papists hold authority, Satan must surely be the one leading the counsel, p. 31.

The absence of any specific allusion to Calais shows that this book was wholly written before its capture.

The lack of any specific reference to Calais indicates that this book was completely written before it was taken.

Next, in the imagery with which he expresses his insight into the nature of things. As

Next, in the imagery he uses to convey his understanding of the nature of things. As

It is a thing verie difficile to a man, (be he neuer so constant) promoted to honors, not to be tickled some what with pride (for the winde of vaine glorie doth easelie carie vp the, drie dust of the earth). p. 19.

It's very difficult for a man, no matter how steadfast he is, who is elevated to honors, not to feel a bit of pride (for the breeze of shallow glory easily lifts the dry dust of the earth). p. 19.

The wise, politic, and quiet spirites of this world, p. 8.

The wise, clever, and calm individuals of this world, p. 8.

The veritie of God[3] is of that nature, that at one time or at other, it will pourchace to it selfe audience. It is an odour and smell, that can not be suppressed, yea it is a trumpet that will sound in despite of the adversarie.

The truth of God[3] is such that sooner or later, it will attract attention. It's an aroma that can't be contained; it's like a trumpet that will sound regardless of opposition.

Lastly, the marvellous lashing of women, throughout: climaxing in

Lastly, the amazing treatment of women, throughout: climaxing in

Woman ... the porte and gate of the deuil.

Woman ... the door and entrance of mourning.

[1] what robbed God of his honor in England in the time of the Gospell.

[1] what took away God's honor in England during the time of the Gospel.

[2] The nobilitie and the hole realme of England, caste themselves willing in to the pit.

[2] The nobility and the entire realm of England willingly threw themselves into the pit.

[3] The propertie of Goddes truth.

The qualities of God's truth.

IV.

This work is therefore to us rather “the groaning of this angel,” this “watchman of the LORD” at the national subjection, the fiery martyrdoms, “the sobs and tears of the poor oppressed;” than the expression of any fundamental principle on which GOD has constituted human society. Intellectually, there is partiality, forgetfulness and disproportion in the argument. It applies as much to a Man as to a Woman, and more to a wicked than a good Woman. He started on the assumption that almost all women in authority were wicked. Time however alters many things; and he lived to love and reverence Queen ELIZABETH.

This work is, for us, more about “the groaning of this angel,” this “watchman of the LORD” regarding national subjugation, the intense martyrdoms, “the sobs and tears of the poor oppressed,” rather than a reflection of any fundamental principle that GOD has set for human society. Intellectually, there’s bias, forgetfulness, and unevenness in the argument. It applies as much to a man as to a woman, and more to a wicked woman than a good one. He began with the belief that almost all women in power were wicked. However, time changes many things, and he came to love and respect Queen ELIZABETH.

So these trumpet notes are the outpouring of a very great nature, if not of a great thinker; of one whose absolute and dauntless devotion to GOD, to truth, to right, whose burning indignation against wrong-doing and faith in the Divine vengeance to overtake it, fitted him to do a giant’s work in the Reformation, and will enshrine his memory in the affection of all good men till time shall end.

So these trumpet notes are the expression of a truly great spirit, if not a great thinker; someone whose unwavering devotion to God, to truth, to justice, whose intense anger against wrongdoing and belief in divine justice to address it, prepared him to accomplish monumental work in the Reformation, and will honor his memory in the hearts of all good people until the end of time.


EXTRACTS FROM MR. DAVID LAING’S PREFACE.

With some other hints, gratefully acknowledged.

With some other hints, which I greatly appreciate.

Of the various writings of the Reformer, no one was the occasion of exciting greater odium than his First Blast against the monstrous Regiment or Government of Women. Unlike all his other publications, it appeared anonymously, although he had no intention of ultimately concealing his name. His purpose was, as he tells us, “Thrice to Blow the Trumpet in the same matter, if GOD so permit,” and, on the last occasion, to announce himself as the writer, to prevent any blame being imputed to others. This intention, it is well known, was never carried into effect. That KNOX’S views were in harmony with those of his colleagues, GOODMAN, WHITTINGHAM, and GILBY, need hardly be stated: but the reception of the little work fully confirmed the Author’s opinion, that it would not escape “the reprehension of many.” This may in a great measure be attributed to the course of public events within a few months of its publication.

Of all the writings of the Reformer, none stirred up more controversy than his First Blast against the monstrous Regiment or Government of Women. Unlike his other works, it was published anonymously, although he didn't plan to keep his identity hidden for long. His goal was, as he stated, “Thrice to Blow the Trumpet in the same matter, if GOD so permit,” and during the last mention, to reveal himself as the author so that no blame would fall on others. This intention, as is well known, was never realized. It's hardly necessary to mention that KNOX’S views aligned with those of his colleagues, GOODMAN, WHITTINGHAM, and GILBY. However, the response to this brief work clearly confirmed the Author’s belief that it would not avoid “the reprehension of many.” This can largely be attributed to the events in the public sphere that unfolded in the months following its release.

The subject of Female Government had engaged his attention at an earlier period. One of his Questions submitted to BULLINGER in 1554 was “Whether a Female can preside over, and rule a kingdom by divine right?” And in answer to some doubts regarding the Apparel of Women, he himself says that “if women take upon them the office which GOD hath assigned to men, they shall not escape the Divine malediction.” In his Additions to the Apology for The Protestants in prison at Paris, he expresses his conviction that the government of Princes had come to that state of iniquity that “no godly person can enjoy office or authority under them.” This assertion indeed was not specially applicable to Female government, but his feelings in reference to the persecutions in England under MARY, and in Scotland under the Queen Regent, impelled him to treat of a subject which all others at the time seemed most sedulously to avoid.

The topic of Female Government had caught his interest earlier on. One of his questions to BULLINGER in 1554 was, “Can a woman rule a kingdom by divine right?” In response to some concerns about women’s clothing, he stated that “if women take on the role that GOD has assigned to men, they won’t escape divine punishment.” In his Additions to the Apology for The Protestants in prison at Paris, he shared his belief that the rule of princes had become so corrupt that “no godly person can hold office or authority under them.” This claim wasn’t specifically about Female government, but his views on the persecutions in England under MARY and in Scotland under the Queen Regent motivated him to address a topic that most others at the time seemed to avoid.

His First Blast was probably written at Dieppe towards the end of 1557; and it was printed early in the following year at Geneva, as is apparent upon comparison with other books from the press of JOHN CRESPIN in that city.

His First Blast was likely written in Dieppe at the end of 1557, and it was printed early the next year in Geneva, as can be seen when compared to other books from the press of JOHN CRESPIN in that city.

A copy of the work having been sent to JOHN FOX, then residing at Basle, he wrote “a loving and friendly letter” to the author, in which he expostulates with him on the impropriety of the publication. In KNOX’S reply, dated the 18th of May 1558, he says, he will not excuse “his rude vehemencie and inconsidered affirmations, which may appear rather to proceed from choler than of zeal or reason.” “To me,” he adds, “it is enough to say, that black is not white, and man’s tyranny and foolishness is not GOD’s perfect ordinance.”

A copy of the work was sent to JOHN FOX, who was living in Basle at the time. He wrote “a loving and friendly letter” to the author, expressing his concerns about the inappropriateness of the publication. In KNOX’S reply, dated May 18, 1558, he states that he will not excuse “his rude vehemence and thoughtless claims, which may seem more like anger than zeal or reason.” “To me,” he adds, “it is enough to say that black is not white, and that man’s tyranny and foolishness is not GOD’s perfect order.”

The similar work of GOODMAN on Obedience to Superior Powers which appeared at Geneva about the same time, was also suggested by the persecuting spirit which then prevailed. But both works were published somewhat unseasonably, as such questions on Government and Obedience, it is justly observed, might have been more fitly argued when a King happened to fill the throne. The terms used by GOODMAN in reference to MARY, Queen of England, are not less violent than unseemly. She died on the 17th of November 1558, and her successor regarded the authors of those works with the utmost dislike; although neither of them, in their writings, had any special reference or the least intention of giving offence to Queen ELIZABETH....

The similar work by GOODMAN on Obedience to Superior Powers, which came out in Geneva around the same time, was also driven by the prevailing climate of persecution. However, both works were published at an unfortunate time, as it has been rightly pointed out that discussions about Government and Obedience would have been more appropriate when there was a King on the throne. The language used by GOODMAN regarding MARY, Queen of England, is as harsh as it is inappropriate. She passed away on November 17, 1558, and her successor had a deep dislike for the authors of these works; yet neither of them, in their writings, had any specific intention to offend Queen ELIZABETH....

That these works, and every person supposed to entertain similar sentiments, should be regarded with marked aversion by Queen ELIZABETH, need excite no surprise.

That these works, and anyone believed to share similar feelings, should be viewed with clear dislike by Queen ELIZABETH, shouldn't be surprising.

In the beginning of the year 1559, CALVIN having revised and republished his Commentaries on ISAIAH, originally dedicated to EDWARD VI. in 1551; he addressed the work in a printed Epistle to Her Majesty: but his messenger brought him back word that his homage was not kindly received by Her Majesty, because she had been offended with him by reason of some writings published with his approbation at Geneva.

At the start of 1559, CALVIN revised and reissued his Commentaries on ISAIAH, which he initially dedicated to EDWARD VI in 1551; he sent the work in a printed letter to Her Majesty. However, his messenger informed him that his gesture wasn't well received by Her Majesty because she was upset with him due to some writings that were published with his approval in Geneva.

CALVIN felt so greatly annoyed at this imputation, that he addressed a letter[1] to Sir WILLIAM CECIL, in which he expresses himself with no small degree of asperity on the subject of KNOX’S First Blast. He says—

CALVIN was really frustrated by this accusation, so he wrote a letter[1] to Sir WILLIAM CECIL, where he expresses his feelings quite harshly about KNOX’S First Blast. He says—

Two years ago [i.e. in 1557] JOHN KNOX asked of me, in a private conversation, what I thought about the Government of Women. I candidly replied, that as it was a deviation from the original and proper order of nature, it was to be ranked, no less than slavery, among the punishments consequent upon the fall of man: but that there were occasionally women so endowed, that the singular good qualities which shone forth in them made it evident that they were raised up by Divine authority; either that GOD designed by such examples to condemn the inactivity of men, or for the better setting forth of His own glory. I brought forth Huldah and Deborah; and added, that GOD did not vainly promise by the mouth of Isaiah that “Queens should be nursing mothers of the Church”; by which prerogative it is very evident that they are distinguished from females in private life. I came at length to this conclusion, that since, both by custom, and public consent, and long practice, it hath been established, that realms and principalities may descend to females by hereditary right, it did not appear to me necessary to move the question, not only because the thing would be most invidious; but because in my opinion it would not be lawful to unsettle governments which are ordained by the peculiar providence of GOD.

Two years ago [i.e. in 1557], JOHN KNOX asked me in a private conversation what I thought about the rule of women. I honestly replied that, since it goes against the natural order, it should be considered, just like slavery, as a punishment resulting from humanity's fall. However, there are occasionally women who are so remarkable that their exceptional qualities show they have been raised up by Divine authority; either as a way for GOD to shame the laziness of men or to better showcase His own glory. I mentioned Huldah and Deborah and added that GOD didn’t promise through Isaiah that “Queens would be nursing mothers of the Church” for no reason; this privilege clearly sets them apart from ordinary women. I ultimately concluded that, since customs, public agreement, and long-standing practices have established that kingdoms and principalities can pass to women through hereditary rights, it seemed unnecessary to raise the issue—not only because it would be quite unpopular but also because, in my view, it wouldn’t be right to disturb governments that have been set in place by GOD's unique providence.

I had no suspicion of the book, and for a whole year was ignorant of its publication. When I was informed of it by certain parties, I sufficiently shewed my displeasure that such paradoxes should be published; but as the remedy was too late, I thought that the evil, which could not now be corrected, should rather be buried in oblivion than made a matter of agitation.

I had no idea about the book, and for an entire year, I was unaware of its release. When I learned about it from some people, I clearly expressed my annoyance that such contradictions were being published. However, since it was too late to fix the issue, I felt the problem, which couldn’t be corrected now, should be left alone rather than stirred up.

Inquire also at your father in law [Sir ANTHONY COOKE] what my reply was, when he informed me of the circumstance through Beza. And MARY was still living, so that I could not be suspected of flattery.

Inquire with your father-in-law [Sir ANTHONY COOKE] about my response when he told me about the situation through Beza. And since MARY was still alive, I couldn’t be accused of flattery.

What the books contain, I cannot tell; but KNOX himself will allow that my conversation with him was no other than what I have now stated.

What the books contain, I can’t say; but KNOX himself would agree that my conversation with him was exactly what I’ve just described.

Calvin then proceeds to say, that great confusion might have arisen by any decided opposition, and there would have been cause to fear, that in such a case—

Calvin then goes on to say that significant confusion could have arisen from any clear opposition, and there would have been reason to worry that in such a case—

By reason of the thoughtless arrogance of one individual, the wretched crowd of exiles would have been driven away, not only from this city [of Geneva] but even from almost the whole world.

Because of one person's careless arrogance, the miserable crowd of exiles would have been forced to leave not just this city [of Geneva] but nearly the entire world as well.

Some years later, and subsequent to CALVIN’S death, BEZA, in a letter to BULLINGER, adverts to Queen ELIZABETH’S continued dislike to the Church of Geneva. In his letter, dated the 3rd of September 1566, he says—

Some years later, after CALVIN’s death, BEZA, in a letter to BULLINGER, mentions Queen ELIZABETH’S ongoing dislike for the Church of Geneva. In his letter, dated September 3, 1566, he says—

Some years later, and subsequent to CALVIN’S death, BEZA, in a letter to BULLINGER, adverts to Queen ELIZABETH’S continued dislike to the Church of Geneva. In his letter, dated the 3rd of September 1566, he says—

Some years later, after CALVIN'S death, BEZA, in a letter to BULLINGER, mentions Queen ELIZABETH'S ongoing dislike for the Church of Geneva. In his letter, dated September 3, 1566, he says—

For as to our Church, I would have you know that it is so hateful to the Queen [of England], that on this account she has never said a single word in acknowledgement of the gift of my Annotations [on the New Testament]. The reason of her dislike is twofold; one, because we are accounted too severe and precise, which is very displeasing to those who fear reproof; the other is, because formerly, though without our knowledge, during the lifetime of Queen MARY, two books were published here in the English language, one by Master KNOX against the Government of Women, the other by Master GOODMAN on the Rights of the Magistrate.

As for our Church, I want you to know that it is so disliked by the Queen [of England] that because of this, she has never acknowledged my Annotations [on the New Testament] even once. Her dislike has two reasons: first, we are seen as too strict and exacting, which really annoys those who don't want to be criticized; second, because in the past, without our knowledge, during Queen MARY's reign, two books were published in English here—one by Master KNOX against the Government of Women and the other by Master GOODMAN about the Rights of the Magistrate.

As soon as we learned the contents of each, we were much displeased, and their sale was forbidden in consequence; but she, notwithstanding, cherishes the opinion she has taken into her head[2].

As soon as we found out what was in each of them, we were really upset, and they were banned from being sold as a result; but she still holds on to the idea she's come up with[2].

[1] The letter is not dated, but it was subsequent to one written on the 29th of January 1559 [i.e. 1560], Zurich Letters. Second Series, p. 35.

[1] The letter doesn’t have a date, but it came after one written on January 29, 1559 [i.e. 1560], Zurich Letters. Second Series, p. 35.

[2] Zurich Letters. Second Series, p. 34.

[2] Zurich Letters. Second Series, p. 34.


THE FIRST BLAST OF THE TRUMPET AGAINST THE MONSTRVOVS REGIMENT OF WOMEN.

Veritas temporis filia,

Truth is the daughter of time,

M. D. LVIII.

M. D. 1558.

THE KINGDOME APPERTEINETH TO OVR GOD.

Wonder it is, that amongest so many pregnant wittes as the Ile of greate Brittanny hath produced, so many godlie and zelous preachers as England did somtime norishe, and amongest so many learned and men of graue iudgement, as this day by Iesabel are exiled, none is found so stowte of courage, so faithfull to God, nor louing to their natiue countrie, that they dare admonishe the inhabitantes of that Ile how abominable before God, is the Empire or Rule of a wicked woman, yea of a traiteresse and bastard. And what may a people or nation left destitute of a lawfull head, do by the authoritie of Goddes worde in electing and appointing common rulers and magistrates. That Ile (alas) for the contempt and horrible abuse of Goddes mercies offred, and for the shamefull reuolting to Satan frome Christ Iesus, and frome his Gospell ones professed, doth iustlie merite to be left in the handes of their own counsel, and so to come to confusion and bondage of strangiers. But yet I feare that this vniuersall negligence[1] of such as somtimes were estemed watchemen, shall rather aggrauate our former ingratitude, then excuse this our vniuersall and vngodlie silence, in so weightie a mater. We se our countrie set furthe for a pray to foreine nations, we heare the blood of our brethren, the membres of Christ Iesus most cruellie to be shed, and the monstruous empire of a cruell woman (the secrete counsel of God excepted) we knowe to be the onlie occasion of all these miseries: and yet with silence we passe the time as thogh the mater did nothinge appertein to vs. But the contrarie examples of the auncient prophetes[2] moue me to doubte of this our fact. For Israel did vniuersalie decline frome God by embrasing idolatrie vnder Ieroboam. In whiche they did continue euen vnto the destruction of their common welthe[3]. And Iuda withe Ierusalem did followe the vile superstition and open iniquitie of Samaria[4]. But yet ceased not the prophetes of God to admonishe the one and the other: Yea euen after that God had poured furthe his plagues vpon them[5]. For Ieremie did write to the captiues of Babylon, and did correct their errors, plainlie instructing them, who did remaine in the middest of that idolatrouse nation. Ezechiel[6] frome the middest of his brethren prisoners in Chaldea, did write his vision to those that were in Ierusalem, and sharplie rebukinge their vices, assured them that they shuld not escape the vengeance of God by reason of their abominations committed.

It's surprising that among the many brilliant minds that Great Britain has produced, the numerous godly and zealous preachers that England once nurtured, and the many learned individuals and wise judges who today are exiled by Jezebel, none are found to be so brave, so faithful to God, or so devoted to their homeland that they dare to warn the inhabitants of that island about how dreadful it is in God's eyes to be ruled by a wicked woman—a traitor and an illegitimate one at that. What can a people or nation, left without a legitimate leader, do under the authority of God's word in choosing and appointing common rulers and magistrates? That island (alas) justly deserves to be abandoned to its own counsel because of the contempt and horrible abuse of God's offered mercies. It has shamefully turned from Christ Jesus and the gospel once professed, deserving to be cast into confusion and bondage under strangers. Yet, I fear that this widespread negligence of those who were once considered watchmen will only aggravate our past ingratitude rather than excuse our collective and godless silence in such an important matter. We see our country laid waste as prey to foreign nations; we hear the blood of our brethren, members of Christ Jesus, being spilled cruelly, and we know that the monstrous rule of a cruel woman (excluding God's secret counsel) is the sole reason for all these miseries. Yet we pass the time in silence as if this matter doesn’t concern us. But contrary examples from the ancient prophets lead me to question our actions. Israel universally turned away from God by embracing idolatry under Jeroboam, continuing until the destruction of their commonwealth. Judah with Jerusalem followed the vile superstition and open iniquity of Samaria. But the prophets of God did not cease to admonish both. Even after God had poured out His plagues upon them, Jeremiah wrote to the captives in Babylon, correcting their errors and plainly instructing those who remained in the midst of that idolatrous nation. Ezekiel, from the midst of his fellow prisoners in Chaldea, wrote his visions to those in Jerusalem, sharply rebuking their vices and assuring them that they would not escape God's vengeance because of their committed abominations.

[1]: the Negligence of watchemen.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: the Negligence of watchmen.

[2]: The diligence of the olde prophetes of God.

[2]: The dedication of the ancient prophets of God.

[3]: I. Reg. 12.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: I. Reg. 12.

[4]: Ezech. 16.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Ezekiel 16.

[5]: Ierem. 29.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Jer. 29.

[6]: Ezech. 7,8,9.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Ezekiel 7:8-9.

The same prophetes for comfort of the afflicted and chosen saintes of God, who did lie hyd amongest the reprobate of that age[7] (as commonlie doth the corne amongest the chaffe) did prophecie and before speake the changes of kingdomes, the punishmentes of tyrannes, and the vengeance[8] whiche God wold execute vpon the oppressors of his people. The same did Daniel and the rest of the prophetes euerie one in their season. By whose examples and by the plaine precept, which is geuen to Ezechiel, commanding him that he shall say to the wicked: Thou shalt die the death. We in this our miserable age are bounde to admonishe[9] the world and the tyrannes thereof, of their sodeine destruction, to assure them, and to crie vnto them, whether they list to heare or not. That the blood of the saintes, which by them is shed, continuallie crieth and craueth[10] vengeance in the presence of the Lorde of hostes. And further it is our dutie to open the truthe reueled vnto vs, vnto the ignorant and blind world, vnlest that to our owne condemnation we list to wrap vp and and hyde the talent committed to our charge. I am assured that God hath reueled to some in this our age, that it is more then a monstre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and haue empire aboue man. And yet with vs all, there is suche silence, as if God therewith were nothing offended. The naturall man, ennemy to God shall fynd, I knowe, many causes why no suche doctrine oght to be published in these our dangerous dayes. First, for that it may seme to tend to sedition[11]: secondarilie, it shal be dangerous, not onlie to the writer or publisher, but also to all such as shall reade the writinges, or fauor this truth spoken: and last it shall not amend the chief offenders, partlie because it shall neuer come to their eares, and partlie because they will not be admonished in such cases. I answer, yf any of these be a sufficient reason that a truth knowen shalbe conceled, then were the auncient prophetes of God very fooles, who did not better prouide for their owne quietnes, then to hasard their liues for rebuking of vices, and for the opening of such crimes, as were not knowen to the world, And Christ Iesus did iniurie to his Apostles, commanding them to preache repentance and remission of synnes in his name to euerie realme and nation. And Paule did not vnderstand his owne libertie, when he cried, wo be to me, if I preache not the Euangile. Yf feare, I say, of persecution[12], of sclander, or of any inconuenience before named might have excused, and discharged the seruantes of God[13], from plainlie rebuking the sinnes of the world; iuste cause had euerie one of them to haue ceased frome their office. For sodeinlie their doctrine was accused by termes of sedition, of newe learning, and of treason: persecution and vehement trouble did shortlie come vpon the professours with the preachers[14]: kinges, princes and worldlie rulers did conspire against God and against his anoynted Christ Iesus. But what? Did any of these moue the prophetes and Apostles to faynt in their vocation? no. But by the resistance, whiche the deuill made to them by his suppostes, were they the more inflamed to publishe the truthe reueled vnto them and to witnesse with their blood, that greuous condemnation and Goddes heuie vengeance shuld folowe the proude contempt of graces offred. The fidelitie, bold courage, and constancie of those that are passed before vs, oght to prouoke vs to folowe their footsteppes, onles we loke for an other kingdome then Christ hath promised to such as perseuere in profession of his name to the end. Yf any think that the empire of women, is not of such importance, that for the suppressing of the same, any man is bounde to hasarde his life, I answer, that to suppresse it, is in the hand of god alone. But to vtter the impietie and abomination of the same, I say, it is the dutie of euerie true messager of God, to whome the truth is reueled in that behalfe. For the especiall dutie[15] of Goddes messagers is to preache repentance, to admonishe the offenders of their offenses, and to say to the wicked, thou shalt die the death, except thou repent. This, I trust, will no man denie to be the propre office of all Goddes messagers to preache (as I haue said) repentance and remission of synnes. But nether of both can be done, except the conscience of the offenders be accused and conuicted of transgression. For howe shall any man repent not knowing wher in he hath offended? And where no repentance is founde[16], there can be no entrie to grace. And therfore I say, that of necessitie it is, that, this monstriferouse empire of women, (which amongest all enormities, that this day do abound vpon the face of the hole earth, is most detestable and damnable) be openlie reueled and plainlie declared to the world, to the end that some may repent and be saued. And thus farre to the first sorte.

The same prophets who provided comfort to the afflicted and chosen saints of God, who hid among the damned of that time (as the grain often does among the chaff), foretold the changes in kingdoms, the punishments of tyrants, and the vengeance that God would execute upon the oppressors of His people. Daniel and the other prophets did the same, each in their time. From their examples and the plain command given to Ezekiel to tell the wicked: “You shall die,” we in this miserable age are obligated to warn the world and its tyrants of their sudden destruction, to assure them, and to cry out to them, whether they want to listen or not. The blood of the saints, which they shed, continually cries out for vengeance in the presence of the Lord of Hosts. Furthermore, it is our duty to reveal the truth given to us to the ignorant and blind world, lest we choose to bury and hide the talent entrusted to us, to our own condemnation. I am certain that God has revealed to some in our time that it is more than a monstrosity in nature for a woman to rule and have power over man. Yet, there is such silence among us, as if God were not offended by this. The natural man, an enemy to God, will find many reasons not to publish such a doctrine in these dangerous days. First, because it may seem to lead to sedition; secondly, it will be dangerous, not only to the writer or publisher, but also to anyone who reads the writings or supports this truth; and lastly, it will not correct the chief offenders, partly because it will never reach their ears, and partly because they will not heed such warnings. I respond that if any of these reasons are sufficient to conceal a known truth, then the ancient prophets of God were very foolish for not taking better care of their own peace of mind than risking their lives to rebuke vices and disclose crimes unknown to the world. Furthermore, Christ Jesus did a disservice to His apostles by commanding them to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name to every kingdom and nation. Paul did not grasp his own freedom when he exclaimed, “Woe to me if I don’t preach the Gospel.” If fear, I say, of persecution, slander, or any of the aforementioned inconveniences could have excused and dismissed the servants of God from plainly rebuking the sins of the world, each of them had just cause to cease their duties. For suddenly, their teachings were accused of sedition, new learning, and treason; persecution and intense trouble soon fell upon the preachers and believers; kings, princes, and worldly rulers conspired against God and against His anointed Christ Jesus. But did any of this deter the prophets and apostles from their vocation? No. Rather, the resistance that the devil mounted against them through his supporters only fueled their determination to proclaim the truth revealed to them and to bear witness with their blood that severe condemnation and God’s heavy vengeance should follow the proud contempt of offered graces. The faithfulness, boldness, and steadfastness of those who have gone before us should motivate us to follow in their footsteps, unless we expect a different kingdom than the one Christ has promised to those who persevere in professing His name until the end. If anyone believes that the rule of women is not significant enough to warrant risking one’s life to suppress it, I reply that the suppression of it is solely in God’s hands. However, to express the impiety and abomination of it, I say it is the duty of every true messenger of God to whom the truth has been revealed in this regard. For the special duty of God’s messengers is to preach repentance, to warn the offenders of their wrongs, and to tell the wicked, “You shall die unless you repent.” I trust no one will deny that this is the proper role of all of God’s messengers—to preach, as I have stated, repentance and forgiveness of sins. But neither of these can occur unless the conscience of the offenders is accused and convicted of wrongdoing. For how can anyone repent without knowing where they have gone wrong? And where there is no repentance, there can be no entry into grace. Therefore, I assert that it is vital that this monstrous rule of women (which among all the enormities presently existing in the world is most detestable and damnable) be openly revealed and clearly declared to the world, so that some may repent and be saved. And thus far to the first group.

[7]: God alway had his people amongst the wicked, who neuer lacked their prophetes and teachers.

[7]: God always had His people among the wicked, who never lacked their prophets and teachers.

[8]: Isaie. 13. Ierem. 6. Ezech. 36.

[8]: Isaiah. 13. Jeremiah. 6. Ezekiel. 36.

[9]: Examples what teachers oght to do in this time.

[9]: Examples of what teachers should do during this time.

[10]: Ezech. 2, Apoca. 6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Ezekiel 2, Revelation 6.

[11]: Thre chef reasons, that do stay man from speaking the truthe.

[11]: The chef thinks that things keep a man from speaking the truth.

[12]: 1. Cor. 9.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: 1 Cor. 9.

[13]: Mat. 26. Act. 18, 21.

[13]: Mat. 26. Act. 18, 21.

[14]: Psalm. 2. Act. 4.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Psalm 2, Act 4.

[15]: It is necessarie for everie man to open the impietie, whiche he knoweth to hurt his commonwelth.

[15]: It is necessary for every person to address the wrongdoing that they know harms their community.

[16]: No man can repent except he knowe his synne.

[16]: No one can truly repent unless they recognize their sin.

To such as thinke that it will be long before such doctrine come to the eares of the chief offenders, I answer that the veritie of God is of that nature, that at one time or at other, it will pourchace to it selfe audience. It is an odour and smell, that can not be suppressed[17], yea it is a trumpet that will sound in despite of the aduersarie. It will compell the verie ennemies to their own confusion, to tes tifie and beare witnesse of it. For I finde that the prophecie and preaching of Heliseus was declared in the hall of the king of Syria by the seruantes and flatterers of the same wicked king[18], making mention that Heliseus declared to the king of Israel, what so euer the said king of Syria spake in his most secret chamber. And the wonderous workes of Iesus Christ were notified to Herode[19], not in any greate praise or commendation of his doctrine, but rather to signifie that Christ called that tyranne a fox: and that he did no more regarde his authoritie then did Iohn the Baptist, whom Herode before had beheaded for the libertie of his tonge. But whether the bearers of the rumors and tidinges were fauourers of Christ or flatterers of the tyranne, certain it is that the fame, as well of Christes doctrine, as of his workes came to the eares of Herod: euen so may the sounde of our weake trumpet, by the support of some wynd (blowe it from the south or blowe it from the northe it is no mater) come to the eares of the chief offenders. But whether it do or not, yet dare we not cease to blowe as God will giue strength[20]. For we are debters to mo then to princes, to witte, to the multitude of our brethren, of whome, no doubte a greate nomber haue here to fore offended by errour and ignorance, geuing their suffragies, consent and helpe to establishe women in their kingdomes and empires[21], not vnderstanding howe abominable, odious and detestable is all such vsurped authoritie in the presence of God. And therfore must the truthe, be plainlie spoken, that the simple and rude multitude may be admonished.

For those who think it will be a while before such teachings reach the ears of the main offenders, I say that the truth of God is such that, eventually, it will find its audience. It has a scent that can't be hidden, indeed it is a trumpet that will sound regardless of the opponent. It will force even the very enemies to their own embarrassment to testify and bear witness to it. I find that the prophecies and preaching of Elisha were shared in the court of the king of Syria by the servants and sycophants of that wicked king, mentioning that Elisha informed the king of Israel about everything the king of Syria said in his most private chamber. And the miraculous deeds of Jesus Christ were reported to Herod, not with great praise for his teachings, but rather to indicate that Christ called that tyrant a fox: he valued Herod's authority no more than John the Baptist did, who had previously been beheaded for speaking freely. But whether the messengers of these rumors supported Christ or flattered the tyrant, it is certain that the reputation of both Christ's teachings and His works reached Herod's ears: just as our feeble trumpet, supported by some wind (whether it blows from the south or the north, it doesn’t matter), may reach the ears of the main offenders. But whether it does or not, we must not stop blowing as God gives us strength. For we owe it to more than just princes; we owe it to the multitude of our brothers, many of whom have undoubtedly previously erred through ignorance, supporting and aiding in the establishment of women in their kingdoms and empires, not understanding how abominable, hateful, and detestable such usurped authority is in the eyes of God. Therefore, we must speak the truth plainly so that the simple and uneducated multitude may be warned.

[17]: The propertie of Goddes truth.

[17]: The attributes of God's truth.

[18]: 2. Reg. 6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Reg. 6.

[19]: Mat. 14.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Matt. 14.

[20]: Rum. 1.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Rum. 1.

[21]: The ignorant multitide hath set up the authoritie of women not knowinge the danger.

[21]: The uninformed crowd has established the authority of women without understanding the risks.

And as concerning the danger, which may hereof insue, I am not altogether so brutishe and insensible, but that I haue laid mine accompt what the finishinge of the worke may coste me for mine own parte. First, I am not ignorant howe difficile and dangerous it is to speake against a common error[22], especiallie when that the ambitious mindes of men and women are called to the obedience of goddes simple commandement. For to the most parte of men, laufull and godlie appeareth, what soeuer antiquitie hath receiued. And secondarilie, I looke to haue mine aduersaries not onlie of the ignorant multitude, but also of the wise, politike, and quiet spirites of this worlde, so that aswell shall suche as oght to mainteine the truth and veritie of God become ennemies to me in this case, as shall the princes and ambitious persons, who to mainteine their vniust tyrannie do alwayes studie to suppresse the same. And thus I am most certeinlie persuaded, that my labour shall not escape reprehension of many. But because I remembre that accomptes[23] of the talentes receiued must be made to him, who nether respecteth the multitude, nether yet approueth the wisdome, policie, peace, nor antiquitie, concluding or determining any thinge against his eternall will reueled to vs in his moste blessed worde, I am compelled to couer myne eyes, and shut vp myne eares, that I nether se the multitude, that shall withstand me in this mater, nether that I shall heare the opprobries, nor consider the dangers, which I may incurre for vttering the same. I shalbe called foolishe, curious, despitefull, and a sower of sedition: and one day parchance (althogh now I be nameles) I may be attainted of treason. But seing that impossible it is[[24], but that ether I shall offend God, dailie calling to my conscience, that I oght to manifest the veritie knowen, or elles that I shall displease the worlde for doing the same, I haue determined to obey God, not withstanding that the world shall rage therat. I knowe that the world offended (by Goddes permission) may kill the bodie, but Goddes maiestie offended, hath power to punishe bodie and soule for euer. His maiestie is offended, when that his preceptes are contemned, and his threatninges estemed to be of none effect. And amongest his manifold preceptes geuen to his prophetes, and amongest his threatninges, none is more vehement, then is that, which is pronounced to Ezechiel in these wordes[25]: Sonne of man, I haue appointed the a watchman to the house of Israel, that thou shuldest heare from my mouthe the worde, and that thou maist admonishe them plainlie, when I shall say to the wicked man: O wicked, thou shalt assuredlie die. Then if thou shalt not speake, that thou maist plainlie admonishe him, that he may leaue his wicked way, the wicked man shall die in his iniquitie, but his blood will I requier of thy hand. But and if thou shalt plainlie admonishe the wicked man, and yet he shall not turne from his way, such a one shall die in his iniquitie, but thou hast deliuered thy soule.

Regarding the dangers that may arise from this, I’m not completely ignorant or insensitive; I've considered what the outcome of this work might cost me personally. First, I'm aware of how difficult and dangerous it is to speak against a widely held belief[22], especially when ambitious men and women are called to obey God’s simple command. For most people, what's lawful and godly seems to be whatever tradition has accepted. Secondly, I expect my opponents to come not just from the ignorant masses, but also from the wise, political, and calm spirits of this world. Therefore, those who should defend the truth and reality of God might become my enemies in this matter, as will the princes and ambitious individuals who constantly seek to suppress the truth to maintain their unjust tyranny. I am quite certain that my efforts will face criticism from many. However, I remember that accounts[23] of the talents received must be given to Him who neither cares for the crowd nor approves of wisdom, politics, peace, or tradition, especially if they contradict His eternal will revealed to us in His most blessed word. I am compelled to close my eyes and shut my ears, so that I neither see the crowd standing against me in this matter nor hear the insults or consider the dangers that may arise for speaking the truth. I will be labeled foolish, nosy, defiant, and a troublemaker; perhaps one day, although I am nameless now, I might even be accused of treason. But seeing as it seems impossible that I can either offend God, who daily calls to my conscience, urging me to reveal the truth I know, or displease the world for doing so, I have decided to obey God, even if the world rages against me. I know that while the world, by God’s permission, may kill the body, God’s majesty, once offended, has the power to punish both body and soul forever. His majesty is offended when His commandments are ignored and His threats treated as meaningless. Among His many commandments given to His prophets, and among His threats, none is more severe than what was proclaimed to Ezekiel in these words[25]: “Son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman for the house of Israel, so you should hear from my mouth the word and warn them clearly when I say to the wicked man: ‘O wicked, you will surely die.’ If you do not speak out to warn him so he can turn from his wicked ways, he will die in his sin, but I will hold you accountable for his blood. If you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his ways, he will die in his sin, but you have saved yourself.”

[23]: Accomptes will be had of Goddes giftes.

[23]: Advances will be made from God's gifts.

[24]: The cause mouing the author to write.

[24]: The reason motivating the author to write.

[25]: Ezech. 33.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Ezekiel 33.

This precept, I say, with the threatning annexed, togither with the rest, that is spoken in the same chapter, not to Ezechiel onlie, but to euerie one, whom God placeth whatchman ouer his people and flocke, (and watchman are they whose eyes he doth open, and whose conscience he pricketh to admonishe the vngodlie) compelleth me to vtter my conscience in this mater, notwithstanding that the hole worlde shuld be offended with me for so doing. Yf any wonder, why I do concele my name, let him be assured, that the feare of corporall punishement is nether the onlie, nether the chef cause. My purpose is thrise to blowe the trumpet in the same mater, if God so permitte[26]: twise I intende to do it without name, but at the last blast, to take the blame vpon my selfe, that all others may be purged.

This principle, I say, along with the threat attached, and everything else said in that chapter, is meant not just for Ezekiel, but for everyone whom God places as a watchman over His people and flock (and watchmen are those whose eyes He opens and whose conscience He pricks to warn the wicked). This compels me to express my conscience on this matter, even if the whole world is offended by it. If anyone wonders why I conceal my name, let them know that the fear of physical punishment is neither the only nor the main reason. My intention is to sound the alarm on this matter three times, if God allows: twice I intend to do it anonymously, but at the last blast, I will take the blame upon myself so that all others may be cleared.

[26]: For the Authors name.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: For the author's name.


THE FIRST BLAST TO AWAKE WOMEN DEGENERATE.

To promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire aboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued ordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all equitie and iustice

To promote a woman to hold power, superiority, dominion, or control over any kingdom, nation, or city is against nature, an insult to God, completely contrary to His revealed will and established order, and ultimately, it undermines good order, fairness, and justice.

In the probation of this proposition, I will not be so curious, as to gather what soeuer may amplifie, set furth, or decore the same, but I am purposed, euen as I haue spoken my conscience in most plaine and fewe wordes, so to stand content with a simple proofe of euerie membre, bringing in for my witnesse Goddes ordinance in nature, his plaine will reueled in his worde, and the mindes of such as be moste auncient amongest godlie writers.

In evaluating this proposal, I won't overcomplicate things by collecting every detail that could expand, emphasize, or embellish it. Instead, I plan to simply present my honest thoughts in clear and concise language. I will provide straightforward evidence for each point, referring to God's order in nature, His explicit will revealed in His word, and the insights of the earliest and most respected religious writers.

And first, where that I affirme the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I meane not onlie that God by the order of his creation hath spoiled woman of authoritie and dominion, but also that man hath seen, proued and pronounced iust causes why that it so shuld be. Man, I say, in many other cases blind, doth in this behalfe see verie clearlie. For the causes be so manifest, that they can not be hid. For who can denie but it repugneth to nature, that the blind shal be appointed to leade and conduct such as do see? That the weake, the sicke, and impotent persones[1] shall norishe and kepe the hole and strong, and finallie, that the foolishe, madde and phrenetike shal gouerne the discrete, and giue counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be al women, compared vnto man in bearing of authoritie. For their sight in ciuile regiment, is but blindnes: their strength, weaknes: their counsel, foolishenes: and iudgement, phrenesie, if it be rightlie considered.

And first, when I say that the rule of a woman goes against nature, I mean not only that God, in the order of creation, has denied women authority and power, but also that men have seen, proven, and declared just reasons why it should be this way. Men, I say, often blind in many other matters, see very clearly in this regard. The reasons are so obvious that they cannot be hidden. Who can deny that it goes against nature for the blind to lead and guide those who can see? That the weak, sick, and helpless should care for and protect the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, insane, and deranged should govern the wise and give counsel to those who are of sound mind? All women, when compared to men in terms of authority, fit this description. Their insight in civic affairs is like blindness; their strength is weakness; their counsel is foolishness; and their judgment is madness, when properly considered.

[1]: Causes why women shuld not have preeminence ouer men.

[1]: Reasons why women should not have dominance over men.

I except such as God by singular priuiledge, and for certein causes knowen onlie to him selfe, hath exempted from the common ranke of women[2], and do speake of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature I say, doth paynt them furthe to be weake, fraile, impacient, feble and foolishe: and experience hath declared them to be vnconstant, variable, cruell and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faultes haue men in all ages espied in that kinde, for the whiche not onlie they haue remoued women from rule and authoritie, but also some haue thoght that men subiect to the counsel or empire of their wyues were vn worthie of all publike office. For this writeth Aristotle in the seconde of his Politikes[3]: what difference shal we put, saith he, whether that women beare authoritie, or the husbanesd that obey the empire of their wyues be appointed to be magistrates? For what insueth the one, must nedes folowe the other, to witte, iniustice, confusion and disorder. The same author further reasoneth, that the policie or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other wayes amongest the Grecians were moste excellent) was not worthie to be reputed nor accompted amongest the nombre of common welthes, that were well gouerned, because the magistrates, and rulers of the same were to [o] muche geuen to please and obey their wyues. What wolde this writer (I pray you) haue said to that realme or nation, where a woman sitteth crowned in parliament amongest the middest of men. Oh fearefull and terrible are thy iudgementes[4] (o Lord) whiche thus hast abased man for his iniquitie! I am assuredlie persuaded that if any of those men, which illuminated onelie by the light of nature, did see and pronounce causes sufficient, why women oght not to beare rule nor authoritie, shuld this clay liue and see a woman sitting in iudgement, or riding frome parliament in the middest of men, hauing the royall crowne vpon her head, the sworde and sceptre borne before her, in signe that the administration of iustice was in her power: I am assuredlie persuaded, I say, that suche a sight shulde so astonishe them, that they shuld iudge the hole worlde to be transformed into Amazones[5], and that suche a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that countrie, as poetes do feyn was made of the companyons of Vlisses, or at least, that albeit the owtwarde form of men remained, yet shuld they iudge that their hartes were changed frome the wisdome, vnderstanding, and courage of men, to the foolishe fondnes and cowardise of women. Yea they further shuld pronounce, that where women reigne or be in authoritie, that there must nedes vanitie be preferred to vertue, ambition and pride to temperancie and modestie, and finallie, that auarice the mother of all mischefe must nedes deuour equitie and iustice. But lest that we shall seme to be of this opinion alone[6], let vs heare what others haue seen and decreed in this mater. In the rules of the lawe thus it is written[7]: Women are remoued from all ciuile and publike office[8], so that they nether may be iudges, nether may they occupie the place of the magistrate, nether yet may they be speakers for others. The same is repe[a]ted in the third and in the sextenth bokes of the digestes[9]: Where certein persones are forbidden, Ne pro aliis postulent, that is, that they be no speakers nor aduocates for others. And among the rest are women forbidden, and this cause is added, that they do not against shamefastnes intermedle them selues with the causes of others[10], nether yet that women presume to vse the offices due to men. The lawe in the same place doth further declare, that a naturall shamfastnes oght to be in womankind[11], whiche most certeinlie she loseth, when soeuer she taketh vpon her the office and estate of man. As in Calphurnia[12] was euidentlie declared, who hauing licence to speake before the senate, at length became so impudent and importune, that by her babling she troubled the hole assemblie. And so gaue occasion that this lawe was established.

I believe that only God, by a unique privilege and for certain reasons known only to Himself, has exempted some from the general group of women[2]. I speak of women as nature and experience show them today. Nature, I say, portrays them as weak, fragile, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has shown them to be inconsistent, changeable, cruel, and lacking in judgment and leadership. These notable faults have been observed in women throughout history, which is why not only have men excluded women from power and authority, but some have even considered men who are subject to the guidance or rule of their wives unworthy of any public office. Aristotle writes in the second book of his Politics[3]: what difference does it make, he says, whether women hold authority, or whether husbands who obey their wives' rule are appointed as magistrates? Because what results from one must necessarily follow the other, namely, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further argues that the governance of the Lacedemonians (who were otherwise the most excellent among the Greeks) was not worthy of being considered among the well-governed commonwealths because the magistrates and rulers were too inclined to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I ask you) have said about a realm or nation where a woman sits crowned in parliament among men? Oh, fearful and terrible are your judgments[4] (O Lord), which have thus humbled man for his iniquity! I am firmly convinced that if any of those men, illuminated only by the light of nature, were to see and articulate the reasons why women should not hold power or authority, if they were to witness a woman sitting in judgment, or riding from parliament among men, wearing the royal crown upon her head, with the sword and scepter carried before her, indicating that the administration of justice lies in her hands: I am firmly convinced, I say, that such a sight would astonish them so much that they would judge the whole world to have transformed into Amazons[5], and that such a metamorphosis and change had taken place among all the men of that country, as poets have fancifully imagined occurred to the companions of Ulysses, or at least that although the outer form of men remained, they would think that their hearts had changed from the wisdom, understanding, and courage of men, to the foolishness and cowardice of women. Yes, they would further proclaim that where women reign or hold authority, vanity must necessarily be preferred to virtue, ambition and pride to temperance and modesty, and finally, that greed, the mother of all mischief, must necessarily consume equity and justice. But lest we seem to hold this opinion alone[6], let us hear what others have seen and decreed on this matter. In the rules of law, it is thus written[7]: Women are removed from all civil and public office[8], so that they may neither be judges, nor hold the place of magistrates, nor act as representatives for others. The same is reiterated in the third and sixteenth books of the digests[9]: Where certain persons are forbidden, "Ne pro aliis postulent," which means that they are not to be speakers or advocates for others. Among the rest, women are forbidden, and this reason is added, that they should not, against modesty, involve themselves in the matters of others[10], nor should women presume to perform the duties due to men. The law in the same place further states that a natural modesty ought to exist in women[11], which they certainly lose whenever they assume the role and status of men. As was clearly demonstrated with Calphurnia[12] , who, having been given the opportunity to speak before the senate, ultimately became so impudent and troublesome that her chatter disturbed the whole assembly. And so it was the reason this law was established.

[2]: Priuate example do not breake the generall ordinance.

[2]: Private examples do not break the general rule.

[3]: 2 Politicorum Aristotelis.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: 2 Politics by Aristotle.

[4]: Reade Isaie the thirde chaptre.

Read Isaiah chapter 3.

[5]: Amazones were monstruouse women, that coulde not abide the regiment of men, and therfore killed their husbandes, reade Iustine.

[5]: Amazons were monstrous women who couldn't stand being controlled by men, so they killed their husbands, as I read in Justin.

[6]: Arist. 2. Politic.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Aristotle, Politics.

[7]: Lib. 50. de regulis iuris.

[7]: Book 50. on the rules of law.

[8]: What women may not be.

[8]: What women might not be.

[9]: 3. 16. lib. Digestorum.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 3. 16. lib. Digestorum.

[10]: Ad Senatus consul, Veleianum.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: To the Senate, Veleianum.

[11]: Lib. 3. de posulationse Tit. 1.

[11]: Lib. 3. de posulationse Tit. 1.

[12]: Calphurnia.

Calphurnia.

In the first boke of the digestes[13], it is pronounced that the condition of the woman in many cases is worse then of the man. As in iurisdiction (saith the lawe[14]) in receiuing of care and tuition, in adoption, in publike accusation, in delation, in all populat action, and in motherlie power, which she hath not vpon her owne sonnes. The lawe further will not permit, that the woman geue any thing to her husband, because it is against the nature of her kinde, being the inferiour membre to presume to geue any thing to her head[15]. The lawe doth more ouer pronounce womankinde to be the most auaricious[16] (which is a vice intolerable in those that shulde rule or minister iustice). And Aristotle[17], as before is touched, doth plainly affirme, that wher soeuer women beare dominion, there must nedes the people be disorded, liuinge and abounding in all intemperancie, geuen to pride, excesse, and vanitie. And finallie in the end, that they must nedes come to confusion and ruine[18].

In the first book of the digests[13], it states that the situation of women is often worse than that of men. For example, in matters of jurisdiction (as the law says[14]), such as in receiving care and guardianship, in adoption, in public accusation, in reporting, in all public actions, and in maternal authority, which she does not have over her own sons. Furthermore, the law doesn't allow women to give anything to their husbands, as it goes against their nature, being the subordinate member and not supposed to give anything to their head[15]. Additionally, the law declares women to be the most greedy[16] (which is an unacceptable trait in those supposed to rule or administer justice). Aristotle[17], as previously mentioned, clearly states that wherever women hold power, the people must be disordered, living in and indulging in all excess, prone to pride, extravagance, and vanity. Ultimately, he concludes that they must inevitably come to destruction and ruin[18]..

[13]: De statu homino Titul. 8. Frome women.

[13]: The State of Man Title. 8. From women.

[14]: power is taken away by the Ciuile lawe ouer their own children.

[14]: power is taken away by the civil law over their own children.

[15]: Dig. lib. 24. de donatione inter virum et foeminane.

[15]: Dig. lib. 24. on the donation between a man and a woman.

[16]: women be couetous therefore vnmete gouernors.

[16]: women should not desire inappropriate leaders.

[17]: Lib. 1. Digest. de le gib. et senatuscon Titul. 3, Politic. 2.

[17]: Lib. 1. Digest. on the law of the guilds and senatorial decrees Title 3, Political 2.

[18]: England and Scotland beware.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: England and Scotland, watch out.

Wold to god the examples were not so manifest, to the further declaration of the imperfections of women[19], of their naturall weaknes, and inordinat appetites. I might adduce histories, prouing some women to haue died for sodein ioy, some for vnpaciencie to haue murthered them selues, some to haue burned with such inordinat lust, that for the quenching of the same, they haue betrayed[20] to strangiers their countrie and citie: and some to haue bene so desirous of dominion, that for the obteining of the same, they haue murthered the children of their owne sonnes. Yea and some haue killed with crueltie their owne husbandes[21] and children. But to me it is sufficient (because this parte of nature is not my moste sure foundation) to haue proued[22], that men illuminated onlie by the light of nature, haue seen and haue determined, that it is a thing moste repugnant to nature, that women rule and gouerne ouer men. For those that will not permit a woman to haue power ouer her owne sonnes, will not permit her (I am assured) to haue rule ouer a realme[23]: and those that will not suffer her to speake in defense of those that be accused, nether that will admit her accusation intended against man, will not approuel her, that she shal sit in iudgement crowned with the royal crowne, vsurping authoritie in the middest of men. But now to the second part of nature: In the whiche I include the reueled will and perfect ordinance of God, and against this parte of nature, I say, that it doth manifestlie repugne that any woman shal reigne or beare dominion ouer man. For God first by the order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman, by the, reason of her rebellion, hath pronounced the contrarie. First, I say, that woman in her greatest perfection, was made to serue and obey man[24], not to rule and command him:[25] As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes. Man is not of the woman but the woman of the man. And man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man, and therfore oght the woman to haue a power vpon her head (that is a couerture in signe of subiection). Of whiche words it is plaine that the Apostle meaneth, that woman in her greatest perfection shuld haue knowen, that man was Lord aboue her: and therfore that she shulde neuer haue pretended any kind of superioritie aboue him, no more then do the angels aboue God the creator[26], or aboue Christ Iesus their head. So, I say, that in her greatest perfection woman was created to be subiect to man: But after her fall and rebellion committed against God, their was put vpon her a newe necessitie, and she was made subiect to man by the irreuocable sentence of God, pronounced in these wordes[27]: I will greatlie multiplie thy sorowe and thy conception. With sorowe shalt thou beare thy children, and thy will shall be subiect to thy man: and he shal beare dominion ouer the. Herebie may such as altogither be not blinded plainlie see, that God, by his sentence, hath deiected all woman frome empire and dominion aboue man. For two punishmentes are laid vpon her, to witte, a dolor, anguishe and payn, as oft as euer she shal be mother; and a subiection of her selfe, her appetites and will, to her husband, and to his will. Frome the former parte of this malediction can nether arte, nobilitie, policie, nor lawe made by man, deliuer womankinde, but who soeuer atteineth to that honour to be mother, proueth in experience the effect and strength of goddes word. But (alas) ignorance of God, ambition, and tyrannie haue studied to abolishe and destroy the second parte of Goddes punishment. For women are lifted vp to be heades ouer realmes, and to rule aboue men at their pleasure and appetites. But horrible is the vengeance, which is prepared for the one and for the other, for the promoters, and for the persones promoted, except they spedelie repent. For they shall be deiected from the glorie of the sonnes of God[28], to the sclauerie of the deuill, and to the torment that is prepared for all suche, as do exalte them selues against God. Against God can nothing be more manifest, then that a woman shall be exalted to reigne aboue man. For the contrarie sentence hath he pronounced in these wordes[29]: Thy will shall be subiect to thy husband, and he shall beare dominion ouer the. As God shuld say: forasmuch as thou hast abused thy former condition, and because thy free will hath broght thy selfe and mankind in to: the bondage of Satan, I therfore will bring the in bondage to man. For where before, thy obedience shuld haue bene voluntarie, nowe it shall be by constraint and by neeessitie: and that because thou hast deceiued thy man, thou shalt therfore be no longar maistresse ouer thine own appetites, ouer thine owne will nor desires. For in the there is nether reason nor discretion, whiche be able to moderate thy affections, and therfore they shall, be subiect to the desire of thy man. He shall be Lord and gouernour, not onlie ouer thy bodie, but euen ouer thy appetites and will. This sentence, I say, did God pronounce against Heua, and her daughters, as the rest of the Scriptures doth euidentlie witnesse. So that no woman can euer presume to reigne aboue man, but the same she must nedes do in despite, of God, and in contempt of. his punishment, and maledictjon[30].

Wishing that the examples weren't so obvious, to further highlight the flaws of women, their natural weaknesses, and uncontrolled desires. I could present histories showing that some women have died from sudden joy, others out of impatience have taken their own lives, some have burned with such uncontrollable lust that in order to satisfy it, they've betrayed their country and city to strangers; and some have been so eager for power that in pursuit of it, they've killed their own sons' children. Yes, some have cruelly murdered their own husbands and children. But, for me, it's enough (since this aspect of nature isn't my most reliable foundation) to have shown that men, guided only by the light of nature, have seen and agreed that it's completely against nature for women to rule over men. For those who won’t allow a woman to have power over her own sons, surely won’t let her rule a kingdom. And those who won’t permit her to speak in defense of the accused, nor accept her accusation against men, will not approve of her sitting in judgment, crowned with royal authority, usurping power among men. Now, regarding the second part of nature: I include the revealed will and perfect ordinance of God, and against this aspect of nature, I state that it clearly contradicts that any woman should reign or hold dominion over man. For God, through the order of His creation, and later through the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman because of her rebellion, has declared the opposite. First, I say that woman, at her greatest perfection, was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As Saint Paul argues in these words: "Man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man. And man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man," and thus the woman ought to have a sign of subjection on her head (a covering). From these words, it's clear that the Apostle means that woman, in her utmost perfection, should have recognized that man was Lord over her: hence, she should never have aspired to any superiority over him, no more than the angels above God the Creator, or above Christ Jesus their head. So I state that in her greatest perfection, woman was created to be subject to man. But after her fall and rebellion against God, a new necessity was placed upon her, and she was made subject to man by God's irrevocable sentence, spoken in these words: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception. You shall bear your children in sorrow, and your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." This indicates that God, by His decree, has dethroned all women from power and dominion over men. For two punishments are imposed upon her: a sorrow, anguish, and pain, whenever she becomes a mother; and a subjection of herself, her desires, and her will, to her husband and his will. From the first part of this malediction, neither art, nobility, politics, nor laws made by man can deliver women; but whoever attains the honor of being a mother experiences the effect and strength of God's word. However, (alas) ignorance of God, ambition, and tyranny have worked to abolish and destroy the second part of God's punishment. For women are elevated to be heads over kingdoms and to rule over men at their whims and desires. But terrible is the punishment that awaits both the promoters and those promoted, unless they promptly repent. For they shall be cast down from the glory of the sons of God to the slavery of the devil and the torment prepared for all who exalt themselves against God. Against God, nothing is more evident than that a woman should be elevated to reign over a man. For the contrary sentence He has pronounced in these words: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." As if God were saying: because you abused your former condition, and because your free will has brought both yourself and mankind into bondage to Satan, I will therefore bring you into bondage to man. For where previously, your obedience would have been voluntary, now it shall be by constraint and necessity; and that because you have deceived your man, you shall no longer be mistress over your own desires, will, or inclinations. For within you there is neither reason nor discernment capable of moderating your affections, and therefore they shall be subject to the desires of your man. He shall be lord and governor, not only over your body, but even over your desires and will. This sentence, I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters, as the rest of the Scriptures clearly witness. Therefore, no woman can ever presume to reign over man, but she must do so in defiance of God and in contempt of His punishment and malediction.

[19]: Great imperfections of women.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Major flaws of women.

[20]: Ronsilda the wife of Gisulphus betrayed to Cacanus the dukedome of friaul in Italie.

[20]: Ronsilda, the wife of Gisulphus, betrayed the duchy of Friuli in Italy to Cacanus.

[21]: Iane quene of Naples hanged her husband.

[21]: Jane, queen of Naples, hanged her husband.

[22]: Athalia, 4. Reg. II. Hurene, Anton. Sabell.

[22]: Athalia, 4. Reg. II. Hurene, Anton. Sabell.

[23]: If the lesse thinges be denied to women, the greater cannot be granted.

[23]: If smaller things are denied to women, then bigger things cannot be granted.

[24]: woman in her greatest perfection was made to serue man.

[24]: a woman at her finest was created to serve man.

[25]: I. Cor. II.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: 1 Cor 2.

[26]: A good comparison.

A solid comparison.

[27]: A newe necessity of womans subiection. woman by the sentence of God, subiect to man. Gene. 3.

[27]: A new necessity of women's subjection. Woman, by God's decree, is subject to man. Genesis 3.

[28]: The punishment of women unjustlie promoted and of their promoters.

[28]: The unfair punishment of women and those who promote it.

[29]: Gene. 3.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Genesis 3.

[30]: Let all women take hede.

Attention women.

I am not ignorant, that the most part of men do vnderstand this malediction of the subiection of the wife to her husband, and of the dominion, which; he beareth aboue her[31]: but the holie ghost geueth to vs an other interpretation of this place, taking from all women all. kinde of superioritie, authoritie and power ouer man, speaking as foloweth, by the mouth of saint Paule[32]. I suffer not a woman to teache, nether yet to vsurpe authoritie aboue man. Here he nameth women in generall, excepting none, affirming that she may vsurpe authoritie aboue no man. And that he speaketh more plainly, in an other place in these wordes[33]: Let women kepe silence in the congregation, for it is not permitted to them to speake, but to be subiect as the lawe sayeth. These two testimonies of the holy ghost, be sufficient to proue what soeuer we haue affirmed before, and to represse the inordinate pride of women, as also to correct the foolishnes of those that haue studied to exalt women in authoritie aboue man, against God, and against his sentence pronounced. But that the same two places of the apostle may the better he vnderstand: it is to be noted, that in the latter, which is writen in the first epistle to the Corinthes the 14. chapitre, before the apostle had permitted that all persones shuld prophecie one after an other: addinge this reason: that all may learne and all may receiue consolation. And lest that any might haue iudged, that amongest a rude multitude, and the pluralitie of speakers, manie, thinges litle to purpose might haue bene affirmed, or elles that some confusion might haue risen: he addeth, the spirites of the prophetes are subiect to the prophetes: As he shuld say, God shall alwayes raise vp some, to whome the veritie shalbe reueled, and vnto such ye shal geue place, albeit they sit in the lowest seates. And thus the apostle wold haue prophecying an exercise to be free to the hole churche, that euerie one shuld communicate with the congregation, what God had reueled to them, prouidinge that it were orderlie done. But frome this generall priuiledge he secludeth all woman, sayinge: let women kepe silence in the congregation. And why I pray you? was it because that the apostle thoght no woman to haue any knowledge? no he geueth an other reason, saying; let her be subiect as the lawe saith[34]. In which wordes is first to be noted, that the apostle calleth this former sentence pronounced against woman a lawe, that is, the immutable decree of God, who by his owne voice hath subiected her to one membre of the congregation[35], that is to her husband, wherupon the holie ghost concludeth, that she may neuer rule nor bear empire ahoue man. For she that is made subiect to one, may neuer be preferred to many, and that the holie ghoste doth manifestlie expresse, saying: I suffer not that women vsurpe authoritie aboue man: he sayth not, I will not, that woman vsurpe authoritie aboue her husband, but he nameth man in generall, taking frome her all power and authoritie, to speake, to reason, to interprete, or to teache, but principallie to rule or to iudge in the assemblie of men. So that woman by the lawe of God, and by the interpretation of the holy ghost, is vtterly forbidden to occupie the place of God in the offices afore said, which he hath assigned to man, whome he hath appointed and ordeined his lieutenant in earth: secluding frome that honor and dignitie all woman, as this short argument shall euidentlie declare.

I am not unaware that most people understand the curse of a wife's submission to her husband and the dominance he has over her[31]: but the Holy Spirit gives us a different interpretation of this scripture, removing any kind of superiority, authority, and power that women have over men. This is expressed through the words of Saint Paul[32].: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man. Here, he refers to women in general, excluding none, affirming that no woman may assume authority over any man. He states this even more clearly in another passage with these words[33]: Let women be silent in the congregation, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be submissive as the law says. These two testimonies from the Holy Spirit are enough to prove everything we have stated before, as well as to curb the unreasonable pride of women, and to correct the folly of those who have sought to elevate women to positions of authority over men, contrary to God and His judgment. To better understand these two passages from the Apostle, it is important to note that in the latter, found in the 14th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle previously allowed everyone to prophesy one after another, adding the reason: so that all may learn and be comforted. And to prevent anyone from thinking that in a large and unruly crowd, many irrelevant things might be said, or that some confusion might arise, he adds that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. This means that God will always raise some who will receive the truth, and to such you should give place, even if they sit in the lowest seats. Thus, the Apostle intended prophecy to be an activity open to the whole church, so that everyone could share with the congregation what God had revealed to them, provided it was done in an orderly manner. But from this general privilege, he excludes all women, stating: let women keep silence in the congregation. And why, you might ask? Was it because the Apostle thought no woman had any knowledge? No, he gives another reason, saying: let her be submissive as the law says[34]. In this statement, it is first important to note that the Apostle refers to this earlier judgment against women as a law, meaning the unchangeable decree of God, who by His own voice has subjected her to one member of the congregation[35], that is, her husband, upon which the Holy Spirit concludes that she can never rule or hold authority over a man. For she who is subject to one may never be preferred over many, and this is clearly expressed by the Holy Spirit, saying: I do not allow women to assume authority over men: he does not say, I will not allow a woman to assume authority over her husband, but he refers to men in general, taking away all power and authority from her to speak, reason, interpret, or teach, but primarily to rule or judge in the assembly of men. Therefore, by the law of God and by the interpretation of the Holy Spirit, women are completely forbidden to take on the roles assigned to men, whom God has appointed and ordained as His representatives on earth, excluding all women from that honor and dignity, as this brief argument will clearly demonstrate.

[31]: Answer to an obiection.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Response to an objection.

[32]: 1 Tim. 2.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: 1 Tim. 2.

[33]: I. Cor. 14.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: 1 Cor. 14.

[34]: From a general privilege is woman secluded.

[34]: In general, women are kept secluded.

[35]: She that is, subject to one may not rule many.

[35]: Someone who is under the authority of one cannot have power over many.

The apostle taketh power frome all woman to speake in the assemblie[36]. Ergo he permitteth no woman to rule aboue man. The former parteis euident, whereupon doth the conclusion of necessitie folowe. For he that taketh from woman the least parte of authoritie[37], dominion or rule, will not permit vnto her that whiche is greatest: But greater it is to reigne aboue realmes and nations, to publish and to make lawes, and to commande men of all estates, and finallie to appoint iudges and ministers, then to speake in the congregation. For her iudgement, sentence, or opinion proposed in the congregation, may be iudged by all, may be corrected by the learned, and reformed by the godlie. But woman being promoted in souereine authoritie, her lawes must be obeyed, her opinion folowed, and her tyrannic mainteined: supposing that it be expreslie against God, and the prophet [profit] of the common welth, as to[o] manifest experience doth this day witnesse. And therfore yet againe I repete that, whiche before I haue affirmed: to witt, that a woman promoted to sit in the seate of God, that is, to teache, to iudge or to reigne aboue man, is amonstre in nature, contumelie to God, and a thing most repugnant to his will and ordinance. For he hath depriued them as before is proued, of speakinge in the congregation, and hath expreslie forbidden them to vsurpe any kinde of authoritie aboue man. Howe then will he suffer them to reigne and haue empire aboue realmes and nations? He will neuer, I say, approue it, because it is a thing most repugnant to his perfect ordinance, as after shalbe declared, and as the former scriptures haue plainlie geuen testimonie. To the whiche, to adde any thing were superfluous, were it not that the worlde is almost nowe comen to that blindnes, that what soeuer pleaseth not the princes and the multitude, the same is reiected as doctrine newelie forged, and is condemned, for heresie. I haue therfore thoght good to recite the mindes of some auncient writers in the same mater, to the end that suche as altogither be not blinded by the deuil, may consider and vnderstand this my iudgement to be no newe interpretation of Goddes scriptures, but to be the vniforme consent of the most parte of godlie writers, since the time of the apostles. Tertullian[38] in his boke of womens apparell, after that he hath shewed many causes why gorgious apparell is abominable and odiouse in a woman, addeth these wordes, speaking as it were to euery woman by name: Dost thou not knowe (saith he) that thou art Heua? the sentence of God liueth and is effectuall against this kind, and in this worlde of necessity it is, that the punishment also liue. Thou art the porte and gate of the deuil. Thou art the first transgressor of goddes law. thou diddest persuade and easely deceiue him whome the deuil durst not assault[39]. For thy merit (that is for thy death) it behoued the son of god to suffre the death, and doth it yet abide in thy mind to decke the aboue thy skin coates? By these and many other graue sentences, and quicke interrogations, did this godlie writer labour to bring euerie woman in contemplation of her selfe, to the end that euerie one depelie weying, what sentence God had pronounced against the hole race and doughters of Heua, might not onely learne daily to humble and subiect them selues in the presence of God, but also that they shulde auoide and abhorre what soeuer thing might exalte them or puffe them vp in pride, or that might be occasion, that they shuld forget the curse and malediction of God. And what, I pray you, is more able to cause woman to forget her owne condition, then if she be lifted vp in authoritie aboue man? It is a thingverie difficile to a man, (be he neuer so constant) promoted to honors, not to be tickled some what with pride (for the winde of vaine glorie doth easelie carie vp the drie dust of the earth). But as for woman[40], it is no more possible, that she being set aloft in authoritie aboue man, shall resist the motions of pride, then it is able to the weake reed, or to the turning wethercocke, not to bowe or turne at the vehemencie of the vnconstant wind. And therfore the same writer expreslie forbiddeth all woman to intremedle with the office of man. For thus he writeth in his book de virginibus velandis[41]: It is not permitted to a woman, to speake in the congregation, nether to teache, nether to baptise, nether to vendicate to her selfe any office of man. The same he speaketh yet more plainly in the preface of his sixte boke writen against Marcion[42], where he recounting certain monstruous thinges, whiche were to be sene at the sea called Euxinum, amongest the rest, he reciteth this as a greate monstre in nature, that women in those partes, were not tamed nor embased by consideration of their own sex and kind: but that all shame laide a parte, they made expenses vpon weapons and learned the feates of warre, hauinge more pleasure to fight, then to mary and be subiect to man. Thus farre of Tertullian, whose wordes be so plain, that they nede no explanation. For he that taketh from her all office apperteining to man, will not suffre her to reigne aboue man: and he that iudgeth it a monstre in nature, that a woman shall exercise weapons, must iudge it to be a monstre of monstres, that a woman shalbe exalted aboue a hole realme and nation. Of the same minde is Origen, and diuers others. Yea euen till the dayes of Augustine, whose sentences I omit to auoide prolixitie.

The apostle takes away the right of all women to speak in the assembly[36]. Therefore, he does not allow any woman to rule over man. The first part is clear, and the conclusion naturally follows. If he takes away even the smallest part of authority[37], power, or control, from women, he certainly will not allow them the greatest: ruling over kingdoms and nations, making and enforcing laws, commanding men of all ranks, and finally appointing judges and ministers is far greater than simply speaking in congregation. For a woman's judgment, sentence, or opinion expressed in congregation can be evaluated by everyone, corrected by the learned, and reformed by the godly. But if a woman is elevated to sovereign authority, her laws must be obeyed, her opinion followed, and her tyranny maintained, even if it is explicitly against God and detrimental to the common good, as current experience clearly shows. Therefore, I reiterate what I have previously affirmed: that a woman elevated to sit in God's seat, that is, to teach, judge, or rule over man, is a monstrosity in nature, an insult to God, and something that is completely contrary to His will and order. He has deprived them, as previously demonstrated, of the right to speak in congregation and has expressly forbidden them from taking any authority over man. How, then, can He allow them to reign and have power over kingdoms and nations? He will never approve of it, because it is completely against His perfect ordinance, as I will explain further and as the earlier scriptures have clearly testified. To add anything to this would be unnecessary, were it not for the fact that the world has reached such blindness that anything displeasing to princes and the masses is rejected as newly invented doctrine and condemned as heresy. I have therefore thought it good to present the views of some ancient writers on this matter, so that those who are not entirely blinded by the devil may consider and understand that my judgment is not a new interpretation of God’s scriptures, but rather the uniform agreement of most godly writers since the time of the apostles. Tertullian[38] in his book on women's clothing, after discussing many reasons why fancy clothing is abominable and detestable for a woman, adds these words, addressing every woman directly: Don’t you know (he says) that you are Eve? The sentence of God lives on and is effective against this kind, and in this world, it is necessary that punishment also persists. You are the doorway and gate of the devil. You were the first to break God’s law. You persuaded and easily deceived him whom the devil dared not assault[39]. Because of your actions (that is, because of your death), it was necessary for the Son of God to suffer death. And do you still intend to adorn yourself above your natural state? Through these and many other serious statements and pointed questions, this godly writer sought to bring every woman to reflect on herself, so that each one, deeply considering what sentence God had pronounced against all the daughters of Eve, might learn to humble herself in God's presence and to avoid and despise anything that might elevate her or provoke her pride, or that might cause her to forget God’s curse and malediction. And what, I ask you, is more likely to make a woman forget her own condition than if she is elevated in authority over man? It is very difficult for a man, no matter how steady he is, when promoted to honors, not to be somewhat stirred by pride (for the wind of vanity easily sweeps up the dry dust of the earth). But as for a woman[40], it is equally impossible for her to resist the temptations of pride when placed in authority over man, just as it is for a weak reed or a shifting weathercock to remain steady against the force of an unsteady wind. Therefore, the same writer expressly forbids all women from meddling with the role of men. For he writes in his book de virginibus velandis[41]: It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the congregation, nor to teach, nor to baptize, nor to claim any office belonging to a man. He also expresses this even more clearly in the preface of his sixth book written against Marcion[42], where he recounts certain monstrous things witnessed at the sea called Euxine, noting that among other things, it is a great monstrosity in nature that women in those parts were not tamed or humbled by the consideration of their own sex and kind: but that all shame cast aside, they spent resources on weapons and learned the arts of war, finding more pleasure in fighting than in marrying and being subject to men. Thus far Tertullian, whose words are so clear that they need no further explanation. For he who takes from her all roles pertaining to men will not permit her to reign over men: and he who considers it a monstrosity in nature for a woman to handle weapons must consider it the greatest monstrosity of all that a woman would be exalted above a whole kingdom and nation. Origen and several others share the same view. Even until the days of Augustine, whose statements I will omit to avoid being too lengthy.

[36]: A strong argument.

A solid argument.

[37]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Reminder.

[38]: Tertullian de habitu mulierum.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Tertullian on the dress of women.

[39]: Let women hearken what Tertullian an olde Docto saith.

[39]: Let women listen to what Tertullian, an ancient teacher, says.

[40]: NOTE

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ NOTICE

[41]: Tertull, lib 8. de virginilis verlandis.

[41]: Tertullian, book 8 on the virtues of virginity.

[42]: In proæmio 6. lib. contra Marcionem.

[42]: In the preface to Book 6 against Marcion.

Augustine in his 22. boke writen against Faustus[43], proueth that a woman oght to serue her husband as vnto God: affirming that in no thing hath woman equall power with man, sauing that nether of both haue power ouer their owne bodies. By whiche he wold plainlie conclude, that a woman oght neuer to pretend nor thirst for that power and authoritie which is due to man. For so he doth explane him selfe in an other place[44], affirming that woman oght to be repressed and brideled be times, if she aspire to any dominion: alledging that dangerous and perillous it is to suffre her to procede, althogh it be in temporall and corporall thinges. And therto he addeth these wordes: God seeth not for a time, nether is there any newe thinge in his sight and knowledge, meaninge therby, that what God hath sene in one woman (as concerning dominion and bearing of authoritie) the same he seeth in all. And what he hath forbidden to one, the same he also forbiddeth to all. And this most euidentlie yet in an other place he writeth, mouing this question: howe can woman be the image of God, seing (saith he[45]) she is subiect to man, and hath none authoritie, nether to teache, nether to be witnesse, nether to iudge, muche lesse to rule, or beare empire? These be the verie wordes of Augustine, of which it is euident that this godlie writer[46], doth not onelie agree withe Tertullian before recited, but also with the former sentence of the lawe, whiche taketh frome woman not onelie all authoritie amongest men, but also euerie office apperteining to man. To the question howe she can be the image of God, he answereth as foloweth. Woman (saith he) compared to other creatures is the image of God, for she beareth dominion ouer them: but compared vnto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she beareth not rule and lordship ouer man, but oght to obey him &c. And howe that woman oght to obey man, he speaketh yet more clearlie in these words: the woman shalbe subiect to man as vnto Christ. For woman (saith he[47]) hath not her example frome the bodie and from the fleshe, that so she shalbe subiect to man, as the fleshe is vnto the spirite. Because that the flesh in the weaknes and mortalitie of this life, lusteth and striueth against the spirit, and therfore wold not the holie ghost geue example of subiection to the woman of any suche thing &c. This sentence of Augustine oght to be noted of all women, for in it he plainlie affirmeth, that woman oght to be subiect to man, that she neuer oght, more to desire preeminence aboue him, then that she oght to desire aboue Christe Iesus. With Augustine agreeth in euerie point S. Ambrose, who thus writeth in his Hexaemeron[48]: Adam was deceiued by Heua, and not Heua by Adam, and therfore iust it is, that woman receiue and acknowledge him for gouernor whom she called to sinne, lest that again she slide and fall by womanlie facilitie. And writing vpon the epistle to the Ephesians[49], he saith: let women be subiect to their owne husbandes as vnto the Lorde: for the man is heade to the woman, and Christ is heade to the congregation, and he is the sauiour of the bodie: but the congregation is subiect to Christ, euen so oght women to be to their husbandes in all thing-es. He procedeth further saying: women are commanded to be subiect to men by the lawe of nature, because that man is the author or beginner of the woman: for as Christ is the head of the churche, so is man of the woman. From Christ, the church toke beginning, and therfore it is subiect vnto him: euen so did woman take beginning from man, that she shuld be subiect. Thus we heare the agreing of these two writers to be such, that a man might iudge the one to haue stolen the wordes and sentences from the other. And yet plain it is, that duringe the time of their writinge, the one was farre distant frome the other. But the holie ghost, who is the spirite of Concorde and vnitie, did so illuminate their hartes, and directe their tonges, and pennes, that as they did conceiue and vnderstand one truth, so did they pronounce and vtter the same, leauing a testimonie of their knowledge and Concorde to vs their posteritia. If any thinke that all these former sentences, be spoken onelie of the subiection of the maryed woman to her husband, as before I haue proued the contrarie, by the plain wordes and reasoning of S. Paule, so shal I shortlie do the same, by other testimonies of the forsaid writers. The same Ambrose writing vpon the second chapitre of the first epistle to Timothie[50], after he hath spoken much of the simple arrayment of women: he addeth these wordes: woman oght not onelie to haue simple arrayment, but all authoritie is to be denied vnto her: for she must be in subiection to man (of whome she hath taken her originall) aswell in habit as in seruice. And after a fewe wordes he saith: because that death did entre in to the world by her, there is no boldenes that oght to be permitted vnto her, but she oght to be in humilitie. Hereof it is plain, that frome all woman, be she maried or vnmaried, is all authoritie taken to execute any office, that apperteineth to man. Yea plain it is that all woman is commanded, to serue, to be in humilitie and subiection. Whiche thing yet speaketh the same writer, more plainlie in these wordes[51]. It is not permitted to women to speake, but to be in silence, as the lawe saith[52]. What saith the lawe? Vnto thy husband, shall thy conuersion be, and he shall beare dominion ouer the. This is a speciall lawe (saith Ambrose) whose sentence, lest it shulde be violated, infirmed, or made weake, women are commanded to be in silence. Here he includeth all women. And yet he procedeth further in the same place saying[53]: It is shame for them to presume to speake of the lawe in the house of the Lord, who hath commanded them to be subiect to their men. But moste plainly speaketh he writing vpon the 16. chapitre of the epistle of S. Paule to the Romaines, vpon these wordes[54a]: Salute Rufus and his mother. For this cause (saith Ambrose) did the apostle place Rufus before his mother, for the election of the administration of the grace of God, in the whiche a woman hath no place. For he was chosen and promoted by the Lorde, to take care ouer his busines, that is, ouer the churche, to the whiche office could not his mother be appointed, albeit she was a woman so, holie, that the apostle called her his mother. Hereof it is plaine that the administration of the grace of God, is denied to all woman. By the administration of Goddes grace, is vnderstand not onely the preaching of the worde and administration of the sacramentes, by the whiche the grace of God is presented and ordinarilie distributed vnto man, but also the administration of ciuile iustice, by the whiche, vertue oght to be mainteined, and vices punished. The execution wherof is no lesse denied to woman, then is the preaching of the Euangile, or administration of the sacramentes, as herafter shall most plainlie appeare.

Augustine, in his 22nd book written against Faustus[43], argues that a woman should serve her husband as if he were God, stating that in nothing does a woman have equal power with a man, except that neither has power over their own bodies. He clearly concludes that a woman should never seek or desire the power and authority that belongs to a man. He explains this further in another place[44], claiming that a woman should be restrained and kept in check if she aims for any dominion, arguing that it is dangerous and perilous to let her proceed, even in temporal and physical matters. He adds these words: God does not see things as temporary, nor is there anything new in His sight and knowledge, implying that what God has observed in one woman regarding dominion and authority, He sees in all. And what He has forbidden to one, He forbids to all. He explicitly addresses this in another section, posing the question: how can a woman be the image of God, seeing (he says[45]) she is subject to man and has no authority to teach, bear witness, judge, much less rule or hold sway? These are Augustine's exact words, demonstrating that this devout writer[46] agrees not only with Tertullian’s earlier assertions but also with the previous statements of the law, which takes from women all authority among men and every office belonging to man. In response to the question of how she can be the image of God, he states the following: a woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God because she has dominion over them; but compared to man, she cannot be called the image of God because she does not have rule and lordship over man but ought to obey him, etc. He speaks even more clearly about how a woman ought to obey a man in these words: a woman shall be subject to her husband as unto Christ. For a woman (he says[47]) does not derive her example from the body and from the flesh, to be subject to man as the flesh is to the spirit. This is because the flesh, in its weakness and mortality, lusts and struggles against the spirit, and therefore the Holy Ghost would not provide an example of subjection to a woman from any such thing, etc. This statement from Augustine should be noted by all women, for he plainly affirms that a woman ought to be subject to man, and she should never desire to have precedence over him any more than she should desire to have it over Christ Jesus. Saint Ambrose agrees with Augustine in every point, as he writes in his Hexaemeron[48]: Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam, and therefore it is just that a woman should receive and acknowledge him as her governor whom she called to sin, lest she fall again through womanly weakness. In his writing on the Epistle to the Ephesians[49], he states: let women be subject to their own husbands as to the Lord: for the man is the head of the woman, and Christ is the head of the church, and He is the savior of the body: but the church is subject to Christ, so women ought to be to their husbands in all things. He goes on to say: women are commanded to be subject to men by the law of nature because man is the author or beginning of woman: as Christ is the head of the church, so man is of the woman. The church began from Christ, and therefore it is subject to Him; likewise, woman was created from man, so she should be subject. Thus, the agreement between these two writers is such that one might think the other has borrowed words and phrases. Yet it is clear that during the time of their writing, they were far removed from each other. However, the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of concord and unity, illuminated their hearts and directed their tongues and pens, so that as they conceived and understood one truth, they expressed and articulated the same, leaving a testimony of their knowledge and concord to us, their posterity. If anyone thinks that all these previous statements only apply to the subjection of a married woman to her husband, as I have previously proven the contrary through the clear words and reasoning of St. Paul, I will soon do the same with further testimonies from the aforementioned writers. The same Ambrose, writing on the second chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy[50], after discussing the simple attire of women, adds these words: a woman ought not only to have simple attire, but all authority is to be denied to her: for she must be in subjection to man (from whom she took her origin) both in appearance and in service. After a few more words, he states: because death entered the world through her, no boldness should be permitted to her, but she should be in humility. Here it is clear that from all women, whether married or unmarried, all authority to carry out any office that pertains to man is taken away. Indeed, it is evident that all women are commanded to serve, to be in humility and subjection. This is something the same writer expresses even more plainly in these words[51]. It is not permitted for women to speak, but to remain silent, as the law says[52]. What does the law say? "Your conversion shall be to your husband, and he shall have dominion over you." This is a special law (says Ambrose) whose decree, to avoid violation, weakening, or making it weak, women are commanded to remain silent. Here he includes all women. Moreover, he goes further in the same context, saying[53]: It is shameful for them to presume to speak of the law in the house of the Lord, who has commanded them to be subject to their men. But most plainly, he speaks when writing on the 16th chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, on these words[54a]: "Salute Rufus and his mother." For this reason (says Ambrose) the apostle places Rufus before his mother, for the election of the administration of God's grace, in which a woman has no place. For he was chosen and appointed by the Lord to take care of His affairs, that is, of the church, to which office his mother could not be appointed, even though she was a woman so holy that the apostle called her his mother. From this, it is clear that the administration of God's grace is denied to all women. By the administration of God's grace, we understand not only the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, through which God's grace is presented and ordinarily distributed to man, but also the administration of civil justice, through which virtue ought to be maintained and vice punished. The execution of which is no less denied to women than is the preaching of the Gospel or administration of the sacraments, as will be made most plainly evident later.

[43]: August. lib. 22. contra Faustum, c.31.

[43]: August. lib. 22. against Faustus, c.31.

[44]: De Trinitat, lib. 12 cap. 7

[44]: On the Trinity, book 12 chapter 7

[45]: In quaect. veteris Testamenti, quaest. 45.

[45]: In the context of the Old Testament, question 45.

[46]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Note.

[47]: Lib. de Continentia cap. 4.

[47]: Book on Continuity, Chapter 4.

[48]: Ambros. in Hexaemero lib. 5. c. 7.

[48]: Ambros. in Hexaemero lib. 5. c. 7.

[49]: Cap. 5.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Ch. 5.

[50]: Ambros. super. 2. c. I epist. ad Timoth.

[50]: Ambros. super. 2. c. I epist. ad Timoth.

[51]: Ambros. in I. epist. ad Corin. cap. 14.

[51]: Ambros. in I. epist. ad Corin. cap. 14.

[52]: Genes 3.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Genesis 3.

[53]: whose house I pray you ought the parliament house to be, Goddes or the deuilles?

[53]: whose house I ask you should the parliament house be, God's or the devil's?

[54a]: Rufus is by S. Paul saluted before his mother.

[54a]: Rufus is greeted by S. Paul in front of his mother.

Chrysostome amongest the Grecian writers of no small credit, speaking in rebuke of men, who in his dayes, were becdmen inferior to some women in witt and in godlines, saith[54]: for this cause was woman put vnder thy power (he speaketh to man in generall) and thou wast pronounced Lorde ouer her, that she shulde obey the, and that the head shuld not folowe the feet. But often it is, that we see the contrary, that he who in his ordre oght to be the head, doth not kepe the ordre of the feet (that is, doth not rule the feet) and that she, that is in place of the foote, is constitute to be the head. He speaketh these wordes as it were in admiration[55], that man was becomen so brutish, that he did not consider it to be a thing most monstruouse, that woman shulde be preferred to man in any thing, whom God had subiected to man in all thinges. He procedeth saying: Neuer the lesse it is the parte of the man, with diligent care to repel the woman, that geueth him wicked counsel: and woman, whiche gaue that pestilent counsel to man, oght at all times to haue the punishment, whiche was geuen to Heua, sounding in her eares. And in an other place he induceth God speaking to the woman in this sorte[56]: Because thou left him, of whose nature thou wast participant, and for whome thou wast formed, and hast had pleasure to haue familiaritie with that wicked beast, and wold take his counsel: therfore I subiect the to man, and I apointe and affirme him to be thy Lorde, that thou maist acknowledge his dominion, and because thou couldest not beare rule learne well to be ruled. Why they shulde not beare rule, he declareth, in other places, saying[57]: womankinde is imprudent and soft, (or flexible) imprudent because she can not consider withe wisdome and reason the thinges which she heareth and seeth: and softe she is, because she is easelie bowed. I knowe that Chrysostome bringeth in these wordes[58] to declare the cause why false prophetes do commonlie deceiue women: because they are easelie persuaded to any opinion, especiallie if it be against God, and because they lacke prudence and right reason to iudge the thinges that be, spoken. But hereof may their nature be espied, and the vices of the same, whiche in no wise oght to be in, those, that are apointed to gouerne others: For they oght to be constant, stable, prudent and doing euerie thing with discretion and reason, whiche vertues women can not haue in equalitie with men. For that he doth witnesse in an other place, saying: women haue in them selues a tickling and studhe of vaine glorie, and that they may haue common with men: they are sodeinlie moued to anger, and that they haue also common with some men. But vertues. in which they excell[59], they haue not common with man, and therfore hath the apostle remoued them from the office of teachinge, which is an euident proof that in vertue they farre differ frome man. Let the reasons of this writer be marked, for further he yet procedeth: after that he hath in many wordes lamented the effeminate maners of men, who were so farre degenerate to the weaknes of women, that some might haue demanded: why may not women teache amongest suche a sorte of men, who in wisdome and godlines are becomen inferior vnto women? We finallie concludeth: that not withstanding that men be degenerate, yet may not women vsurpe any authoritie aboue them, and in the end, he addeth these wordes: These thinges do not I speake to extolle them (that is women) but to the confusion and shame of our selues, and to admonish vs to take again the dominion, that is mete and conuenient for vs, not onelie that power which is according to the excellencie of dignitie: but that which is accordinge to prouidence, and according to helpe, and vertue. For then is the bodie in best proportion[60], when it hath the best gouernor. O that both man and woman shulde consider the profound counsel and admonition of this father! He wolde not that man for appetit of any vaine glorie shuld desire preeminence aboue woman. For God hath not made man to be heade for any suche cause: but hauing respecte to that weaknes and imperfection which alwayes letteth woman to gouerne. He hath ordeined man to be superior, and that meaneth Chrysostome, saying: then is the bodie in best proportion, when it hath the best gouernor. But woman can neuer be the best gouernor, by reason that she-being spoiled of the spirit of regiment, can neuer attein to that degree, to be called or iudged a good gouernor. Because in the nature of all woman, lurketh suche vices, as in good gouernors are not tolerable. Which the same writes expresseth. in these wordes[61]: womankind (saith he) is rashe and foolhardie, and their couetousnes is like the goulf of hell, that is, insaciable. And therfore in an other place[62], he will that woman shall haue no thing to do in iudgement, in common affaires, or in the regiment of the common welth, because she is impacient of troubles, but that she shall liue in tranquillitie; and quietnes. And if she haue occasion to go frome the house, that yet she shal haue no matter of trouble, nether to, folowe her, nether to be offered vnto her, as commonlie there must be to such as beare authoritie: And with Chrysostome fullie agreeth Basilius Magnus in a sermon[63] which he maketh vpon some places of scripture, wherin he reproueth diuers vices and amongest the rest, he affirmeth woman to be a tendre creature, flexible, soft and pitifull: whiche nature, God hath geuen vnto her, that she may be apt to norishe children. The which facilitie of the woman, did Satan abuse, and therby broght her frome the obedience of God. And therfore in diuers other places doth he conclude, that she is not apt to beare rule, and that she is forbidden to teache. Innumerable mo testimonies, of all sortes of writers may be adduced for the same purpose, but withe these I stand content: iudgeing it sufficient to stoppe the mouthe of such as accuse and condemne all doctrine, as hereticall, which displeaseth them in any point that I haue proued, by the determinations and lawes of men illuminated onelie by the light of nature, by the ordre of Goddes creation, by the curse and malediction pronounced against woman, by the mouth of saint Paule, who is the interpreter of Goddes sentence, and lawe, and finallie by the mindes of those writers, who in the church of God, haue bene alwayes holden in greatest reuerence: that it is a thing moste repugnant to nature, to Goddes will and apointed ordinance, (yea that it can not be without contumelie committed against God) that a woman shuld be promoted to dominion or empire to reigne ouer man, be it in realme, nation, prouince or citie. Now resteth it in few wordes, to be shewed, that the same empire of women is the subuersion of good ordre equitie and iustice.

Chrysostom, a respected writer among the Greeks, criticizes men who, in his time, were less capable than some women in intellect and piety, saying[54]: for this reason, woman was put under your authority (speaking to man in general) and you were declared lord over her so that she should obey you, and that the head should not follow the feet. However, it often happens that we see the opposite, where he who should be the head does not maintain the order of the feet (meaning, does not govern the feet) and she, who is in the position of the foot, is established as the head. He expresses these words as if in admiration[55], that man has become so brutish that he doesn’t see it as monstrous for a woman to be preferred to a man in anything, whom God has subjected to man in everything. He continues by saying: Nevertheless, it is the man's responsibility to diligently resist women who give him wicked advice: and women, who offered that harmful counsel to man, should always bear the punishment given to Eve, ringing in their ears. In another place, he depicts God speaking to the woman in this way[56]: Because you left him, of whose nature you were a part, and for whom you were made, and chose to associate with that wicked creature and took his counsel: therefore I subject you to man, and I appoint him as your lord, so that you may acknowledge his authority, and because you cannot bear rule, learn well to be ruled. He explains why they should not bear rule in other places, saying[57]: that women are imprudent and soft (or flexible), imprudent because they cannot judge wisely and rationally the things they hear and see: and soft because they are easily bent. I know that Chrysostom uses these words[58] to indicate why false prophets commonly deceive women: because they are easily swayed to any opinion, especially if it is against God, and because they lack the prudence and right reasoning to judge what is being said. But here we can observe their nature and vices, which should not exist in those who are appointed to govern others: For they should be constant, stable, prudent, and do everything with discretion and reasoning, qualities that women cannot possess equally with men. This he confirms in another place by saying: women have within themselves an attraction and a fascination with vanity, which they can share with men; they are suddenly moved to anger, a trait they also share with some men. However, in the virtues in which they excel[59], they do not share with men, and therefore the apostle has removed them from the office of teaching, which is clear evidence that in virtue they greatly differ from men. Let the reasons of this writer be noted, for he continues: after having lamented in many words the effeminate behaviors of men, who have degenerated to the weaknesses of women, some might have asked: why shouldn’t women teach among such men who in wisdom and piety have become inferior to women? He ultimately concludes: that despite the degeneration of men, women may not usurp any authority over them, and in the end, he adds these words: I do not say these things to praise them (meaning women) but to shame and embarrass ourselves, and to remind us to reclaim the authority that is rightful and fitting for us, not only that power which aligns with dignity but that which aligns with providence, aid, and virtue. For then the body is in its best proportion[60], when it has the best governor. Oh, that both man and woman should consider the profound counsel and admonition of this father! He did not want man to seek supremacy over woman for the sake of vain glory. For God did not make man the head for any such reason but aimed at the weaknesses and imperfections that always prevent woman from governing. He has ordained man to be superior, and Chrysostom means this when he says: then the body is in best proportion when it has the best governor. But a woman can never be the best governor because she—having been deprived of the spirit of governance—can never reach the standard to be called or judged a good governor. Because within the nature of all women lie vices intolerable in good governors. This same writer expresses it in these words[61]: woman (he says) is rash and brash, and their greed is like the depths of hell, that is, insatiable. Therefore, in another place[62], he states that women should have nothing to do with judgment, public affairs, or the governance of the commonwealth because they are impatient in troubles, but that they should live in tranquility and peace. And if she has to leave the house, she should still have no matter of trouble, neither to pursue her nor to be offered to her, as is usually the case for those who bear authority. And Chrysostom fully agrees with Basil the Great in a sermon[63] where he reproves various vices, affirming that woman is a tender creature, pliable, soft, and pitiful: a nature that God has given her, so she may be suited to nurture children. This ease of the woman was abused by Satan, leading her away from obedience to God. Therefore, in various other places, he concludes that she is not fit to bear rule and is forbidden to teach. Countless other testimonies from all sorts of writers can be brought forth for the same purpose, but I am content with these, believing it sufficient to silence those who accuse and condemn all teachings as heretical, which displease them on any point that I have proven, through the decisions and laws of men illuminated only by the light of nature, by the order of God's creation, by the curse and malediction pronounced against woman, by the mouth of Saint Paul, who interprets God's sentence and law, and finally by the minds of those writers who in the church of God have always been held in the utmost reverence: that it is most contrary to nature, to God's will and appointed order, (indeed, it cannot happen without a serious offense against God) that a woman should be promoted to dominion or empire to reign over man, whether in kingdom, nation, province, or city. It now remains to briefly show that the same rule of women is the subversion of good order, equity, and justice.

[54]: Chrysost. homil. 17. in genes.

[54]: Chrysostom. Homily 17. In Genesis.

[55]: NOTE

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: NOTE

[56]: Homil. 15 in Genes.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Homily 15 on Genesis.

[57]: God graunt all womens hartes to understand and folow this sentence.

[57]: May God grant all women's hearts to understand and follow this message.

[58]: In Mat. cap. 23. homil. 44.

[58]: In Mat. chap. 23. homily. 44.

[59]: woman can no haue vertue in equalitie with man. Ad Ephe. cap. 4. sermone 13. NOTE

[59]: A woman cannot have virtue equal to that of a man. Ad Ephe. cap. 4. sermone 13. NOTE

[60]: The body lackinge the head, can not be well gouerened nether can common welth lackinge man.

[60]: A body without a head cannot function well, just like a society without a leader cannot thrive.

[61]: In ca. 22. Ioh. homil. 87.

[61]: In around 22. John homily 87.

[62]: In Ioh. homil. 41.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: In Ioh. homil. 41.

[63]: Basilius Mag. in aliquot scripturae locos.

[63]: Basilius Mag. in some parts of scripture.

Augustine defineth[64] ordre to be that thing, by the whiche God hath appointed and ordeined all thinges. Note well reader, that Augustine will admit no ordre, where Goddes apointment is absent and lacketh.

Augustine defines[64] order as that principle through which God has appointed and arranged everything. Pay close attention, reader, that Augustine does not accept any order where God's appointment is absent or lacking.

[64]: De ordine lib. I C. 10

[64]: On the Order, Book I, Chapter 10

And in an other place he saith[65], that ordre is a disposition, geuing their owne propre places to thinges that be vnequall, which he termeth in Latin Parium et disparium, that is, of thinges equall or like, and thinges vnequall or vnlike. Of whiche two places and of the hole disputation, which is conteined in his second boke de ordine, it is euident[66], that what soeuer is done ether whithout the assurance of Goddes will, or elles against his will manifestlie reueled in his word, is done against ordre. But suche is the empire and regiment of all woman (as euidentlie before is declared) and therfore, I say; it is a thing plainlie repugnant to good ordre, yea it is the subuersion of the same. If any list to reiect the definition of Augustin, as ether not propre to this purpose, or elles as insufficient to proue mine intent: let the same man vnderstand, that in so doinge, he hath infirmed mine argument nothinge. For as I depend not vpon the determinations of men, so think I my cause no weaker, albeit their authoritie be denied vnto me. Prouided that god by his will reueled, and manifest worde, stand plain and euident on my side. That God hath subiected womankinde to man by the ordre of his creation, and by the curse that he hath pronounced against her is before declared. Besides these, he hath set before our eyes, two other mirrors[67] and glasses, in whiche he will, that we shulde behold the ordre, which he hath apointed and established in nature: the one is, the naturall bodie of man: the other is the politik or ciuile body of that common welth, in which God by his own word hath apointed an ordre. In the natural body of man God hath apointed an ordre, that the head shail occupie the vppermost place. And the head hath he ioyned with the bodie, that frome it, doth life and motion flowe to the rest of the membres. In it hath he placed the eye to see, the eare to hear, and the tonge to speake, which offices are apointed to none other membre of the bodie. The rest of the membres, haue euery one their own place and office apointed: but none may haue nether the place nor office of the heade. For who wolde not iudge that bodie to be a monstre, where there was no head eminent aboue the rest, but that the eyes were in the handes, the tonge and mouth beneth in the belie, and the eares in the feet. Men, I say, shulde not onlie pronounce this bodie to be a monstre: but assuredlie they might conclude that such a bodie coulde not long indure. And no lesse monstruous is the bodie of that common welth[68], where a woman beareth empire. For ether doth it lack a laufull heade (as in very dede it doth) or els there is an idol[69] exalted in the place of the true head. An idol I call that, which hath the forme and apparance, but lacketh the vertue and strength, which the name and proportion do resemble and promise. As images haue face, nose, eyes, mouth, handes and feet painted, but the vse of the same, can not the craft and art of man geue them: as the holy ghost by the mouth of Dauid teacheth vs, saying[70]: they haue eyes, but they see not, mouth, but they speake not, nose, but they smell not, handes and feet, but they nether touche nor haue power to go. And suche, I say, is euerie realme and nation, where a woman beareth dominion. For in despite of God (he of his iust iudgement, so geuing them ouer in to a reprobat minde) may a realme, I confesse, exalt vp a woman to that monstriferous honor, to be estemed as head[71]. But impossible it is to man and angel, to geue vnto her the properties and perfect offices of a laufull heade. For the same God that hath denied power to the hand to speake, to the bely to heare, and to the feet to see, hath denied to woman power to commande man, and hath taken away wisdome to consider, and prouidence to forsee the thinges, that, be profitable to the common welth: yea finallie he hath denied to her in any case to be head to man: but plainly hath pronounced that man is head to woman, euen as Christ is heade to all man[72]. If men in a blinde rage shulde assemble to gether, and apointe them selues an other heade then Iesus Christ (as the papistes haue done their romishe Antichrist) shuld Christ therfore lose his owne dignitie, or shulde God geue that counterfet head power to geue life to the bodie, to see what soeuer might endamage or hurte it, to speake in defense, and to heare the request of euerie subiect? It is certein that he wold not. For that honor he hath apointed before all times to his onelie sonne: and the same will he geue to no creature besides: no more will he admit, nor accept woman to be the lauful head ouer man[73], althogh man, deuil, and angel will coniure in their fauor. For seing he hath subiected her to one (as before is saide) he will neuer permit her to reigne ouer manie. Seing he hath commanded her to heare, and obey one, he will not suffre that she speake, and with vsurped authoritie command realmes and nations. Chrysostome explaning these wordes of the apostle[74]: (the heade of woman is man) compareth God in his vniuersall regiment to a king sitting in his royall maiestie[75], to whome all his subiectes commanded to geue homage and obedience, appeare before him, bearing euerie one suche a badge and cognisance of dignitie and honor, as he hath geuen to them: which if they despise and contemne, then do they dishonor their king, Euen so saith he oght man and woman to appeare before God, bearing the ensignes of the condition, whiche they haue receiued of him. Man hath receiued a certein glorie and dignitie aboue the, woman, and therfore oght he to appeare before his high maiestie, bearing the signe of his honor, hauinge no couerture vpon his heade: to witnesse that in earth man hath no head, (beware Chrysostome what thou saist, thou shalt be reputed a traytor if Englishe men heare the[76]: for they must haue my souereine lady and maistresse, and Scotland hath dronken also the enchantment and venom of Circes, let it be so to their owne shame and confusion, he procedeth in these wordes) but woman oght to be couered, to witnesse, that in earth she hath a head, that is man. Trewe it is (Chrysostome) woman is couered in both the said realmes[77], but it is not with the signe of subiection, but it is with the signe of superioritie, to witt, with the royal crowne. To that he answereth in these wordes: what if man neglect his honor? he his no lesse to be mocked (saith Chrysostome) then if a king shulde depose himself of his diademe or crowne and royal estat, and cloth him self in the habit of a sclaue. What, I pray you, shulde this godlie father haue saide, if he had sene all the men of a realme or nation fall downe before a woman? If he had sene the crowne, sceptre, and sworde, whiche are ensignes of the royall dignitie, geuen to her, and a woman cursed of God, and made subiecte to man, placed in the throne of iustice, to sit as Goddes lieutenant? What, I say, in this behalfe, shuld any hart vnfeinedlie fearing, God haue iudged of suche men? I am assured that not onlie shulde they haue bene iudged foolishe but also enraged, and sclaues to Satan, manifestlie fighting against God and his apointed ordre. The more that I consider the subuersion of Goddes ordre, which he hath placed generallie in all liuinge thinges, the more I do wondre at the blindnes of man, who doth not consider him self in this case so degenerate, that the brute beastes are to be preferred vnto him in this behalfe[78]. For nature hath in all beastes printed a certein marke of dominion in the male, and a certeine subiection in the female, whiclie they kepe inuiolate. For no man euer sawe the lion make obedience, and stoupe before the lionesse, nether yet can it be proued, that the hinde taketh the conducting of the heard amongest the hartes. And yet (alas) man, who by the mouth of God hath dominion apointed to him ouer woman, doth not onlie to his own shame, stoupe vnder the obedience of women, but also in despit of God and of his apointed ordre, reioyseth, and mainteineth that monstruouse authoritie, as a thing lauful and iust, The insolent ioy[79], the bonefiers, and banketing which were in london and els where in England, when that cursed Iesabell was proclaimed qwene, did witnesse to my hart, that men were becomen more then enraged. For els howe coulde they so haue reioysed at their owne confusion and certein destruction? For what man was there of so base iudgement (supposing that he had any light of God) who did not see the erecting of that monstre, to be the ouerthrowe of true religion, and the assured destruction of England, and of the auncient liberties therof? And yet neuer the lesse, all men so triumphed, as if God had deliuered them frome all calamitie.

And in another place, he says[65], that order is a arrangement, giving their own proper places to things that are unequal, which he calls in Latin Parium et disparium, that is, of things equal or alike, and things unequal or unlike. From these two places and the whole discussion contained in his second book de ordine, it is evident[66], that whatever is done either without the assurance of God's will, or against His will clearly revealed in His word, is done against order. But such is the rule and authority of all women (as clearly stated before), and therefore, I say; it is something plainly opposed to good order, yes, it is the overthrow of it. If anyone wishes to reject Augustine's definition, as either not suitable for this purpose, or as insufficient to prove my point: let that person understand that in doing so, they haven't weakened my argument at all. For as I do not rely on the judgments of men, I believe my cause is no weaker, even if their authority is denied to me. Provided that God, by His revealed and manifest will, stands clear and evident on my side. That God has subjected woman to man by the order of His creation, and by the curse He has pronounced against her, has been stated before. In addition to this, He has placed before us two other mirrors[67] and glasses, in which He wishes us to see the order He has appointed and established in nature: the one is, the natural body of man; the other is the political or civil body of that commonwealth, in which God by His own word has appointed an order. In the natural body of man, God has arranged an order, where the head occupies the highest place. And He has joined the head with the body, so that from it, life and motion flow to the rest of the members. In it, He has placed the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the tongue to speak, which functions are assigned to no other part of the body. The other members each have their own place and function assigned, but none can have either the place nor function of the head. For who would judge that body to be normal, where there was no head prominent above the rest, but the eyes were in the hands, the tongue and mouth beneath the belly, and the ears in the feet? I say men should not only call this body a monster; they might very well conclude that such a body could not long endure. And no less monstrous is the body of that commonwealth[68], where a woman holds authority. For either it lacks a lawful head (as it surely does) or else there is an idol[69] exalted in the place of the true head. An idol I call that, which has the form and appearance, but lacks the virtue and strength, which the name and proportion do resemble and promise. As images have face, nose, eyes, mouth, hands, and feet painted, but the use of the same cannot be given by the craft and art of man; as the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David, teaches us, saying[70]: they have eyes, but they see not; mouths, but they speak not; noses, but they smell not; hands and feet, but they neither touch nor have the power to go. And such, I say, is every realm and nation where a woman holds dominion. For in spite of God (he, in His just judgment, so giving them over to a reprobate mind) may a realm, I confess, elevate a woman to that monstrous honor, to be esteemed as head[71]. But it is impossible for man and angel to give her the properties and perfect functions of a lawful head. For the same God who has denied power to the hand to speak, to the belly to hear, and to the feet to see, has denied to woman the power to command man, and has taken away wisdom to consider, and providence to foresee the things that are beneficial to the commonwealth; yes, finally He has denied her in any case to be head to man: but has plainly pronounced that man is head to woman, even as Christ is head to all men[72]. If men in blind rage should assemble together, and appoint themselves another head than Jesus Christ (as the papists have done with their Roman Antichrist), should Christ therefore lose His own dignity, or should God give that counterfeit head the power to give life to the body, to see whatever might damage or hurt it, to speak in defense, and to hear the requests of every subject? It is certain that He would not. For that honor He has appointed before all times to His only son: and He will give the same to no creature besides: nor will He admit, nor accept woman to be the lawful head over man[73], although man, devil, and angel will conspire in their favor. For seeing He has subjected her to one (as stated before), He will never permit her to reign over many. Seeing He has commanded her to hear, and obey one, He will not allow her to speak, and with usurped authority command realms and nations. Chrysostom, explaining these words of the apostle[74] (the head of woman is man), compares God in His universal governance to a king sitting in his royal majesty[75], to whom all his subjects commanded to yield homage and obedience, appear before him, bearing each such a badge and sign of dignity and honor, as he has given to them: which if they despise and contempt, then do they dishonor their king. Even so, he says, ought man and woman to appear before God, bearing the insignia of the condition which they have received from him. Man has received a certain glory and dignity above the woman, and therefore ought he to appear before His high majesty, bearing the sign of his honor, having no covering upon his head: to witness that on earth man has no head, (beware Chrysostom what you say, you shall be regarded as a traitor if Englishmen hear the[76]: for they must have my sovereign lady and mistress, and Scotland has also drunk from the enchantment and poison of Circe, let it be so to their own shame and confusion; he proceeds in these words) but woman ought to be covered, to witness that on earth she has a head, that is man. It is true (Chrysostom) that woman is covered in both the said realms[77], but it is not with the sign of subjection, but it is with the sign of superiority, namely, with the royal crown. To this he responds in these words: what if man neglects his honor? he is no less to be mocked (says Chrysostom) than if a king should depose himself of his diadem or crown and royal estate, and dress himself in the habit of a slave. What, I pray you, would this godly father have said if he had seen all the men of a realm or nation fall down before a woman? If he had seen the crown, scepter, and sword, which are signs of royal dignity, given to her, and a woman cursed of God, and made subject to man, placed in the throne of justice, to sit as God's lieutenant? What, I say, in this regard, would any heart truly fearing God have judged of such men? I am sure they would not only have been judged foolish but also enraged, and slaves to Satan, manifestly fighting against God and His appointed order. The more I consider the subversion of God's order, which He has placed generally in all living things, the more I wonder at the blindness of man, who does not consider himself in this case so degenerate, that the brute beasts are to be preferred to him in this regard[78]. For nature has in all beasts imprinted a certain mark of dominion in the male, and a certain subjection in the female, which they keep inviolate. For no man ever saw a lion obey and bow before a lioness, nor can it be proven, that the doe takes the lead among the stags. And yet (alas) man, who by the mouth of God has been appointed dominion over woman, does not only, to his own shame, bow under the obedience of women, but also in disdain of God and His appointed order, rejoices, and maintains that monstrous authority, as a thing lawful and just. The insolent joy[79], the bonfires, and banquets that were in London and elsewhere in England, when that cursed Jezebel was proclaimed queen, bore witness to my heart that men had become more than enraged. For else how could they have rejoiced so at their own confusion and certain destruction? For what man was there of such base judgment (assuming he had any light of God) who did not see the establishment of that monster to be the overthrow of true religion, and the assured destruction of England, and of its ancient liberties? And yet nevertheless, all men triumphed as if God had delivered them from all calamity.

[65]: De ciuit. Dei, lib. 19 cap. 13.

[65]: On the City of God, book 19, chapter 13.

[66]: what soener done withowt the appointment of Goddes will is done withowt ordre.

[66]: Whatever is done without God's will is done without order.

[67]: Two mirrors, in which we may beholde the ordre of nature.

[67]: Two mirrors, where we can see the order of nature.

[68]: Common welthes under the rule of women, lacke a laufull heade

[68]: Commonwealths under the rule of women lack a lawful head

[69]: Idol.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Icon.

[70]: Psal. 115.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Psal. 115.

[71]: The empire of a woman is an idol.

[71]: A woman's influence is like an idol.

[72]: I. COY. II

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: I. COY. II

[73]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Note.

[74]: I. COY. II.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: I. COY. II.

[75]: Marke the similitude of Chrysostome.

[75]: Note the similarity of Chrysostom.

[76]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Reminder.

[77]: Howe women be couered in England and Scotland.

[77]: How women should be covered in England and Scotland.

[78]: Brute beastes to be preferred.

Better than wild animals.

[79]: Insoluent ioy bringeth sodein sorowe.

[79]: Insolent joy brings sudden sorrow.

But iust and rightuouse, terrible and fearfull are thy iudgements, o Lorde! For as some times thou diddest so punishe men for vnthankfulnes[80], that man ashamed not to commit villanie withe man; and that because, that knowinge the to be God, they glorified the not as God, euen so haste thou moste iustlie nowe punished the proude rebellion and horrible ingratitude of the realmes of England and Scotland. For when thou diddest offre thy selfe moste mercifullie to them both, offering the meanes by the whiche they might haue bene ioyned to gether for euer in godly Concorde: then was the one proude and cruel, and the other vnconstant, and fikle of promise. But yet (alas) did miserable England further rebell against the. For albeit thou diddest not cease to heape benefit vpon benefit, during the reigne of an innocent and tendre king, yet no man did acknowledge thy potent hand and meruelouse working. The stoute courage of capitaines, the witte and policie of counselors, the learning of bishoppes[81], did robbe the of thy glorie and honor. For what then was heard, as concerning religion, but the kinges procedinges, the kinges procedinges must be obeyed? It is enacted by parliament: therefore it is treason to speake in the contrarie. But this was not the end of this miserable tragedie. For thou diddest yet precede to offre thy fauors, sending thy prophetes and messagers, to call for reformation of life in all estates[82]: For euen frome the highest to the lowest, all were declined frome the (yea euen those that shuld haue bene the lanterns to others) some I am assured did qwake and tremble, and frome the botome of their hartes thirsted amendment, and for the same purpose did earnestly call for discipline. But then brust forth the venome which before lurked; then might they not conteine their despiteful voices, but with open mouthes did crie: we will not haue suche a one to reigne ouer vs. Then, I say, was euerie man so stoute, that he wolde not be broght in bondage[83]: no not to the, O Lord, but with disdein did the multitude cast frome them the amiable yoke of Christ Iesus. No man wolde suffre his sinne to be rebuked, no man wolde haue his life called to triall. And thus did they refuse the, O Lorde, and thy sonne Christ Iesus to be their pastor, protector and prince. And therfore hast thou geuen them ouer in to a reprobat minde. Thou hast taken from them the spirit of boldnes, of wisdome and of rightuous iudgement. They see their owne destruction, and yet they haue no grace to auoide it. Yea they are becomen so blinde, that knowing the pit, they headlong cast them selues into the same[84]; as the nobilitie of England, do this day, fighting in the defense of their mortall ennemie the Spaniard. Finallie they are so destitute of vnderstanding and iudgement, that althogh they knowe that there is a libertie and fredome, the whiche their predecessors haue inioyed; yet are they compelled to bowe their neckes vnder the yoke of Satan, and of his proude ministres, pestilent papistes and proude spaniardes. And yet can they not consider that where a woman reigneth and papistes beare authoritie, that there must nedes Satan be president of the counsel. Thus hast thou, O Lorde, in thy hote displeasure reuenged the contempt of thy graces offred. But, O Lord, if thou shalt reteine wrath to the end, what Aeshe is able to susteine? We haue sinned[85], O Lord, and are not worthy to be releued. But worthy art thou, O Lord, to be a true God, and worthy is thy sonne Christ Iesus, to haue his Euangil and glorie aduanced: whiche both are troden vnder foot in this cruell murther and persecution, whiche the builders of Babylon commit in their furie, haue raised against thy children, for the establishing of their kingdome. Let the sobbes therfore of thy prisoners, O Lord, passe vp to thine eares, consider their affliction: and let the eyes of thy mercie looke downe vpon the blood of such as die for testimonie of thy eternal veritie: and let not thine ennemies mocke thy iudgement for euer. To the, O Lorde, I turne my wretched and wicked hart: to the alone, I direct my complaint and grones: for in that Ile to thy saintes there is left no comfort. Albeit I haue thus (talkinge with my God in the anguishe of my harte) some what digressed: yet haue I not vtterlie forgotten my former proposition, to witt, that it is a thing repugnant to the ordre of nature, that any woman be exalted to rule ouer men. For God hath denied vnto her the office of a heade. And in the intreating of this parte, I remembre that I haue made the nobilitie both of England and Scotland inferior to brute beastes, for that they do to women, which no male amongest the common sorte of beastes can be proued to do their females: that is, they reuerence them, and qwake at their presence, they obey their commandementes, and that against God. Wherfore I iudge them not onelie subiectes to women, but sclaues of Satan, and seruantes of iniquitie. If any man thinke these my wordes sharpe or vehement, let him consider that the offense is more haynous, than can be expressed by wordes. For where all thinges, be expressedly concluded against the glorie and honor of God, and where the blood of the saintes of God is commanded to be shed, whome shall we iudge, God or the deuil, to be president of that counsel?[86] Plain it is, that God ruleth not by his loue, mercie, nor grace in the assembly of the vngocllie. Then it resteth, that the deuii, the prince of this worlde, doth reigne ouer suche tyrannes. whose seruantes, I pray you, shal then be iudged, such as obey, and execute, their tyrannie? God for his great mercies sake, illuminate the eyes of men, that they may perceiue in to what miserable bondage they be broght, by the monstriferous empire of women.

But just and righteous, terrible and fearsome are your judgments, O Lord! For just as you sometimes punished people for being ungrateful[80], so that man wasn't ashamed to commit villainy against man; and that was because, knowing you to be God, they did not glorify you as God, so now you have justly punished the proud rebellion and horrible ingratitude of the realms of England and Scotland. For when you offered yourself most mercifully to them both, providing the means by which they could have been united forever in godly harmony: at that time, one was proud and cruel, and the other was fickle and untrustworthy. Yet, alas, miserable England further rebelled against you. For although you continued to shower them with blessings during the reign of an innocent and gentle king, no one acknowledged your powerful hand and marvelous workings. The fierce courage of captains, the wit and cunning of counselors, the learning of bishops[81], robbed you of your glory and honor. For what was heard regarding religion, except that the king's actions must be obeyed? It is enacted by parliament: therefore it is treason to speak against it. But this was not the end of this miserable tragedy. For you continued to offer your favors, sending your prophets and messengers to call for a reformation of life in all ranks[82]: For even from the highest to the lowest, all had turned away from you (even those who should have been the lights to others); some, I am sure, trembled and shook and from the depths of their hearts thirsted for improvement, and for that reason earnestly sought discipline. But then the venom that had previously lurked burst forth; then they could no longer contain their spiteful voices, but with open mouths cried: we will not have such a one to reign over us. Then, I say, every man was so proud that he would not be brought into bondage[83]: not even to you, O Lord, but with disdain did the multitude cast off the lovely yoke of Christ Jesus. No one would allow their sin to be rebuked, no one wanted their life to be put to the test. And thus did they refuse you, O Lord, and your son Christ Jesus, to be their shepherd, protector, and king. And therefore you have given them over to a reprobate mind. You have taken from them the spirit of boldness, wisdom, and righteous judgment. They see their own destruction, and yet they have no grace to avoid it. Yes, they have become so blind that knowing the pit, they headlong throw themselves into it[84]; as the nobility of England do today, fighting in defense of their mortal enemy the Spaniard. Finally, they are so lacking in understanding and judgment, that although they know there is liberty and freedom, which their predecessors enjoyed; yet they are compelled to bow their necks under the yoke of Satan, and of his proud ministers, pestilent papists, and arrogant Spaniards. And still they cannot see that where a woman reigns and papists hold authority, that surely Satan must be the president of that council. Thus you have, O Lord, in your hot displeasure avenged the contempt of your offered graces. But, O Lord, if you shall retain your wrath to the end, what flesh is able to endure? We have sinned[85], O Lord, and are not worthy to be relieved. But worthy are you, O Lord, to be the true God, and worthy is your son Christ Jesus, to have his Gospel and glory advanced: which both are trampled underfoot in this cruel murder and persecution, which the builders of Babylon commit in their fury, raised against your children, for the establishment of their kingdom. Let the cries therefore of your prisoners, O Lord, reach your ears, consider their affliction: and let the eyes of your mercy look down upon the blood of those who die for the testimony of your eternal truth: and let not your enemies mock your judgment forever. To you, O Lord, I turn my wretched and wicked heart: to you alone, I direct my complaint and groans: for in that isle, your saints have no comfort left. Although I have thus (talking with my God in the anguish of my heart) somewhat digressed: yet I have not utterly forgotten my earlier proposition, namely, that it is contrary to the order of nature that any woman be exalted to rule over men. For God has denied her the office of a head. And in discussing this part, I remember that I have made the nobility of both England and Scotland inferior to brute beasts, for they do to women what no male among the common sort of beasts can be proven to do: that is, they honor them, and tremble at their presence, they obey their commands, and that against God. Wherefore I judge them not only subjects to women but slaves of Satan, and servants of iniquity. If anyone thinks my words harsh or vehement, let him consider that the offense is more heinous than can be expressed by words. For where everything is explicitly concluded against the glory and honor of God, and where the blood of the saints of God is commanded to be shed, whom shall we judge, God or the devil, to be the president of that council?[86] Clearly, it is that God does not rule by his love, mercy, or grace in the assembly of the ungodly. Then it remains that the devil, the prince of this world, reigns over such tyrants. Whose servants, I ask you, shall then be judged, such as obey and execute their tyranny? God, for his great mercies' sake, illuminate the eyes of men, that they may perceive into what miserable bondage they have been brought, by the monstrous empire of women.

[80]: Rom. I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Rom. 1.

[81]: what robbed God OF HIS HONOR in England in the time of the Gospell.

[81]: what took away God's honor in England during the time of the Gospel.

[82]: Goddes benefites shewed to England.

[82]: God's blessings shown to England.

[83]: Discipline refused in England.

Discipline rejected in England.

[84]: The nobilitie and the hole realme of England, caste themselues willingly in to the pit.

[84]: The nobility and the whole realm of England willingly throw themselves into the pit.

[85]: Confession.

Confession.

[86]: NOTE

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: NOTE

The seconde glasse, whiche God hath set before the eyes of man[87], wherein he may beholde the ordre, whiche pleaseth his wisdome, concerning authoritie and dominion, is that common welth, to the whiche it pleaseth his maiestie to apoint, and geue lawes, statutes, rites and ceremonies not onelie concerninge religion, but also touching their policie and regiment of the same. And against that ordre it doth manifestly repugne, that any woman shall occupie the throne of God, that is, the royall seate, whiche he by his worde hath apointed to man. As in geuing the lawe to Israel, concerning the election of a king, is euident. For thus it is writen[88]: If thou shalt say, I will apoint a king aboue me, as the rest of the nations, whiche are aboute me: Thou shalt make the a kinge, whome the Lorde thy God shall chose, one frome amongest the middest of thy bretheren, thou shalt apointe kinge aboue the. Thou maist not make a strangier that is not thy brother. Here expressedly is a man apointed to be chosen king, and a man natiue amongest them selues, by whiche precept is all woman and all strangier secluded. What may be obiected for the parte or election of a strangier, shalbe, God willinge, answered in the blast of the second trumpet. For this present, I say, that the erecting of a woman to that honor, is not onely to inuert the ordre, which God hath established: but also it is to defile, pollute and prophane (so farre as in man lieth) the throne and seat of God, whiche he hath sanctified and apointed for man onely[89], in the course of this wretched life, to occupie and possesse as his ministre and lieutenant: secluding from the same all woman, as before is expressed. If anythinke the fore writen lawe did bindethe Iewes onelie[90], let the same man consider, that the election of a kinge, and apointing of iudges, did nether apperteine to the ceremoniall lawe, nether yet was it mere iudiciall[91]: but that it did flowe frome the morall lawe, as an ordinance, hauing respect to the conseruation of both the tables. For the office of the magistrate oght to haue the first and chief respect to the glorie of God, commanded and conteined in the former table, as is euident by that, whiche was inioyned to Iosue by God, what time he was accepted and admitted ruler and gouerner ouer his people, in these wordes[92]: Thou shalt diuide the inheritance to this people, the whiche I haue sworne to their fathers, to geue vnto them: so that thou be valiant and strong, that thou maist kepe and do, according to that hole lawe, whiche my seruant Moses hath commanded the. Thou shalt not decline frome it, nether to the right hande, nether to the left hand, that thou maist do prudentlie in all thinges, that thou takest in hand, let not the boke of this lawe departe from thy mouth, but meditate in it, day and night: that thou maist kepe and do, according to euery thing, that is writen in it. For then shall thy wayes prosper, and then shalt thou do prudently &c. And the same precept geueth God by the mouth of Moses[93], to kinges, after they be elected, in these wordes[94]: when he shal sit in the throne or seate of his kingdome, he shall write to him self a copie of this lawe in a boke, and that shalbe with him, that he may reade in it all the dayes of his life, that he may learne to feare the Lorde his God, and to kepe all the wordes of this lawe, and all these statutes, that he may do them &c. Of these two places it is euident, that principallie it apperteineth to the king or to the chief magistrate, to knowe the will of God, to be instructed in his lawe and statutes, and to promote his glorie with his hole hart and studie, which be the chief pointes of the first table. No man denieth, but that the sworde is committed to the magistrate, to the end that he shulde punishe vice, and mainteine vertue. To punishe vice I say, not onelie that, whiche troubleth the tranquillitie and quiet estat of the common welth by adulterie, theft or murther committed[95], but also suche vices as openly impugne the glorie of God: as idolatrie, blasphemie, and manifest heresie, taught and obstinatly mainteined: as the histories and notable actes of Ezechias, Iosaphat, and Iosias do plainlie teache vs. Whose study and care was not onlie to glorifie God in their own life and conuersation, but also they vnfeinedlie did trauel to bring subiectes to the true worshipping and honoring of God. And did destroye all monumentes of idolatrie, did punishe to deathe the teachers of it, and remoued frome office and honors suche, as were mainteiners of those abominations. Wherbie I suppose that it be euident, that the office of the king or supreme magistrate, hath respect to the lawe morall, and to the conseruation of both the tables.

The second mirror that God has placed before human eyes[87] shows the order that pleases His wisdom regarding authority and dominion, which is the commonwealth that His Majesty appoints, giving laws, statutes, rites, and ceremonies not only related to religion but also concerning their governance and administration. It fundamentally contradicts this order for any woman to occupy the throne of God, meaning the royal seat that He has designated for man through His word. This is evident from the law given to Israel regarding the selection of a king. For it is written[88]: If you say, "I will appoint a king over me like all the nations around me," you shall appoint a king whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your brothers; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not your brother. Here, it is clearly stated that a man is appointed to be the chosen king, one who is a native among themselves, which excludes all women and foreigners. Any objections regarding the election of a foreigner will, God willing, be addressed in the sounding of the second trumpet. For now, I state that elevating a woman to that honor not only disrupts the order established by God but also defiles, corrupts, and desecrates (as far as man is concerned) the throne and seat of God that He has sanctified and appointed solely for man[89] to occupy and hold as his minister and lieutenant during this miserable life, excluding all women, as previously stated. If any think that the aforementioned law applies only to the Jews[90], let that individual consider that the selection of a king and the appointment of judges pertained neither to ceremonial law nor was it purely judicial[91]; instead, it flowed from moral law, as an ordinance aimed at conserving both tables of the law. The office of the magistrate should primarily focus on the glory of God, commanded and contained in the first table, which is evident from what was instructed to Joshua by God when he was accepted and appointed as ruler and governor over his people, in these words[92]: You shall divide the inheritance to this people, which I have sworn to their fathers to give them; be strong and courageous, so that you may keep and do according to the whole law that my servant Moses commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may act wisely in all that you do. Let not the book of this law depart from your mouth, but meditate on it day and night, so that you may keep and do according to all that is written in it. For then your way will prosper, and then you will act wisely, etc. The same instruction God gives through Moses[93] to kings after they are elected, in these words[94]: when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, and it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this law, and all these statutes, so that he may do them, etc. From these two passages, it is clear that it is primarily the role of the king or chief magistrate to know the will of God, to be knowledgeable in His law and statutes, and to promote His glory with all their heart and effort, which are the main points of the first table. No one disputes that the sword is entrusted to the magistrate to punish vice and uphold virtue. To punish vice means not only those acts that disrupt the peace and order of the commonwealth through adultery, theft, or murder[95], but also such vices that openly oppose the glory of God, such as idolatry, blasphemy, and manifest heresy, taught and obstinately upheld, as evidenced by the notable actions of Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah. Their dedication and care were not only to glorify God in their own lives and conduct but also to sincerely strive to lead their subjects to the true worship and honor of God. They destroyed all monuments of idolatry, executed the teachers of it, and removed from office and honors those who supported those abominations. This demonstrates that the office of the king or supreme magistrate has regard for moral law and the preservation of both tables.

[87]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: NOTE.

[88]: Deut. 17.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Deut. 17.

[89]: God hath apointed man his ministre and lieutenant.

[89]: God has appointed man as his minister and representative.

[90]: Answer to an objection.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Response to an objection.

[91]: The election of a king floweth frome the moral lawe.

[91]: The election of a king comes from the moral law.

[92]: Iosue I.

Iosue I.

[93]: Rulers should take hede to this.

[93]: Leaders should pay attention to this.

[94]: Deut. 17

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Deuteronomy 17

[95]: what vices magistrates oght to punishe.

[95]: what vices magistrates should punish.

Nowe if the lawe morall, be the constant and vnchangeable will of God, to the which the gentil is no lesse bounde, then was the Iewe[96]; and if God will that amongest the gentiles, the ministres and executors of his lawe be nowe apointed, as somtimes they were apointed amongest the Iewes: further if the execution of iustice be no lesse requisite in the policie of the gentiles, then euer it was amongest the Iewes: what man can be foolishe to suppose or beleue, that God will nowe admit those persons, to sit in iudgement or to reigne ouer men in the common welth of the gentiles, whom he by his expressed word and ordinance, did before debarre and seclude from the same? And that women were secluded from the royall seate, the which oght to be the sanctuarie to all poore afflicted, and therfore is iustlie called the seat of god (besides the place before recited of the election of a king, and besides the places of the newe testament, whiche be moste euident) the ordre and election which was kept in Iuda and Israel, doth manifestlie declare. For when the males of the kinglie stocke failed[97], as oft as it chaunced in Israel and sometimes in Iuda, it neuer entered in to the hartes of the people to chose and promote to honors any of the kinges doughters, (had he neuer so many) but knowing Goddes vengeance to be poured furth vpon the father by the away taking of his sonnes, they had no further respect to his stocke, but elected suche one man or other, as they iudged most apt for that honor and authoritie. Of whiche premisses, I conclude (as before) that to promote a woman heade ouer men, is repugnant to nature, and a thinge moste contrarious to that ordre, whiche God hath approued in that common welth, whiche he did institute and rule by his worde. But nowe to the last point, to wit, that the empire of a woman is a thing repugnant to iustice, and the destruction of euerie common welth, where it is receiued. In probation whereof, because the mater is more then euident, I will vse fewe wordes. First, I say, if iustice be a constant and perpetuall will to geue to euerie person, their own right (as the moste learned in all ages haue defined it to be) then to geue, or to will to geue to any person, that whiche is not their right, must repugne to iustice. But to reigne aboue man, can neuer be the right to woman[98]: because it is a thinge denied vnto her by God, as is before declared. Therfore to promote her to that estat or dignitie, can be no thing els but repugnancie to iustice. If I shulde speake no more, this were sufficient. For except that ether they can improue the definition of iustice, or els that they can intreate God to reuoke and call backe his sentence pronounced against woman, they shalbe compelled to admit my conclusion. If any finde faute with iustice, as it is defined, he may well accuse others, but me he shall not hurt. For I haue the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of him, who assuredlie will defend this quarel, and he commandeth me to crie:

Now, the moral law is the constant and unchanging will of God, to which Gentiles are just as bound as Jews are. If God intends that ministers and executors of His law are now appointed among the Gentiles, as they once were among the Jews, and if the execution of justice is no less necessary in the governance of Gentiles than it ever was among the Jews, what kind of fool would think or believe that God would now allow those individuals, whom He explicitly barred from such positions, to judge or rule over people in the commonwealth of Gentiles? And that women were excluded from the royal seat, which should be a sanctuary for all the oppressed, and therefore is justly called the seat of God—besides the previously mentioned areas regarding the election of a king and the clear references in the New Testament—is clearly evidenced by the order and election maintained in Judah and Israel. For when the male heirs of the royal line became extinct, as often happened in Israel and sometimes in Judah, it never crossed the people's minds to choose and promote any of the king's daughters (no matter how many there were), but rather, recognizing God's punishment on the father due to the loss of his sons, they had no further regard for his lineage, opting instead for a man whom they judged most suitable for that honor and authority. From these premises, I conclude (as stated before) that promoting a woman to head over men is against nature and most contrary to the order that God established in the commonwealth He instituted and governed by His word. Now, to the final point: that a woman ruling is contrary to justice and destructive to every commonwealth where it is accepted. To prove this, since the matter is more than evident, I’ll keep my words few. First, I say that if justice is a constant and perpetual will to give every person their own right (as the most learned in all ages have defined), then giving or wanting to give someone what is not theirs must contradict justice. However, ruling over man can never be a right of a woman since it is denied her by God, as mentioned before. Therefore, promoting her to that status or dignity can only be a contradiction to justice. If I say no more, this alone would be enough. Unless they can refute the definition of justice or persuade God to retract His sentence against women, they will be forced to accept my conclusion. If anyone finds fault with justice as defined, they might as well accuse others, but they cannot harm me. For I have the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of Him who will surely defend this cause, and He commands me to cry out:

[96]: NOTE. The gentil no lesse bounde to the lawe moral then the Jewe.

[96]: NOTE. The gentle is no less bound to the moral law than the Jew.

[97]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Notice.

[98]: The first argument that the authoritie of women repungeth to iustice.

[98]: The first argument against the authority of women challenges justice.

What soeuer repugneth to the will of god expressed in his most sacred worde, repugneth to iustice[99]: but that women haue authoritie ouer men repugneth to the will of God expressed in his worde: and therfore mine author commandeth me to conclude without feare, that all suche authoritie repugneth to iustice. The first parte of the argument I trust dare nether Iewe nor gentile denie: for it is a principle not onelie vniuersallie confessed, but also so depelie printed in the hart of man, be his nature neuer so corrupted, that whether he will or no, he is compelled at one time or other, to acknowledge and confesse[100], that justice is violated, when thinges are done against the will of God, expressed by his worde. And to this confession are no lesse the reprobate coacted and constrained, then be the chosen children of god, albeit to a diuers end. The elect with displeasure of their facte, confesse their offense, hauing accesse to grace and mercie, as did Adam, Dauid, Peter, and all other penitent offenders. But the reprobat[101], not withstanding they are compelled to acknowledge the will of God to be iust the which they haue offended, yet are they neuer inwardlie displeased, with their iniquitie, but rage, complain and storme against God, whose vengeance they can not escape[102]: as did Cain, Iudas, Herode, Iulian called apostata, Yea Iesabel; and Athalia. For Cain no doubte was conuict in conscience, that he had done against iustice in murthering of his brother. Iudas did openlie, before the high priest confesse that he had sinned, in betraying innocent blood. Herode being stricken by the angel, did mocke those his flaterers, saying vnto them: beholde your God (meaning of him selfe) can not nowe preserue him self frome corruption and wormes. Iulianus was compelled in the end to crie, O galilean (so alwayes in contempt did he name our sauiour Iesus Christ) thou hast nowe ouercomen. And who doubteth but Iesabel, and Athalia, before their miserable end, were conuicted in their cankered consciences, to acknowledge that the murther, which they had committed, and the empire whiche the one had six yeares usurped, were repugnant to iustice: Euen so shall they I doubt not, whiche this daye do possesse and mainteine that monstriferous authoritie of women[103], shortlie be compelled to acknowledge, that their studies and deuises, haue bene bent against God: and that all such as women haue usurped, repugneth to iustice, because, as I haue saide, it repugneth to the will of God expressed in his sacred worde. And if any man doubte herof, let him marke wel the wordes of the apostle, saying[104]: I permit not a woman to teache, nether yet to vsurpe authoritie aboue man. No man I trust will denie these wordes of the apostle, to be the wil of God expressed in his worde: and he saith openlie, I permit not &c. Which is asmuch as, I will not, that a woman haue authority, charge or power ouer man, for so much importeth the greke word [Greeek: anthentnin] in that place. Nowe let man and angell conspire against God, let them pronounce their lawes, and say, we will suffre women to beare authoritie, who then can depose them? yet shall this one worde of the eternal God spoken by the mouth of a weake man, thruste them euerie one in to hell. Iesabel may for a time slepe quietlie in the bed of her fornication and hoordome, she may teache and deceiue for a season[105]: but nether shall she preserue her selfe, nether yet her adulterous children frome greate affliction, and frome the sworde of Goddes vengeance, whiche shall shortlie apprehend suche workes of iniquitie. The admonition I differe to the end.

Whatever goes against the will of God as expressed in His most sacred word goes against justice[99]: but the idea that women have authority over men goes against the will of God expressed in His word. Therefore, my authority compels me to conclude without fear that all such authority contradicts justice. The first part of this argument, I believe, neither Jew nor Gentile would dare deny: it is a principle that is universally acknowledged and so deeply ingrained in the heart of humanity that, whether he likes it or not, a person is eventually compelled to recognize and admit[100] that justice is violated when things are done against God’s will as expressed in His word. This acknowledgment is forced upon both the condemned and the chosen children of God, albeit for different reasons. The elect, grieving over their actions, confess their offense and have access to grace and mercy, just like Adam, David, Peter, and all other repentant sinners. However, the condemned, while compelled to recognize God’s will as just—which they have trespassed against—remain inwardly unrepentant, instead raging, complaining, and lamenting against God, whose vengeance they cannot escape[102]: like Cain, Judas, Herod, Julian the Apostate, and even Jezebel and Athaliah. For Cain was undoubtedly convicted in his conscience that he acted unjustly when he murdered his brother. Judas openly confessed before the high priest that he sinned by betraying innocent blood. Herod, struck by an angel, mocked his flatterers, saying to them: behold your god (referring to himself) cannot now protect himself from decay and worms. In the end, Julian was forced to cry, "O Galilean" (as he always referred to our Savior Jesus Christ in contempt), "You have now overcome." And who doubts that Jezebel and Athaliah, before their tragic ends, were convicted in their corrupted consciences, acknowledging that the murder they committed and the power one had usurped for six years were contrary to justice? Similarly, I have no doubt that those who today support and maintain that monstrous authority of women[103] will soon be compelled to acknowledge that their efforts and schemes have been directed against God, and that all power usurped by women contradicts justice because, as I said, it goes against the will of God as expressed in His sacred word. And if anyone doubts this, let him pay close attention to the words of the apostle, saying[104]: "I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man." I am sure no one will deny that these words of the apostle reflect the will of God expressed in His word: he states plainly, "I do not permit," etc. This means, "I do not want a woman to have authority, responsibility, or power over a man," which is what the Greek word [Greek: anthentnin] implies in that context. Now let men and angels conspire against God, let them enact their laws, and declare that they will allow women to hold authority—who then can remove them? Yet, this single word from the eternal God, spoken through the mouth of a weak man, will cast them all into hell. Jezebel may for a time sleep quietly in her bed of fornication and debauchery; she may teach and deceive for a season[105]: but she will neither preserve herself nor her adulterous children from great suffering, and from the sword of God's vengeance, which will soon lay hold of such wicked deeds. I will defer my admonition until the end.

[99]: The second argument.

The second argument.

[100]: Nature doth confesse that repugnancie to Goddes will is iniustice.

[100]: Nature acknowledges that resisting God's will is unjust.

[101]: the reprobat confesse Goddes will iust.

[101]: the wicked confess God's will is just.

[102]: Genes. 4. Mat. 27.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Genes. 4. Mat. 27.

[103]: womans authoritie bringeth forth monstres.

[103]: a woman's authority brings forth monsters.

[104]: Tim. 2.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Tim. 2.

[105]: Apoca. 2.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Apocalypse. 2.

Here might I bring in the oppression and iniustice, which is committed against realmes and nations, whiche some times liued free, and now are broght in bondage of forein nations, by the reason of this monstriferous authoritie and empire of women. But that I delay till better oportunitie. And now I think it expedient to answer such obiections, as carnal and worldlie men, yea men ignorant of God, vse to make for maintenance of this tyrannic (authoritie it is not worthie to be called) and most vniuste empire of woman.

Here, I could talk about the oppression and injustice faced by kingdoms and nations that once lived freely but are now enslaved by foreign powers, all because of this monstrous authority and rule of women. But I’ll save that for a better time. Right now, I think it’s worthwhile to address the objections that worldly and carnal men, even those who are ignorant of God, often raise to defend this tyranny (which doesn’t even deserve to be called that) and the most unjust rule of women.

First they do obiect the examples of Debora[106], and of Hulda the prophetesse, of whom the one iudged Israel, and the other, by all apparance, did teache and exhorte.

First, they point to the examples of Debora[106], and of Hulda the prophetess, where one judged Israel, and the other, seemingly, taught and encouraged.

[106]: Iudic.4 Parn.3. The defenses of the aduersaries

[106]: Iudic.4 Parn.3. The defenses of the opponents

Secondarily they do obiect the lawe[107] made by Moses for the doughters of zalphead. Thirdlie the consent of the estates of such realmes as haue approued the empire and regiment of women. And last the longcustome, which hath receiued the regiment of women. Their valiant actes and prospesitie, together with some papistical lawes, which haue confirmed the same.

Second, they object to the law[107] made by Moses for the daughters of Zelophehad. Third, the agreement of the estates of those realms that have approved the rule and governance of women. Finally, the long-standing custom that has accepted the rule of women. Their courageous actions and success, along with some Catholic laws, have reinforced this.

[107]: Num. 27

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: No. 27

To the first, I answer, that particular examples do establishe no common lawe[108]. The causes were knowen to God alon, why he toke the spirite of wisdome and force frome all men of those ages, and did so mightely assist women against nature, and against his ordinarie course: that the one he made a deliuerer to his afflicted people Israel: and to the other he gaue not onlie perseuerance in the true religion, when the moste parte of men had declined from the same, but also to her he gaue the spirit of prophecie, to assure king Iosias of the thinges which were to come. With these women, I say, did God worke potentlie, and miraculouslie, yea to them he gaue moste singular grace and priuiledge. But who hath commanded, that a publike, yea a tyrannicall and moste wicked lawe be established vpon these examples? The men that obiect the same, are not altogether ignorant, that examples haue no strength, when the question is of lawe[109]. As if I shuld aske, what mariage is laufull? and it shulde be answered that laufull it is to man, not onelie to haue manie wiues at ones, but also it is laufull to marie two sisters, and to enioye them both liuing at ones, because that Dauid, Iacob, and Salomon, seruantes of God did the same. I trust that no man wold iustifie the vanitie of this reason. Or if the question were demanded, if a Christian, with good conscience may defraude, steale or deceiue: and answer were made that so he might by the example of the Israelites, who at Goddes commandement, deceiued the Egyptians, and spoiled them of their garmentes, golde and syluer. I thinke likewise this reason shuld be mocked. And what greater force, I pray you, hath the former argument? Debora did rule in Israel, and Hulda spoke prophecie in Iuda: Ergo it is laufull for women to reigne aboue realmes and nations, or to teache in the presence of men[110]. The consequent is vain and of none effect. For of examples, as is before declared, we may establishe no lawe, but we are alwayes bounde to the lawe writen, and to the commandement expressed in the same. And the lawe writen and pronounced by God, forbiddeth no lesse that any woman reigne ouer man, then it forbiddeth man to take pluralitie of wiues, to mary two sisters liuing at ons, to steale, to robbe, to murther or to lie. If any of these hath bene transgressed, and yet God hath not imputed the same: it maketh not the like fact or dede lawfull vnto vs. For God being free, may for suche causes as be approued by his inscrutable wisdome, dispense with the rigor of his lawe, and may vse his creatures at his pleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom he hath made subiect to his lawe, and not to the examples of fathers. And this I thinke sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirites. But to represse the raging of womans madnes, I will descend somwhat deeper in to the mater, and not feare to affirme: that as we find a contrarie spirit in all these moste wicked women, that this day be exalted in to this tyrannouse authoritie, to the spirite that was in those godly matrons: so I feare not, I say, to affirme, that their condition is vnlike, and that their end shalbe diuers. In those matrones we finde that the spirit of mercie, truthe, iustice and of humilitie did reigne[111]. Vnder them we finde that God did shewe mercie to his people, deliuering them frome the tyrannie of strangiers, and from the venom of idolatrie by the handes and counsel of those women: but in these of our ages, we finde crueltie, falshed, pride, couetousnes, deceit, and oppression. In them we also finde the spirit of Iesabel, and Athalia, vnder them we finde the simple people oppressed, the true religion extinguished, and the blood of Christes membres most cruellie shed. And finallie by their practises and deceit, we finde auncient realmes and nations geuen and betrayed in to the handes of strangiers, the titles and liberties of them taken frome the iuste possessors. Which one thinge is an euident testimonie, howe vnlike our mischeuous Maryes be vnto Debora, vnder whome were strangiers chased owt of Israel, God so raising her vp to be a mother and deliuerer to his oppressed people. But (alas) he hath raised vp these Iesabelles to be the vttermoste of his plagues[112], the whiche mans vnthankfulnes hath long deserued. But his secret and most iust iudgement, shal nether excuse them, neither their mainteiners, because their counsels be diuers. But to prosecute my purpose, let such as list to defend these monstres in their tyrannie, prbue first, that their souereine maistresses be like to Debora in godlines and pitie: and secondarilie, that the same successe doth folowe their tyrannie, which did folowe the extraorelinarie regiment of that godlie matrone. Which things althogh they were able to do[113] (as they neuer shalbe, let them blowe til they brust) yet shall her example profet them nothing at all. For they are neuer able to proue that ether Debora, or any other godlie woman[114] (hauing the commendation of the holie ghoste within the scriptures) hath vsurped authoritie aboue any realme or nation, by reason of their birth and blood. Nether yet did they claime it by right or inheritance: but God by his singular priuiledge, fauor, and grace, exempted Debora from the common malediction geuen to women in that behalf: and against nature he made her prudent in counsel, strong in courage, happie in regiment, and a blessed mother and deliuerer to his people. The whiche he did partlie to aduance and notifie the power of his maiestie as well to his ennemies, as to his owne people[115]: in that that he declared himself able to geue saluation and deliuerance, by meanes of the moste weake vesselles: and partlie he did it to confound and ashameall man of that age, because they had for the moste part declined frome his true obedience. And therfore was the spirit of courage, regiment, and boldnes taken from them for a time to their confusion and further humiliation. But what maketh this for Mary and her matche Phillippe? One thing I wold aske of suche as depend vpon the example of Debora, whether she was widowe or wife, when she iudged Israel, and when that God gaue that notable victorie to his people vnder her? If they answer she was widowe, I wold lay against them the testimonie of the holie ghost, witnessinge that she was wife to Lapidoth[116]. And if they will shift, and alledge, that so she might be called, notwithstanding that her husband was dead, I vrge them further, that they are not able to, proue it to be any common phrase and maner of speache in the scriptures, that a woman shall be called the wife of a dead man, except that there be some note added, wherbie it may be knowen that her husband is departed, as is witnessed of Anna[117]. But in this place of the iudges, there is no note added, that her husband shuld be dead, but rather the expressed contrarie[118]. For the text saith: In that time a woman named Debora a prophetesse, wife to Lapidoth iudged Israel, The holie ghost plainlie speaketh, that what time she iudged Israel, she was wife to Lapidoth. If she was wife, and if she ruled all alone in Israel[119], then I aske why did she not preferre her husband to that honor to be capitain, and to be leader to the host of the Lord. If any thinke that it was her husbande, the text proueth the contrarie. For it affirmeth that Barak, of the tribe of Nephtalie was apointed to that office. If Barak had bene her husband: to what purpose shuld the holie ghost so diligentlie haue noted the tribe, and an other name then was before expressed? Yea to what purpose shuld it be noted, that she send and called him? whereof I doubt not, but that euerie reasonable man doth consider that this Barak was not her husband, and therof likwise it is euident, that her iudgement or gouernement in Israel was no such vsurped power, as our quenes vniustlie possesse this day, but that it was the spirit of prophecie, which rested vpon her, what time the multitude of the people wroght wickedlie in the eyes of the Lord: by the whiche spirit, she did rebuke the idolatrie and iniquitie of the people, exhort them to repentance, and in the end, did bring them this comfort, that God shuld deliuer them from the bondage and thraldom of their ennemies. And this she might do[120], not withstanding that an other did occupie the place of the supreme magistral, (if any was in those dayes in Israel) for, so I finde did Hulda the wife of Sallum in the dayes of Iosias king of Iuda[121] speake prophecie and comfort the king: and yet he resigned to her nether the sceptre; nor the sword. That this our interpretacion, how that Debora did iudge in Israel is the true meaning of the holie ghost, the pondering and weying of the historic shall manifestlie proue. When she sendeth for Barak, I pray you, in whose name geueth she him his charge?[122] Doth she speake to him as kinges and princes vse to speake to their subiectes in suche cases? No, but she speaketh, as she that had a speciall reuelation frome God, whiche nether was knovren to Barak nor to the people, saying: hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded the? This is her preface, by the whiche she wold stirre vp the dull senses of Barak, and of the people, willing to persuade vnto them, that the time was comen, when God wold shewe him selfe their protector and deliuerer, in which preface she vsurpeth to her selfe, nether power nor authoritie. For she saith not, I being thy princes, thy maistresse, thy souereine ladie and quene, commatide the vpon thine allegeance, and vnder pain of treason to go, and gather an armie. No, she spoileth her self of all power to commande, attributing that authoritie to God, of whom she had her reuelation and certitude to apoint Barak capitain, which after appeareth more plainlie. For when she had declared to him the hole counsel of God, apointing vnto him aswell the nombre of his souldiors, as the tribes, owt of which they shuld be gathered: and when she had apointed the place of the batel, (whiche she coulde not haue done, but by especiall reuelation of God) and had assured him of victorie in the name of God, and yet that he fainted and openlie refused, to entre in to that iourney except that the prophetesse wold accompanie him, she did vse against him no external power, she did not threaten him with rebellion and death, but for assurance of his faint hart and weake conscience, being content to go with him, she pronounceth, that the glorie shulde not be his in that iourney, but that the Lord shuld sell Sisera in to the hand of a woman. Such as haue more pleasure in light then in darknes, may clearlie perceiue, that Debora did vsurpe no such power nor authoritie, as our quenes do this day claime. But that she was indued with the spirit of wisdome, of knowledge, and of the true feare of God: and by the same she iudged the factes of the rest of the people. She rebuked their defection and idolatry, yea and also did redresse to her power, the iniuries, that were done by man to man. But all this, I say, she did by the spirituall sworde, that is, by the worde of God, and not by any temporall regiment or authoritie, whiche she did vsurpe ouer Israel. In which, I suppose, at that time there, was no laufull magistrate, by the reason of their greate affliction. For so witnesseth the historic, saying: And Ehud being dead, the Lorde sold Israel in to the hand of Iabin king of Canaan. And he by Sisera his capitain afflicted Israel greatlie the space of twentie yeares. And Debora her self, in her song of thankes geuing, confesseth that before she did arise mother in Israel, and in the dayes of Iael, there was nothing but confusion and trouble. If any sticke to the terme, alledging that the holie ghost saith, that she iudged Israel[123]: let them vnderstand, that nether doth the Ebrue word, nether yet the Latin, alwayes signifie ciuile iudgement, or the execution of the temporall sword, but most commonlie is taken in the sense, which we haue before expressed. For of Christ it is said: he shal iudge many nations. And that he shall pronounce iudgement to the gentiles.[124] And yet it is euident, that he was no minister of the temporal sword. God commandeth Ierusalem and Iuda to iudge betwixt him and his vineyarde, and yet he apointed not them all to be ciuil magistrates. To Ezechiel it is said[125]: shalt thou not iudge them sonne of man? and after: thou sonne of man, shalt thou not iudge? shalt thou not iudge, I say, the citie of blood? and also: behold, I shall iudge betwixt beast and beast. And such places in great nombre, are to be founde thrughout the hole scriptures, and yet I trust, no man wilbe so foolish, as to thinke that any of the Prophetes were apointed by God to be politike iudges, or to punishe the sinnes of man, by corporal punishment. No the maner of their iudgement is expressed in these wordes[126]: Declare to them all their abominations, and thou shalt say to them: Thus saith the Lorde God: a citie shedding blood in the middest of her, that her time may approche and which hath made idoles against her selfe, that she might be polluted. Thou hast transgressed in the blood which thou hast shed, and thou are polluted in the idoles, which thou hast made. Thus, I say, do the prophetes of God iudge, pronouncing the sentence of God against malefactors. And so I doubt not but Debora iudged, what time Israel had declined from God: rebuking their defection, and exhorting them to repentance, without vsurpation of any ciuill authoritie. And if the people gaue vnto her for a time any reuerence or honour, as her godlines and happie counsel did well deserue, yet was it no such empire, as our monstres claime[127]. For which of her sonnes or nerest kinsmen left she ruler and iudge in Israel after her. The holie ghost expresseth no such thing. Wherof it is euident, that by her example God offreth no occasion to establish any regiment of women aboue men, realmes, and nations.

To the first, I respond that specific examples do not establish any common law[108]. The reasons are known only to God as to why He took the spirit of wisdom and strength from all men of those times and powerfully supported women against nature and against His usual course: for one He made a deliverer for His suffering people Israel; and to the other, He granted perseverance in the true religion when most men had turned away from it, and He also gave her the spirit of prophecy to assure King Josiah of the things that were to come. With these women, I say, God worked powerfully and miraculously; indeed, to them He gave remarkable grace and privilege. But who has commanded that a public, oppressive, and most wicked law be established based on these examples? The men who object to this are not entirely unaware that examples have no strength when it comes to law[109]. It’s as if I were to ask, what marriage is lawful? And the reply would be that it is lawful for a man not only to have many wives at once, but also to marry two sisters and live with both at the same time, because David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God, did the same. I trust no one would justify the absurdity of this reasoning. Or if the question were posed whether a Christian, with a good conscience, could defraud, steal, or deceive, and the answer given that he might do so by the example of the Israelites who, at God's command, deceived the Egyptians and plundered them of their garments, gold, and silver. I think this reasoning would also be ridiculed. And what greater force, I ask you, does the previous argument possess? Deborah ruled in Israel, and Huldah prophesied in Judah: Therefore, it is lawful for women to reign over kingdoms and nations or to teach in the presence of men[110]. The conclusion is foolish and ineffective. For, as stated previously, we cannot establish any law based on examples, but we are always bound to the written law and the commandment expressed therein. And the written law, pronounced by God, forbids no less that any woman rule over a man than it forbids a man to take multiple wives, to marry two sisters while both are alive, to steal, to rob, to murder, or to lie. If any of these have been transgressed, and yet God has not held it against anyone, it does not make the same act or deed lawful for us. For God, being free, may, for reasons that are approved by His inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigor of His law and may use His creations at His pleasure. But this power is not granted to man, whom He has made subject to His law, not to the examples of fathers. And I believe this is sufficient for reasonable and moderate minds. But to suppress the rage of women’s madness, I will delve a bit deeper into the matter, and I am not afraid to assert: that as we find a contrary spirit in all these most wicked women who are exalted into this tyrannical authority today, compared to the spirit of those godly matrons: I do not hesitate to state that their condition is unlike, and that their end will be different. In those matrons, we find that the spirit of mercy, truth, justice, and humility reigned[111]. Under them, we see that God showed mercy to His people, delivering them from the tyranny of strangers and from the poison of idolatry through the hands and counsel of those women: but in these of our times, we find cruelty, falsehood, pride, greed, deceit, and oppression. In them, we also find the spirit of Jezebel and Athaliah; under them, we find the simple people oppressed, the true religion extinguished, and the blood of Christ's members most cruelly shed. And finally, through their practices and deceit, we find ancient realms and nations handed over and betrayed into the hands of strangers, with their titles and liberties taken from the rightful possessors. This alone is clear evidence of how unlike our wicked Marys are to Deborah, under whom strangers were driven out of Israel, God raising her up to be a mother and deliverer to His oppressed people. But (alas) He has raised up these Jezebels to be the ultimate of His plagues[112], which man's unthankfulness has long deserved. But His secret and most just judgment shall neither excuse them nor their supporters, because their counsels are different. But to pursue my purpose, let those who wish to defend these monsters in their tyranny first prove that their sovereign mistresses are like Deborah in godliness and compassion; and secondly, that the same success follows their tyranny that followed the extraordinary rule of that godly matron. Although they might be capable of doing these things[113] (which they never shall be, let them blow until they burst), yet her example will profit them nothing at all. For they can never prove that either Deborah or any other godly woman[114] (having the commendation of the Holy Ghost within the scriptures) has usurped authority over any realm or nation, by virtue of their birth and blood. Nor did they claim it by right or inheritance: but God, by His singular privilege, favor, and grace, exempted Deborah from the common curse given to women in that regard: and against nature He made her wise in counsel, strong in courage, fortunate in governance, and a blessed mother and deliverer to His people. This He did partly to advance and make known the power of His majesty, both to His enemies and to His own people[115]: in that He declared Himself able to provide salvation and deliverance through the weakest vessels: and partly He did it to confound and shame all men of that age, because they had largely turned away from His true obedience. And therefore, the spirit of courage, governance, and boldness was taken from them for a time to their confusion and further humiliation. But what does this have to do with Mary and her match, Philippe? One thing I would ask of those who rely on the example of Deborah: was she a widow or a wife when she judged Israel, and when God granted that notable victory to His people under her? If they answer that she was a widow, I would counter them with the testimony of the Holy Ghost, witnessing that she was the wife of Lapidoth[116]. And if they try to evade this and claim that she could be called so despite her husband being dead, I urge them further that they cannot prove it to be any common phrase or manner of speech in the scriptures that a woman shall be called the wife of a dead man unless there is some note added, by which it may be known that her husband has passed, as is testified of Anna[117]. But in this section of the judges, there is no note added that her husband should be dead, but rather the opposite[118]. For the text states: In that time a woman named Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lapidoth, judged Israel. The Holy Ghost plainly states that at the time she judged Israel, she was the wife of Lapidoth. If she was a wife, and if she ruled all alone in Israel[119], then I ask why she did not elevate her husband to that honor of being captain and leader of the Lord's army. If anyone thinks it was her husband, the text proves the opposite. For it affirms that Barak, of the tribe of Naphtali, was appointed to that office. If Barak had been her husband, what reason would the Holy Ghost have noted the tribe and a different name than was previously mentioned? Indeed, for what reason would it be noted that she sent for and called him? I doubt not that every reasonable person considers that this Barak was not her husband, and it is likewise evident that her judgment or governance in Israel was not such usurped power as our queens unjustly possess today, but that it was the spirit of prophecy that rested upon her at the time when the multitude of the people acted wickedly in the eyes of the Lord: by which spirit, she rebuked the idolatry and iniquity of the people, urged them to repentance, and, in the end, brought them the comfort that God would deliver them from the bondage and oppression of their enemies. And she could do this[120], even though another occupied the place of the supreme magistrate (if there was one in those days in Israel), for, as I find, Huldah, the wife of Shallum, in the days of Josiah, king of Judah[121], spoke prophecy and comforted the king: and yet he did not resign the scepter to her nor the sword. That our interpretation that Deborah judged in Israel is the true meaning of the Holy Ghost will be manifestly proven by weighing the history. When she sends for Barak, I ask you, in whose name does she give him his charge?[122] Does she speak to him as kings and princes do to their subjects in such cases? No, but she speaks as one who had a special revelation from God, which was known neither to Barak nor to the people, saying: has not the Lord God of Israel commanded you? This is her preface, by which she seeks to stir the dull senses of Barak and the people, willing to persuade them that the time had come when God would reveal Himself as their protector and deliverer, in which preface she usurps neither power nor authority. For she does not say, I being your prince, your mistress, your sovereign lady and queen, command you upon your allegiance, and under the pain of treason to go, and gather an army. No, she strips herself of all power to command, attributing that authority to God, from whom she received her revelation and certainty to appoint Barak as captain, which later becomes more clear. For when she had declared to him the whole counsel of God, appointing him both the number of his soldiers and the tribes from which they should be gathered: and when she had appointed the place of battle (which she could not have done, but by a special revelation from God) and had assured him of victory in the name of God, and yet he faltered and openly refused to embark on that journey unless the prophetess would accompany him, she did not use any external power against him, she did not threaten him with rebellion and death, but for the assurance of his faint heart and weak conscience, being content to go with him, she declares that the glory would not be his in that journey, but that the Lord would hand Sisera over to the hands of a woman. Those who prefer light to darkness may clearly perceive that Deborah did not usurp any such power or authority as our queens claim today. But she was endowed with the spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and the true fear of God: and through that she judged the actions of the rest of the people. She rebuked their defection and idolatry and also sought to right, to her capacity, the injuries that were done by man to man. But all this, I say, she did with the spiritual sword, meaning the word of God, and not by any temporal governance or authority, which she usurped over Israel. In which, I suppose, at that time, there was no lawful magistrate due to their great affliction. This is testified by history, saying: And Ehud being dead, the Lord sold Israel into the hands of Jabin king of Canaan. And he greatly afflicted Israel through Sisera his captain for twenty years. And Deborah herself, in her song of thanksgiving, confesses that before she arose as a mother in Israel, and in the days of Jael, there was nothing but confusion and trouble. If anyone sticks to the term, claiming that the Holy Ghost says that she judged Israel[123]: let them understand that neither the Hebrew word nor the Latin always signifies civil judgment, or the execution of the temporal sword, but is most commonly taken in the sense we have expressed before. For of Christ, it is said: he shall judge many nations. And that he shall pronounce judgment to the Gentiles.[124]. And yet it is evident that he was no minister of the temporal sword. God commands Jerusalem and Judah to judge between Him and His vineyard, and yet He did not appoint them all to be civil magistrates. To Ezekiel it is said[125]: shall you not judge them, son of man? and afterwards: you son of man, shall you not judge? shall you not judge, I say, the city of blood? and also: behold, I shall judge between beast and beast. And many such passages can be found throughout the whole scriptures, and yet I trust no one will be so foolish as to think that any of the prophets were appointed by God to be political judges or to punish the sins of man with corporal punishment. No, the manner of their judgment is expressed in these words[126]: Declare to them all their abominations, and you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord God: a city shedding blood in the midst of her, so that her time may approach and which has made idols against herself, that she might be polluted. You have transgressed in the blood that you’ve shed, and you are polluted in the idols that you’ve made. Thus, I say, do the prophets of God judge, pronouncing God’s sentence against wrongdoing. And so I have no doubt that Deborah judged when Israel had turned away from God, rebuking their defection and urging them to repentance, without usurping any civil authority. And if the people showed her any reverence or honor for a time, as her godliness and happy counsel deserved, yet it was not the same kind of empire that our monsters claim[127]. For which of her sons or nearest relatives did she leave as ruler and judge in Israel after her? The Holy Ghost expresses no such thing. From this, it is evident that through her example, God does not provide any occasion to establish any rule of women over men, realms, and nations.

[109]: Examples against lawe haue no strength when the question is of lawe.

[109]: Examples against the law have no power when it comes to legal matters.

[110]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Reminder.

[111]: Antithesis betwixt the former matrones, and our Iesabelles.

[111]: Contrast between the earlier matrons and our Isabelles.

[112]: NOTE.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ NOTE.

[113]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Note.

[114]: No godlie woman did euer claime authoritie ouer man by reason of her birth and blood.

[114]: No virtuous woman ever claimed authority over a man because of her birth or lineage.

[115]: Why God sometimes worketh by extraordinarie meanes.

[115]: Why God sometimes works through extraordinary means.

[116]: Iudic. 4.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Judg. 4.

[117]: Luc. 2

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Luke 2

[118]: Iudic. 4

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Judges 4

[119]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: NOTE.

[120]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Note.

[121]: 2. Reg. 22.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 2. Reg. 22.

[122]: Debora commanded not as princes vse to commande.

[122]: Debora didn't give orders like princes typically do.

[123]: To iudge is not alway understand of the ciuil regiment.

[123]: Judging is not always about understanding the civil government.

[124]: Isaie 2. Isaie 42. Mich. 4. Isaie. 5.

[124]: Isaiah 2. Isaiah 42. Micah 4. Isaiah 5.

[125]: Ezech. 20. Ezech. 22. Ezech. 34

[125]: Ezek. 20. Ezek. 22. Ezek. 34

[126]: Ezech. 23

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Ezekiel 23

[127]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Reminder.

But now to the second obiection[128]. In whiche women require (as to them appeareth) nothing but equitie and iustice. Whilest they and their patrones for them, require dominion and empire aboue men. For this is their question: Is it not lauful, that women haue their right and inheritance, like as the doughters of Zalphead were commanded by the mouth of Moses to haue their portion of grounde in their tribe?

But now to the second objection[128]. In which women ask for what seems to them nothing but fairness and justice. Meanwhile, they and their advocates seek dominance and power over men. For this is their question: Is it not lawful for women to have their rights and inheritance, just as the daughters of Zelophehad were commanded by Moses to receive their share of land in their tribe?

[128]: An answer to the second obiection.

[128]: A response to the second objection.

I answer, it is not onlie laufull that women possesse their inheritance, but I affirme also that iustice and equitie require, that so they do. But therwith I adde that whiche gladlie they list not vnderstand[129]: that to beare rule or authoritie ouer man, can neuer be right nor inheritance to woman. For that can neuer be iust inheritance to any person, whiche God by his word hath plainlie denied vnto them: but to all women hath God denied authoritie aboue man, as moste manifestlie is before declared: Therfore to her it can neuer be inheritance. And thus must the aduocates of our ladies prouide some better example and strongar argument. For the lawe made in fauor of the doughters of Zalphead, will serue them nothing. And assuredlie greate wonder it is, that in so greate light of Goddes truthe, men list to grope and wander in darknes. For let them speak of conscience[130]: if the petition of any of these fore named women was to reigne ouer any one tribe, yea or yet ouer any one man within Israel. Plain it is, they did not, but onelie required, that they might haue a portion of ground amonge the men of their tribe, lest, that the name of their father shuld be abolished. And this was graunted vnto them without respect had to any ciuil regiment. And what maketh this, I pray you, for the establishing of this monstruous empire of women? The question is not: if women may not succede to possession, substance patrimonie or inheritance, such as fathers may leaue to their children, for that I willinglie grant[131]: But the question is: if women may succede to their fathers in offices, and chieflie to that office, the executor wherof doth occupie the place and throne of God. And that I absolutelie denie: and feare not to say, that to place a woman in authoritie aboue a realme, is to pollute and prophane the royall seate, the throne of iustice, which oght to be the throne of God: and that to mainteine them in the same, is nothing els, but continuallie to rebell against God. One thing there is yet to be noted and obserued in the lawe[132] made concerning the inheritance of the doughters of Zalphead, to wit, that it was forbidden vnto them to marie without their owne tribe, lest that such portion as fell to their lotte, shuld be transferred frome one tribe to an other, and so shuld the tribe of Manasses be defrauded and spoiled of their iust inheritance by their occasion. For auoiding of which it was commanded by Moses, that they should marie in the familie or housholde of the tribe and kindred of their father. Wonder it is that the aduocates and patrones of the right of our ladies did not consider and ponder this lawe[133] before that they counseled the blinde princes and vnworthie nobles of their countries, to betray the liberties therof in to the handes of strangiers. England for satisfying of the inordinat appetites of that cruell monstre Marie (vnworthie by reason of her bloodie tyrannie, of the name of a woman) betrayed (alas) to the proude spaniarde: and Scotlande by the rashe madnes of foolish gouerners, and by the practises of a craftie dame resigned likewise, vnder title of mariage in to the power of France. Doth such translation of realmes and nations please the iustice of God, or is the possession by such means obteined, lauful in his sight? Assured I am that it is not[134]. No other wise, I say, then is that possession, wherunto theues, murtherers, tyrannes and oppressors do attein by theft, murther, tyrannie, violence, deceit, and oppression, whiche God of his secrete (but yet most iust) iudgement doth often permit for punishment, as wel of the sufferers, as of the violent oppressors, but doth neuer approue the same as laufull and godlie. For if he wold not permit that the inheritance of the children of Israel shuld passe frome one tribe to an other by the mariage of any doughter, not withstanding[135] that they were all one people, all spake one tonge, all were descended of one father, and all did professe one God, and one religion: If yet, I say, God wold not suffer that the commoditie and vsuall frute, which might be gathered of the portion of grounde limited and assigned to one tribe shulde passe to an other: Will he suffer that the liberties, lawes, commodities and frutes of hole realmes and nations, be geuen in to the power and distribution of others, by the reason of mariage, and in the powers of suche, as besides, that they be of a strange tonge, of strange maners and lawes, they are also ignorant of God, ennemies to his truth, deniers of Christ Iesus, persecutors of his true membres, and haters of all vertue? As the odious nation of spaniardes doth manifestlie declare: who for very despit, which they do beare against Christe Iesus, whome their forefathers did crucifie (for Iewes they are[136], as histories do witnesse, and they them selues confesse) do this day make plaine warre against all true professors of his holie gospell. And howe blindlie and outragiouslie the frenche king, and his pestilent prelates do, fight against the veritie of God, the flaming fiers, which lick vp the innocent blood of Christes membres, do witnesse, and by his cruel edictes is notified and proclaimed[137]. And yet to these two cruell tyrannes (to France, and Spain I meane) is the right and possession of England and Scotland apointed. But iust or laufull shall that possession neuer be, till God do chaunge the statute of his former lawe: whiche he will not do for the pleasure of man. For he hath not created the earth to satisfie the ambition of two or three tyrannes, but for the vniuersall seed of Adam[138]: and hath apointed and defined the boundes of their habitation to diuerse nations, assigning diuers countries as he him selfe confesseth, speaking to Israel in these wordes[139]: You shal passe by the boundes and limiter, of your bretheren the sonnes of Esau, who dwell in mount Seir. They shall feare you. But take diligent hede, that ye shewe not your selues cruell against them. For I will geue you no part of their land. No not the bredth of a foote. For mount Seir I haue geuen to Esau to be possessed. And the same he doth witnesse of the sonnes of Lot[140], to whom he had geuen Arre to be possessed. And Moses plainlie affirmeth, that when the almightie did distribute, and diuide possessions to the gentiles, and when he did disperse, and scatter the sonnes of men, that then he did apoint the limites and boundes of peoples, for the nomber of the sonnes of Israel. Wherof it is plain[141], that God hath not exposed the earth in pray to tyrannes, making all thing laufull, which by violence and murther they may possesse, but that he hath apointed to euery seuerall nation, a seuerall possession, willing them to stand content (as nature did teache an ethnik[142] to affirme) with that portion, which by lotte and iust meanes they had mioyed. For what causes God permitteth this his distribution to be troubled, and the realmes of auncient nations to be possessed of strangiers, I delay at this time to intreate. Onlie this I haue recited to geue the worlde to vnderstand, that the reigne, empire, and authoritie of women[143], hath no grounde within Goddes scriptures. Yea that realmes or prouinces possessed by their mariage, is nothinge but vniust conquest. For so litle doth the lawe made for the doughters of Zalphead helpe the cause of your quenes, that vtterlie it fighteth against them, both damning their authoritie and fact. But now to the thirde objection.

I respond that it is not only lawful for women to inherit, but I also assert that justice and fairness demand that they do so. However, I add what they are unwilling to understand: that having authority over men can never be rightfully claimed as an inheritance by women. For God has clearly stated in His word that He has denied authority over men to all women, as has been previously declared. Therefore, it cannot be an inheritance for them. Advocates of our ladies must provide a better example and stronger argument. The law made in favor of the daughters of Zelophehad will not benefit them at all. It's truly astonishing that, in such great illumination of God's truth, men choose to grope and wander in darkness. Let them consider conscience: did any of these named women petition to rule over any tribe or even over any man in Israel? It is obvious that they did not; they only asked for a share of land among the men of their tribe so that their father's name would not be erased. This was granted to them without regard for any civil authority. What does this mean, I ask you, for establishing this monstrous idea of women in power? The question is not whether women cannot inherit possessions or family wealth, as I willingly grant that. The question is whether women can inherit offices, especially that office which occupies the place and throne of God. To that, I absolutely deny it and am not afraid to say that placing a woman in authority over a realm is to defile and desecrate the royal seat, the throne of justice, which ought to be the throne of God; and to maintain them there is nothing but continual rebellion against God. One more thing should be noted in the law concerning the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad: it was forbidden for them to marry outside of their own tribe, so that the portion they received wouldn’t be transferred from one tribe to another, thus defrauding the tribe of Manasseh of their rightful inheritance. To avoid this, Moses commanded that they should marry within their own family or household. It is surprising that the advocates and supporters of our ladies haven't reflected on this law before advising the blind princes and unworthy nobles of their countries to betray their freedoms into the hands of strangers. England, to satisfy the unchecked desires of that cruel monster Mary (unworthy because of her bloody tyranny, in the name of a woman), betrayed, alas, to the proud Spaniard; and Scotland, due to the rash madness of foolish governors and the schemes of a cunning lady, also surrendered, under the guise of marriage, into the power of France. Does such a transfer of realms and nations please the justice of God, or is the possession gained in such ways lawful in His sight? I assure you it is not. No other way do I say, than like that possession which thieves, murderers, tyrants, and oppressors attain through theft, murder, tyranny, violence, deceit, and oppression, which God, in His secret but most just judgment, often permits for punishment, both for those who suffer and the violent oppressors, but never approves as lawful and godly. For if He would not allow the inheritance of the children of Israel to pass from one tribe to another via the marriage of any daughter, despite their being one people, speaking one language, descending from one father, and professing one God and one religion: If God would not permit the benefits and usual fruits from the portion of land assigned to one tribe to transfer to another, will He allow the liberties, laws, benefits, and fruits of whole realms and nations to be given into the power and control of others due to marriage, especially to those who, besides being of a different tongue, different customs, and different laws, are also ignorant of God, enemies of His truth, deniers of Christ Jesus, persecutors of His true members, and haters of all virtue? As the odious nation of Spaniards clearly shows: who out of sheer spite against Christ Jesus, whom their ancestors crucified (for they are Jews, as histories confirm and they themselves confess), wage open war against all true believers of His holy gospel. And how blindly and outrageously the French king and his corrupt prelates fight against the truth of God; the flaming fires that consume the innocent blood of Christ’s followers testify to this and are publicly declared by his cruel edicts. And yet, to these two cruel tyrants (I mean France and Spain) is the right and possession of England and Scotland assigned. But just or lawful shall that possession never be, until God changes the statute of His former law, which He will not do for the pleasure of man. For He did not create the earth to satisfy the ambition of two or three tyrants, but for the universal seed of Adam: and has set and defined the boundaries of their habitation for various nations, assigning diverse countries as He Himself affirms, speaking to Israel in these words: You shall pass through the boundaries set by your brothers, the sons of Esau, who dwell in Mount Seir. They will fear you. But take care that you do not act cruelly against them. For I will give you no part of their land, not even the breadth of a foot. For Mount Seir I have given to Esau to possess. And He affirms the same for the sons of Lot, to whom He had given Ar to possess. And Moses clearly states that when the Almighty distributed and divided possessions among the Gentiles, and when He dispersed and scattered the sons of men, He appointed the limits and boundaries of peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. From this, it is evident that God has not laid the earth open to plunder by tyrants, making all things lawful which they may possess through violence and murder, but that He has assigned to each distinct nation a separate possession, urging them to be content (as nature teaches a pagan to affirm) with the portion they have drawn by lot and just means. For what reasons God permits this distribution to be disturbed and the realms of ancient nations to be possessed by strangers, I shall refrain from discussing at this time. I only mention this to make the world understand that the reign, empire, and authority of women have no grounding in God’s scriptures. Indeed, realms or provinces acquired through their marriage represent nothing but unjust conquest. For the law made for the daughters of Zelophehad does so little to support the cause of your queens that it utterly counters them, both condemning their authority and their actions. But now, let’s move on to the third objection.

[129]: what woman wold not gladly heare.

[129]: what woman would not gladly hear.

[130]: the daughters of Zalphead desired to reigne ouer no man in Israel.

[130]: the daughters of Zalphead wanted to rule over no one in Israel.

[131]: women may succede to inheritance but not to office.

[131]: women may inherit property but not hold office.

[132]: Num. 36

Num. 36

[133]: Our patrones for women do not marke this caution.

[133]: Our guidelines for women do not emphasize this caution.

[134]: Realmes gotten by practises are no iuste posession.

[134]: Realms obtained through practices are not just possession.

[135]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: NOTE.

[136]: The spaniardes are Iewes and they bragge that Marie of England is the roote of Iesse.

[136]: The Spaniards are Jews and they boast that Mary of England is the root of Jesse.

[137]: Note the law which he hath proclaimed in France against such as he termeth Lutherians.

[137]: Take note of the law he has declared in France against those he calls Lutherans.

[138]: Act. 17.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Acts 17.

[139]: Deuter. 2.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Deuteronomy 2.

[140]: Deut.32.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Deut. 32.

[141]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Note.

[142]: Cicero offic. lib. I.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Cicero's offices, book I.

[143]: Realmes gotten by mariage, is uniust conquest.

[143]: Realms gained through marriage are unjust conquests.

The consent, say they, of realmes and lawes pronounced and admitted in this behalfe, long consuetude and custorne, together with felicitie of some women in their empires haue established their authoritie[144]. To whome, I answer, that nether may the tyrannie of princes, nether the foolishnes of people, nether wicked lawes made against God, nether yet the felicitie that in this earthe may herof insue, make that thing laufull, whiche he by his word hath manifestlie condemned. For if the approbation of princes and people, lawes made by men, or the consent of realmes, may establishe any thing against God and his word, then shuld idolatrie be preferred to the true religion. For mo realmes and nations, mo lawes and decrees published by Emperours with common consent of their counsels, haue established the one, then haue approued the other. And yet I thinke that no man of sounde iudgement, will therfore iustifie and defend idolatrie. No more oght any man to mainteine this odious empire of women, althogh that it were approued of all men by their lawes. For the same God that in plain wordes forbiddeth idolatrie, doth also forbidde the authoritie of women ouer man. As the wordes of saint Paule before rehearsed do plainly teach vs. And therfore whether women be deposed from that vniust authoritie[145] (haue they neuer vsurped it so long) or if all such honor be denied vnto them, I feare not to affirme that they are nether defrauded of right, nor inheritance. For to women can that honor neuer be due nor laufull (muche lesse inheritance) whiche God hath so manifestlie denied vnto them.

They say that the consent of kingdoms and laws established over time, along with the successes of certain women in their realms, have legitimized their authority[144]. To this, I respond that neither the tyranny of rulers, nor the foolishness of the people, nor wicked laws made against God, nor any earthly success that may result from this, can make lawful what He has clearly condemned with His word. If the approval of rulers and people, laws made by men, or the consent of kingdoms can establish something against God and His word, then idolatry would be favored over true religion. More kingdoms and nations, more laws and decrees published by emperors with the collective consent of their councils have endorsed the former than the latter. Yet I believe that no reasonable person would justify and defend idolatry. Nor should anyone support this despicable power of women, even if it was approved by all men through their laws. For the same God who plainly forbids idolatry also forbids women’s authority over men, as the words of St. Paul previously mentioned clearly teach us. Therefore, whether women are removed from this unjust authority[145] (even if they have held it for so long) or if all such honor is denied to them, I am not afraid to assert that they are neither deprived of rights nor inheritance. Because the honor that God has so clearly denied them can never be rightful or lawful for women (much less inheritance).

[144]: Answer to the third obiection.

[144]: Answer to the third objection.

[145]: women may and oght to be deposed from authoritie.

[145]: women may and ought to be removed from authority.

I am not ignorant that the subtill wittes of carnall men (which can neuer be broght vnder obedience of Goddes simple preceptes to maintein this monstruous empire) haue yet two vaine shiftes[146]. First they alledge, that albeit women may not absolutelie reigne by themselues, because they may nether sit in iudgement, nether pronounce sentence, nether execute any publike office: yet may they do all such thinges by their lieutenantes, deputies and iudges substitute. Secondarilie, say they, a woman borne to rule ouer anyrealme, may chose her a husband, and to him she may transfer and geue her authoritie and right. To both I answer in fewe wordes. First that frome a corrupt and venomed fountein can spring no holsome water: Secondarilie that no person hath power to geue the thing, which doth not iustlie appertein to them selues[147]: But the authoritie of a woman is a corrupted fountein, and therfore from her can neuer spring any lauful officer. She is not borne to rule ouer men: and therfore she can apointe none by her gift, nor by her power (which she hathn ot) to the place of a laufull magistrat. And therfore who soeuer receiueth of a woman[148], office or authoritie, are adulterous and bastard officers before God. This may appeare straunge at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent and equall in the cause of God, as that we can be in the cause of man, the reason shall sodeinlie appeare. The case suposed, that a tyranne by conspiracie vsurped the royall seat and dignitie of a king, and in the same did so established him selfe, that he apointed officers, and did what him list for a time, and in this meane time, the natiue king made streit inhibition to all his subiectes, that none shuld adhere to this traitor, nether yet receiue any dignitie of him, yet neuer the lesse they wold honor the same traitor as king, and becomme his officers in all affaires of the realme. If after, the natiue prince did recouer his iust honor and possession, shuld he repute or esteme any man of the traitors apointement for a laufull magistrate? or for his frende and true subiect? or shuld he not rather with one sentence condemne the head with the membres? And if so he shuld do, who were able to accuse him of rigor? much lesse to condemne his sentence of iniustice. And dare we denie the same power to God in the like case? For that woman reigneth aboue man, she hath obteined it by treason and conspiracie committed against God. Howe can it be then, that she being criminall and giltie of treason against God committed, can apointe any officer pleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible[149]. Wherefore let men that receiue of women authoritie, honor or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so mainteining that vsurped power, they declare them selues ennemies to God. If any thinke, that because the realme and estates therof, haue geuen their consentes to a woman, and haue established her, and her authoritie: that therfore it is laufull and acceptable before God: let the same men remembre what I haue said before, to wit, that God can not approue the doing nor consent of any multitude, concluding any thing against his worde and ordinance, and therfore they must haue a more assured defense against the wrath of God, then the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or elles they shall not be able to stand in the presence of the consuming fier: that is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers[[150], because she is a traitoresse and rebell against God. And finallie they must studie to represse her inordinate pride and tyrannie to the vttermost of their power. The same is the dutie of the nobilitie and estates, by whose blindnes a woman is promoted. First in so farre, as they haue moste haynouslie offended against God, placing in authoritie suche as God by his worde hath remoued frome the same, vnfeinedly they oght to call for mercie, and being admonished of their error and damnable fact, in signe and token of true repentance, with common consent they oght to retreate that, which vnaduisedlie and by ignorance they haue pronounced, and oght without further delay to remoue from authority all such persones, as by vsurpation, violence, or tyrannie, do possesse the same. For so did Israel and Iuda after they had reuolted from Dauid, and Iuda alone in the dayes of Athalia[151]. For after that she by murthering her sonnes children, had obteined the empire ouer the land, and had most vnhappelie reigned in Iuda six years, Ichoiada the high priest called together the capitaines and chief rulers of the people[152], and shewing to them the kinges sonne Ioas[h], did binde them by an othe to depose that wicked woman, and to promote the king to his royall seat, which they faithfullie did, killinge at his commandement not onlie that cruell and mischeuous woman, but also the people did destroie the temple of Baal, break his altars and images, and kill Mathan Baales high priest before his altars. The same is the dutie aswell of the estates, as of the people that hath bene blinded. First they oght to remoue frome honor and authoritie, that monstre in nature. (so call I a woman cled in the habit of man, yea a woman against nature reigning aboue man). Secondarilie if any presume to defende that impietie, they oght not to feare, first to pronounce, and then after to execute against them the sentence of deathe. If any man be affraid to violat the oth of obedience, which they haue made to suche monstres, let them be most assuredly persuaded, that as the beginning of their othes, preceding from ignorance was sinne, so is the obstinate purpose to kepe the same, nothinge but plaine rebellion against God. But of this mater in the second blast, God willing, we shall speake more at large.

I understand that the cunning minds of worldly people (who can never be brought under the obedience of God's simple commands to maintain this monstrous empire) have two futile arguments[146]. First, they argue that even though women may not rule absolutely by themselves, since they cannot sit in judgment, pronounce sentences, or hold any public office, they can still do all such things through their lieutenants, deputies, and appointed judges. Second, they claim that a woman born to rule over any realm can choose a husband and transfer her authority and rights to him. To both, I respond briefly. First, that from a corrupt and poisonous source, no wholesome water can come forth; second, that no person has the power to give what does not justly belong to them[147]. The authority of a woman is a corrupted source, and therefore cannot yield any lawful officer. She is not meant to rule over men, and thus cannot appoint anyone through her gift or power (which she does not possess) to the position of a lawful magistrate. Therefore, anyone who receives an office or authority from a woman[148] is an illegitimate and false officer before God. This may seem strange at first, but if we are to be as impartial in God's matters as we can be in human affairs, the reasoning will soon become clear. Assume a tyrant conspired to usurp the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in doing so established himself, appointing officers and doing as he pleased for a time. Meanwhile, the rightful king strictly prohibited all his subjects from aligning with this traitor or accepting any position from him; yet still, they honored the traitor as king and became his officers in all matters of the realm. If later the rightful prince regained his just honor and possessions, would he consider any man appointed by the traitor a lawful magistrate? Or a friend and true subject? Would he not rather condemn both the head and the members with one verdict? And if he did so, who could accuse him of harshness? Much less could one condemn his judgment as unjust. And do we dare deny God the same power in a similar situation? For that a woman reigns over men, she has obtained it through treason and conspiracy against God. How then can it be that one who is guilty of treason against God can appoint any officer pleasing in His sight? It is impossible[149]. Therefore, let those men who receive authority, honor, or office from women be fully persuaded that in maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If anyone thinks that because the realm and its estates have consented to a woman and established her and her authority, that it is therefore lawful and acceptable before God, let those individuals remember what I have said before: that God cannot approve of the actions or consent of any multitude reaching decisions against His word and ordinance. Therefore, they must have a more solid defense against God's wrath than the approval and consent of a blinded multitude; otherwise, they will not be able to stand in the face of the consuming fire. That is, they must acknowledge that a woman's rule is utterly detestable in God's sight. They must refuse to be her officers[150], because she is a traitor and rebel against God. Lastly, they must work to suppress her excessive pride and tyranny to the utmost of their power. The same duty lies with the nobility and estates, by whose blindness a woman is promoted. Firstly, as they have grievously sinned against God by placing those in authority whom He has removed by His word, they should sincerely seek mercy, and when reminded of their error and damnable act, as a sign of true repentance, they should collectively retract what they rashly and ignorantly endorsed, and without further delay remove all such individuals from authority, who possess it by usurpation, violence, or tyranny. For so did Israel and Judah after they had revolted from David, and Judah alone in the days of Athalia[151]. After she had murdered her son's children and obtained the rule over the land, having unfortunately reigned in Judah for six years, Jehoiada the high priest gathered the captains and chief rulers of the people[152], and showing them the king's son Joash, bound them by an oath to depose that wicked woman and restore the king to his royal seat, which they faithfully did, executing at his command not only that cruel and wicked woman, but also the people destroyed the temple of Baal, broke his altars and images, and killed Mattan, Baal's high priest before his altars. The same duty applies to both the estates and the people who have been blinded. First, they should remove from honor and authority that monstrosity of nature (so I call a woman dressed in the attire of a man, indeed a woman against nature ruling over men). Secondly, if anyone dares to defend that evil, they should not hesitate to first declare, and then proceed to carry out against them, the sentence of death. If any man is afraid to violate the oath of obedience they have made to such monsters, let them be assured that as the beginning of their oaths, stemming from ignorance, was sin, so is the obstinate intention to maintain the same, nothing but outright rebellion against God. But of this matter, in the second part, God willing, we shall speak in more depth.

[146]: the fourth obiection.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ the fourth objection.

[147]: women can make no laufull officer.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ women cannot be legal officers.

[148]: Let England and Scotland take hede.

[148]: Let England and Scotland pay attention.

[149]: woman in authoritie is rebel against God.

[149]: A woman in power is rebelling against God.

[150]: what the nobilite ough to do in this behalf.

[150]: what the nobles should do about this.

[151]: 2 Reg. II.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: 2 Reg. II.

[152]: Marke this fact, for it agreeth with Goddes lawe pronounced.

[152]: Note this fact, for it agrees with God's law as stated.

And nowe to put an end to the first blast, seing that by the ordre of nature, by the malediction and curse pronounced against woman, by the mouth of S. Paule the intrepreter of Goddes sentence, by the example of that common welth, in whiche God by his word planted ordre and policie, and finallie by the iudgement of the most godlie writers, God hath deiected woman frome rule, dominion, empire, and authoritie aboue man. Moreouer, seing that nether the example of Debora, nether the lawe made for the doughters of Zalphead, nether yet the foolishe consent of an ignorant multitude, be able to iustifie that whiche God so plainlie hath condemned: let all men take hede what quarell and cause frome hence furthe they do defend[153]. If God raise vp any noble harte to vendicat the libertie of his countrie, and to suppresse the monstruous empire of women, let all suche as shal presume to defend them in the same, moste certeinlie knowe, that in so doing, they lift their hand against God, and that one day they shall finde his power to fight against their foolishnes. Let not the faithfull, godlie, and valiant hartes of Christes souldiers be vtterlie discouraged, nether yet let the tyrannes reioise, albeit for a time they triumphe against such asstudie to represse their tyrannie, and to remoue them from vniust authoritie. For the causes alone, why he suffereth the souldiers to fail in batel, whome neuerthelesse he commandeth to fight as somtimes did Israel fighting against Beniamin. The cause of the Israelites was most iust: for it was to punishe that horrible abomination of those sonnes of Belial[154], abusing the leuites wife, whome the Beniamites did defend. And they had Goddes precept to assure them of well doing. For he did not onelie commande them to fight, but also apointed Iuda to be their leader and capitain, and yet fell they twise in plain batel against those most wicked adulterers.

And now to conclude the first point, seeing that according to the order of nature, by the curse declared against women, spoken by Saint Paul as the interpreter of God's decree, by the example of that society where God established order and governance through His word, and finally by the judgment of the most godly writers, God has rejected women from rule, dominion, empire, and authority over men. Moreover, since neither the example of Deborah, nor the law made for the daughters of Zelophehad, nor the foolish consent of an ignorant crowd can justify what God so clearly has condemned: let all men be cautious about the quarrel and cause they choose to defend. If God raises up any noble heart to reclaim the freedom of his country, and to suppress the monstrous rule of women, let all who presume to defend them know for sure that in doing so, they are acting against God, and that one day they will find His power fighting against their foolishness. Let not the faithful, godly, and courageous hearts of Christ's soldiers be utterly discouraged, nor let the tyrants rejoice, even if for a time they triumph over those who strive to repress their tyranny and remove them from unjust authority. For the reasons why He permits soldiers to fail in battle, whom He nonetheless commands to fight, were similar to Israel's battle against Benjamin. The cause of the Israelites was most just: it was to punish the horrible abomination of those sons of Belial, who abused the Levite's wife, whom the Benjamites defended. And they had God's command to assure them of their righteousness. For He not only commanded them to fight, but also appointed Judah to be their leader and captain, and yet they fell twice in outright battle against those most wicked adulterers.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: An admonition.

[154]: Iudic. 20.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Iudic. 20.

The secret cause of this, I say, is knowen to God alone. Rut by his euident scriptures we may assuredly gather[155], that by such means doth his wisdome somtimes, beat downe the pride of the flesh (for the Israelites at the firste trusted in their multitude, power and strength) and somtimes by such ouerthrowes, he will punish the offenses of his owne children, and bring them, to the vnfeined knowledge of the same, before he will geue them victorie against the manifest contemners, whom he hath apointed neuerthelesse to vttermost perdition: as the end of that batel did witnesse. For althogh with greate murther the children of Israel did twise fall before the Beniamites, yet after they had wept before the Lorde, after they had fasted and made sacrifice in signe of their vnfeined repentance, they so preuailed against that proude tribe of Beniamin[156], that after 25 thousande strong men of warre were killed in batel, they destroyed man, woman, childe and beaste, as well in the fieldes, as in the cities, whiche all were burned with fier, so that onelie of that hole tribe remained six hundredth men, who fled to the wildernes, where they remained foure monethes, and so were saued. The same God, who did execute this greuous punishment, euen by the handes of those[157], whom he suffred twise to be ouercomen in batel, doth this day retein his power and justice. Cursed Iesabel of England, with the pestilent and detestable generation of papistes, make no litle bragge and boast, that they haue triumphed not only against Wyet, but also against all such as haue entreprised any thing against them or their procedinges. But let her and them consider, that yet they haue not preuailed against god, his throne is more high, then that the length of their hornes be able to reache. And let them further consider, that in the beginning of their bloodie reigne, the haruest of their iniquitie was not comen to full maturitie and ripenes. No, it was so grene, so secret I meane, so couered, and so hid with hypocrisie, that some men (euen the seruantes of God) thoght it not impossible, but that wolues might be changed in to lambes, and also that the vipere might remoue her natural venom. But God, who doth reuele in his time apointed the secretes of hartes, and that will haue his iudgementes iustified euen by the verie wicked, hath now geuen open testimonie of her and their beastlie crueltie. For man and woman, learned and vnlearned, nobles and men of baser sorte, aged fathers and tendre damiselles, and finailie the bones of the dead, aswell women as men haue tasted of their tyrannie, so that now not onlie the blood of father Latimer, of the milde man of God the bishop of Cantorburie, of learned and discrete Ridley, of innocent ladie Iane dudley, and many godly and worthie preachers, that can not be forgotten, such as fier hath consumed, and the sworde of tyrannie moste vniustlie hath shed, doth call for vengeance in the eares of the Lord God of hostes: but also the sobbes and teares of the poore oppressed, the groninges of the angeles, the watch men of the Lord, yea and euerie earthlie creature abused by their tyrannie do continuallie crie and call for the hastie execution of the same. I feare not to say, that the day of vengeance, whiche shall apprehend that horrible monstre Iesabal of England, and suche as maintein her monstruous crueltie, is alredie apointed in the counsel of the Eternall; and I verelie beleue that it is so nigh, that she shall not reigne so long in tyrannie, as hitherto she hath done, when God shall declare him selfe to be her ennemie, when he shall poure furth contempt vpon her, according to her crueltie, and shal kindle the hartes of such, as somtimes did fauor her with deadly hatred against her, that they may execute his iudgementes. And therfore let such as assist her, take hede what they do. For assuredlie her empire and reigne is a wall without foundation[158]: I meane the same of the authoritie of all women. It hath bene vnderpropped this blind time that is past, with the foolishnes of people; and with the wicked lawes of ignorant and tyrannous princes. But the fier of Goddes worde is alredie laide to those rotten proppes (I include the Popes lawe with the rest) and presentlie they burn, albeit we espie not the flame: when they are consumed, (as shortlie they will be, for stuble and drie timbre can not long indure the fier) that rotten wall, the vsurped and vniust empire of women, shall fall by it self in despit of all man, to the destruction of so manie, as shall labor to vphold it. And therfore let all man be aduertised, for the trumpet hath ones blowen.

The true reason for this, I say, is known only to God. But through His clear scriptures, we can confidently gather[155], that sometimes His wisdom brings down the pride of the flesh (for the Israelites initially relied on their numbers, power, and strength) and at other times, through such defeats, He punishes the sins of His own children, leading them to genuine awareness of this, before granting them victory over the blatant scoffers, whom He has nevertheless destined for ultimate destruction: as the outcome of that battle showed. For although the children of Israel suffered great losses twice against the Benjamites, after they had wept before the Lord, fasted, and sacrificed as a sign of their true repentance, they prevailed against that proud tribe of Benjamin[156], such that after 25,000 warriors were killed in battle, they destroyed every man, woman, child, and beast, both in the fields and in the cities, which were all burned with fire, leaving only six hundred men of that entire tribe who fled to the wilderness, where they remained for four months and were thus saved. The same God, who executed this severe punishment through the hands of those[157], whom He allowed to be defeated in battle twice, retains His power and justice today. Cursed Jezebel of England, along with the pestilent and detestable generation of papists, make quite the show of boasting that they have triumphed not only over Wyat but also against anyone who has challenged them or their actions. But let her and them consider that they have not triumphed over God; His throne is higher than the length of their horns can reach. And let them further consider that at the beginning of their bloody reign, the harvest of their iniquity was not yet fully ripe and mature. No, it was still green, so secret, so covered, and so hidden with hypocrisy, that some people (even the servants of God) thought it not impossible that wolves might be turned into lambs and that the viper might shed its natural venom. But God, who reveals the secrets of hearts in His appointed time and who will have His judgments vindicated even by the very wicked, has now openly testified to her and their monstrous cruelty. For men and women, learned and unlearned, nobles and commoners, aged fathers and tender maidens, and in the end, the bones of the dead, both women and men, have suffered under their tyranny, such that now not only the blood of Father Latimer, the mild man of God the bishop of Canterbury, learned and discreet Ridley, innocent Lady Jane Dudley, and many godly and worthy preachers—whose memories cannot be forgotten, having been consumed by fire and wrongfully slain by the sword of tyranny—cry out for vengeance in the ears of the Lord God of hosts: but also the sobs and tears of the poor oppressed, the groans of the angels, the watchmen of the Lord, and indeed every earthly creature abused by their tyranny continually cry out for the swift execution of the same. I do not fear to say that the day of vengeance, which will seize that horrible monster Jezebel of England and those who support her monstrous cruelty, is already appointed in the counsel of the Eternal; and I truly believe that it is so near that she will not reign in tyranny much longer, when God shall declare Himself her enemy, when He pours contempt upon her according to her cruelty and kindles the hearts of those who once favored her with deadly hatred against her, making them execute His judgments. And therefore, let those who assist her be careful of what they do. For assuredly her empire and reign is a wall without foundation[158]: I mean the same of the authority of all women. It has been supported during this dark time that has passed, by the foolishness of the people and the wicked laws of ignorant and tyrannical princes. But the fire of God's word is already laid to those rotten props (I include the Pope's law with the rest) and they are currently burning, even if we do not see the flame: when they are consumed (and they will be shortly, for straw and dry wood cannot endure the fire long), that rotten wall, the usurped and unjust empire of women, shall fall by itself despite all those who seek to uphold it. And therefore, let all men be warned, for the trumpet has already sounded.

[155]: Why God permitteth somtimes his owne souldiers to fail in batel.

[155]: Why does God sometimes allow His own soldiers to fail in battle?

[156]: Iudic. 20

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: Iudic. 20

[157]: NOTE.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: NOTE.

[158]: The authoritie of all women, is a wall without foundation.

[158]: The authority of all women is a wall without a foundation.

Praise God ye that feare him.

Praise God, all you who fear Him.


The following postscript occurs at p. 78 of JOHN KNOX’S Appellation &c., which is dated “From Geneua. The 14 of Iuly, 1558.”

The following postscript appears on p. 78 of JOHN KNOX’S Appellation &c., which is dated “From Geneva. July 14, 1558.”

IOHN KNOXE TO THE READER.

Because many are offended at the first blast of the trompett, in whiche I affirme, that to promote a woman to beare rule, or empire aboue any realme, nation or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, and a thing moste contrariouse to his reuealed and approued ordenance: and because also, that somme hath promised (as I vnderstand) a confutation of the same, I haue delayed the second blast, till such tyme as their reasons appere, by the which I either may be reformed in opinion, or els shall haue further occasion more simply and plainly to vtter my iudgement. Yet in the meane tyme for the discharge of my conscience; and for auoyding suspition, whiche might be ingendred by reason of my silence, I could not cease to notifie these subsequent propositions, which by Gods grace I purpose to entreate in the second blast promised.

Because many are offended by the first blast of the trumpet, in which I assert that promoting a woman to hold power or rule over any kingdom, nation, or city is against nature, disrespectful to God, and entirely contrary to His revealed and approved order: and also because some have promised (as I understand) to refute the same, I have delayed the second blast until their reasons appear, by which I may either change my opinion or have a better opportunity to express my judgment more simply and clearly. Yet in the meantime, to clear my conscience; and to avoid suspicion, which might arise from my silence, I couldn't help but notify these following propositions, which by God's grace I plan to discuss in the promised second blast.

1 It is not birth onely nor propinquitie of blood, that maketh a kinge lawfully to reign aboue a people professing Christe Iesus, and his eternall veritie, but in his election must the ordenance, which God hath established, in the election of inferiour iudges be obserued.

1 It's not just birth or proximity of blood that gives a king the right to lawfully rule over a people professing Christ Jesus and his eternal truth, but his election must adhere to the order that God has established in the selection of lower judges.

2 No manifest idolater nor notoriouse transgressor of gods holie preceptes o[u]ght to be promoted to any publike regiment, honour or dignitie in any realme, prouince or citie, that hath subiected the[m] self to Christe lesus and to his blessed Euangil.

2 No obvious idolater or notorious violator of God's holy commandments should be promoted to any public office, honor, or position of dignity in any kingdom, province, or city, that has submitted themselves to Christ Jesus and to his blessed Gospel.

3 Neither can othe nor promesse bynd any such people to obey and maintein tyrantes against God and against his trueth knowen.

3 Neither can anyone or promise bind any such people to obey and support tyrants against God and against the known truth.

4 But if either rashely they haue promoted any manifest wicked personne, or yet ignorantly haue chosen suche a one, as after declareth him self vnworthie of regiment abouc the people of God (and suche be all idolaters and cruel persecuters) moste iustely may the same men depose and punishe him, that vnaduysedly before they did nominate, appoint and electe.

4 But if they have rashly promoted any obviously wicked person, or if they have unknowingly chosen someone who later proves to be unworthy to lead the people of God (and such individuals include all idolaters and cruel persecutors), those same people may justly remove and punish him whom they thoughtlessly nominated, appointed, and elected.

MATTH. VI.

If the eye be single, the whole body shalbe clere.

If your eye is focused, your whole body will be bright.

[Underlying these Propositions is the great truth that the Rulers exist for the people, and not the people for the Rulers.]

[Underlying these Propositions is the great truth that the Rulers exist for the people, and not the people for the Rulers.]


APPENDIX.

JOHN KNOX’s apologetical Defence of his First Blast &c. to Queen ELIZABETH.

12 JULY 1559. JOHN KNOX to Sir WILLIAM CECIL.

The spreit of wisdom heall your hart to the glorie of God and to the comforte of his afflicted mind.

The spirit of wisdom heals your heart for the glory of God and to comfort his troubled mind.

On[e] caus[e] of my present writing is ryght honorable humblie to requyr you to Deliuer this other lettre enclosed to the quenes grace quilk conteaneht in few and sempill wordes my confession what I think of her authoritie, how far it is Just, and what may make it odious in goddis presence.

One reason for my current writing is to respectfully ask you to deliver this other enclosed letter to the queen, which contains, in few and simple words, my confession of what I think about her authority, how just it is, and what may make it displeasing in God's sight.

I hear there is a confutation sett furht in prent against the first blast. God graunt that the writar haue no more sought the fauours of the world, no less the glory of God and the stable commoditie of his country then did him who interprised in that blast to vt[t]er his Conscience. When I shall haue tym[e] (which now Is Dear and straitt vnto me) to peruse that work I will communicat[e] my Judgement with you concernying the sam[e]. The tym[e] Is now sir that all that eyther thrust Christ Jesus to r[e]ing in this yle, the liberties of the sam [e] to be keapt, to the inhabitantes therof, and theire hartis to be joyned together in love vnfeaned ought rather to study how the sam[e] may be brought to pass then vainly to trauall for the maintenance of that wharof allready we have seen the daunger, and felt the smart.

I’ve heard there’s a rebuttal being published against the first blast. I hope the writer hasn’t sought the world’s approval any more than the glory of God and the lasting good of his country, like the one who took on the challenge in that blast to express his conscience. When I have time (which is now precious and limited for me) to read that work, I’ll share my thoughts with you regarding it. The time is now, sir, for everyone who either pushes Christ Jesus to reign in this land, to maintain the liberties of the same for its inhabitants, and to join their hearts together in genuine love, to consider how this can be achieved rather than wasting effort on preserving what we have already seen brings danger and suffering.

State Papers, Scotland, Vol. Art. 57. in Public Record office, London.

State Papers, Scotland, Vol. Art. 57. in Public Record office, London.


20 JULY 1559. JOHN KNOX’S Declaration to QUEEN ELIZABETH.

To the verteuus and godlie ELIZABEHT by the grace of GOD quen of England etc JOHN KNOX desireht the perpetuall Encrease of the Holie Spiritt. etc.

To the virtuous and godly ELIZABETH, by the grace of GOD, Queen of England, etc., JOHN KNOX wishes for the continual increase of the Holy Spirit. etc.

As your graces displeasur against me most Iniustlie conceaned, hath be[en] and is to my wretched hart a burthen grevous and almost intollerabill, so is the testimonye of a clean conscience to me a stay and vphold that in desperation I sink not, how vehement that ever the temptations appear, for in GODDis presence my conscience beareht me reacord that maliciouslie nor of purpose I inoffended your grace, nor your realme. And therfor how so ever I be ludged by man, I am assured to be absolued by him who onlie knoweht the secreatis of hartes.

As your grace's unjust displeasure against me has been and continues to be a heavy burden on my miserable heart, almost unbearable, the testimony of a clear conscience serves as my support so that I do not sink into despair, no matter how strong the temptations may be. In God's presence, my conscience assures me that I have not maliciously or deliberately offended your grace or your kingdom. Therefore, no matter how I may be judged by man, I am confident that I will be absolved by Him who alone knows the secrets of hearts.

I can not Deny the Writeing of a booke against the vsurped aucthoritie and Iniust regiment of wemen, neyther yet am I mynded to retract or to call any principall point or proposition of the sam[e], till treuth and veritie do farther appear, but why that eyther your grace, eyther yit ony such as vnfeanedlie favourthe libertie of England should be offended at the aucthor of such a work I can perceaue no iust occasion. For first my booke tuchheht not your graces person in especiall, neyther yit is it preiudiciall till any libertie of the realme yf the tyme and my Writing be indifferently considered. How could I be enemy to your graces person? for deliuerance quhairof I did mor[e] study, and interprise farther, than any of those that now accuse me. And as concerning your regiment how could? or can I envy that? which most I haue thrusted and for the which (as obliuion will suffer) I render thankis vnfeanedlie unto GOD that is, that it hath pleased Him of His eternall goodnes to exalt your head (which tymes wes in Daunger) to the manifestation of his glorie and extirpation of Idolatrie.

I cannot deny writing a book against the usurped authority and unjust rule of women, nor am I inclined to retract or dismiss any main point or proposition of it until truth and reality are shown further. However, I don't understand why either you or anyone who genuinely supports the freedom of England should be offended by the author of such a work. First of all, my book does not specifically target you, nor is it damaging to any freedom of the realm if the time and my writing are considered fairly. How could I be an enemy to you? I have worked harder and taken more risks for your deliverance than any of those who now accuse me. And regarding your rule, how could I envy it? I have supported it the most and for which (as forgetfulness allows) I sincerely thank God that it has pleased Him, in His eternal goodness, to elevate your position (which was in danger at the time) to the manifestation of His glory and the removal of idolatry.

And as for any offence whiche I haf committed against England eyther in writeing that or of any other werk I will not refuse that moderate and indifferent men Iudge and decerne betwixt me and thost that accuse me. To witt Whither of the partijs Do most hurt the libertie of England, I that afferme that no woman may be exalted above any realme to mak[e] the libertie of the sam[e] thrall to a straunge, proud, and euell nation, or thai that approve whatsoeuir pleaseth princes for the tyme.

And regarding any offense I have committed against England, whether in writing this or other works, I won't refuse that reasonable and fair-minded people judge and decide between me and those who accuse me. Specifically, which side does more harm to the freedom of England? I assert that no woman should be elevated above any kingdom to make the freedom of the same subject to a foreign, arrogant, and evil nation, or those who support whatever pleases the ruling princes at the time.

Yf I were wer[e] asweall disposed till accuse, as som of them (till thair owne schame) haue declared thame selves I nothing dowbt but that in few wordis I should lett ressonabill men vnderstand that som that this Day lowlie crouche to your grace, and lauboure to make me odious in your eyes, did in your aduersitie neyther shew thame selvis faithfull frendis to your grace, neyther yit so loving and cairfull ouer thair native cuntry as now thai wold be esteamed.

If I were as eager to accuse as some of them (for their own sake) have shown themselves to be, I have no doubt that in a few words I could help reasonable people understand that some who today humbly bow to your grace and work to make me look bad in your eyes, did not show themselves to be faithful friends to you in your time of adversity, nor were they loving and caring for their homeland as they would like to be seen now.

But omitting the accusation of others for my owne purgation and for your graces satisfaction I say. That nothyng in my booke conceaued Is, or can be preiudiciall to your graces iust regiment prouided that ye be not found vngrate unto GOD. Vngrate ye shalbe proued in presence of His throne, (howsoeuir that flatterairs Iustifie your fact) yf ye transfer the glory of that honour in which ye now stand to any other thing, then to the dispensation of His mercy which onelye mackethe that lauthfull to your grace Which nature and law Denyeth to all woman. Neyther wold I that your grace should fear that this your humiliation befoir GOD should in any case infirm or weaken your Iust and lauthfull authoritie befoir men. Nay madam such vnfeaned confession of goddis benefittis receaued shalbe the establishment of the sam[e] not onelye to your self, bot also to your sead and posteritie. Whane contrariwise a prowd conceat, and eleuation of your self shalbe the occasion that your reing shalbe vnstabill, trublesum and schort.

But to clear my name and satisfy you, I say this: nothing in my book is meant to harm your rightful rule, as long as you aren't ungrateful to God. You will be proven ungrateful in front of His throne, no matter how much your flatterers justify your actions, if you give credit for the honor you have to anything else but the mercy He grants, which alone makes it lawful for you—something nature and law deny to all women. I also don’t want you to think that your humility before God will in any way weaken your rightful authority before men. No, madam, such sincere acknowledgment of God’s blessings will not only strengthen you but also benefit your heirs and descendants. In contrast, a proud attitude and self-elevation will lead to an unstable, troublesome, and short reign.

GOD is witness that vnfeanedlie I both love and reverence your grace, yea I pray that your reing may be long, prosperous, and quyet. And that for the quyetnes which CHRISTIS membris before persecuted haue receaued vnder yow but yit yf I should flatter your grace I were no freind, but a deceavabill trater. And therfor of conscience I am compelled to say, that neyther the consent of peopill, the proces of tyme, nor multitude of men, can establish a law which GOD shall approve, but whatsoeuer He approveht (by his eternall word) that shalbe approued, and whatsoeuer he dampneth shalbe condampneth, though all men in earth wold hasard the iustification of the sam[e]. And therfor[e] madam the onlie way to retean and to keap those benefittes of GOD haboundandlie powred now of laitt Dayis vpon yow, and vpon your realme is vnfeanedlie to rendir vnto GOD, to His mercy and vndeserued grace the [w]holl glory of this your exaltatioun, forget your byrth and all tytill which thervpon doth hing[e], and considder deaplie how for feir of your lyfe ye did declyne from GOD, and bow till Idolatrie. Lett it not appear a small offence in your eyis, that ye haue declyned from CHRIST IESUS in the Day of his battale, neyther yit wold I that ye should esteam that mercy to be vulgar and commone which ye haue receaued. To witt, that GOD hath covered your formar offence, hath presented yow when ye were most unthankfull, and in the end hath exalted and raised yow vp not onlie from the Dust, but also from the portes [gates] of death to reull above his people for the confort of his kirk. It aperteaneth to yow thairfor to ground the iustice of your aucthoritie not vpon that law which from year to year Doth change, but vpon the eternall prouidence of Hym who contrarfy to nature, and without your deserving hath thus exalted your head.

GOD is my witness that I truly love and respect your grace, and I pray that your reign may be long, prosperous, and peaceful. It's for the peace that CHRIST's members have received under you, but if I were to flatter your grace, I would not be a true friend, but a deceitful traitor. Therefore, out of conscience, I must say that neither the consent of people, the passage of time, nor the majority can establish a law that GOD will approve. Whatever He approves through His eternal word will be approved, and whatever He condemns will be condemned, even if all the people on earth were to risk justifying it. Thus, madam, the only way to retain and keep the abundant blessings of GOD that have recently been poured upon you and your realm is to sincerely render to GOD, to His mercy and undeserved grace, the entire glory of your exaltation. Forget your birth and all titles associated with it, and consider deeply how out of fear for your life you turned away from GOD and bowed to Idolatry. Don’t view it as a minor offense in your eyes that you have turned away from CHRIST JESUS in the day of His battle, nor do I want you to think that the mercy you have received is common or trivial. Namely, that GOD has covered your former offense, presented you when you were most ungrateful, and has ultimately exalted you, raising you not only from the dust but also from the gates of death to rule over His people for the comfort of His church. Therefore, it is up to you to base the authority of your rule not on the law that changes year by year, but on the eternal providence of Him who, contrary to nature and without your deserving, has thus lifted you up.

Yf thus in GODDis presence ye humill [humble] your self, as in my hart I glorifie GOD for that rest granted to His afflicted flock within England under yow a weak instrument, so will I with toung and pen iustifie your aucthoritie and regiment as the HOLIE GHOST hath iustified the same In DEBORA, that blessed mother in Israeli, but yf these premisses (as GOD forbid) neglected, ye shall begyn to brag of your birth, and to build your aucthoritie vpon your owne law, flatter yow who so list youre felicite shalbe schort. Interpret my rud[e] wordis in the best part as written by him who is no ennemye to your grace.

If you humble yourself in God's presence, just as in my heart I glorify God for the rest granted to His afflicted flock in England under you, a weak instrument, I will defend your authority and leadership with my words and writing, just as the Holy Ghost has justified it in Deborah, that blessed mother in Israel. But if these things are neglected (as God forbid), and you begin to boast about your lineage and base your authority on your own laws, flattering those who wish for your happiness, your joy will be short-lived. Please interpret my rough words in the best way possible, as they are written by someone who is no enemy of your grace.

By diuerse letters I haue required licence to vesitt your realme not to seik my self neyther yit my owen ease, or commodite. Whiche yf ye now refuse and. deny I must remit my [?] to GOD, adding this for conclusioun, that commonlie it is sein that such as luf not the counsall of the faithfull (appear it never so scharp) are compelled to follow the Deceat of flatteraris to thair owen perdition. The mighty Spreit of the Lord IESUS move your hart to vnderstand what is said, geve vnto yow the discretion of spirittes, and so reull yow in all your actlonis and interprisis that in yow GOD may be glorified, His church edified, and ye your self as a livelie member of the sam[e] may be an exempill and mirroure of vertew and of godlie Lief till others.

Through various letters, I have asked for permission to visit your realm, not for my own sake or comfort. If you now refuse and deny this, I must leave it to God. I’ll add this as a conclusion: it is often seen that those who do not love the counsel of the faithful (no matter how sharp it may seem) are forced to follow the deceit of flatterers to their own destruction. May the mighty Spirit of the Lord Jesus move your heart to understand what has been said, give you the discernment of spirits, and guide you in all your actions and endeavors, so that God may be glorified in you, His church may be edified, and you yourself, as a living member of the same, may be an example and mirror of virtue and godly life to others.

So be it. Off Edinburgh the 20. Day of Julij. 1559.

So be it. Off Edinburgh the 20th day of July, 1559.

By your graces [w]holly to command in godlynes.

By your graces completely to command in goodness.

Endorsed. JOHN KNOX.

Approved. JOHN KNOX.

To the ryght myghty ryght high and ryght excellent princesse ELZABETH quen of England, etc.

To the very mighty, high, and excellent Princess Elizabeth, Queen of England, etc.

Be these Deliuered State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 1 Art. 65.

Be these Delivered State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 1 Art. 65.


20 MARCH 1561. THOMAS RANDOLPH to Sir WILLIAM CECIL. [From Berwick on Tweed.]

Master KNOX in certayne articles geuen vnto my Lord JAMES at this tyme hath mytigated some what the rigour of his booke, referringe myche vnto ye tyme that the same was wrytten.

Master KNOX in certain articles given to my Lord JAMES at this time has softened somewhat the strictness of his book, referring much to the time that it was written.

State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 6, Art. 37.

State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 6, Art. 37.


5 AUG. 1561. JOHN KNOX’s second Defence to Queen ELIZABETH.

Grace from GOD the Father throught our Lord JESUS with perpetuall Encrease of his holie spiritt.

Grace from God the Father through our Lord Jesus with continual increase of His Holy Spirit.

May it please your maiestie that it is heir certainlie spoken that the Queen of Scotland [MARY Queen of Scots] travaleht earnestlie to have a treatise intituled the first blast of the trompett confuted by the answere of the learned in Diuerse realmes, And farther that she lauboureht to inflambe the hartes of princes against the writar. And because that it may appear that your maiestie hath interest, that she myndeht to trauall with your grace, your graces counsell, and learned men for Judgement against such a common enemy to women and to thair regiment. It were but foolishnes to me to prescribe vnto your maiestie what is to be done in any thing but especialie in such thinges as men suppose Do tuoch my self. But of on[e] thing I think my self assured and therefor I Dar[e] not conceall it. To witt that neyther Doht our soueraine so greatlie fear her owen estate by reasson of that book, neyther yet Doth she so vnfeanedlie fauour the tranquilitie of your maiesties reing and realme that she wo[u]lde tack so great and earnest paines onles that her crafty counsall in so Doing shot att a farther marck.

May it please your majesty that it is now clearly said that the Queen of Scotland [MARY Queen of Scots] is earnestly trying to have a treatise titled the first blast of the trumpet refuted by responses from learned individuals in various realms. Furthermore, she has been working to inflame the hearts of princes against the writer. And because it may appear that your majesty has an interest, she intends to engage with your grace, your grace's council, and learned men for judgment against such a common enemy to women and their rule. It would be foolish of me to tell your majesty what should be done in any matter, especially in those things that men suppose touch my own self. However, I feel certain about one thing, and therefore I dare not conceal it. Namely, that our sovereign neither fears her own position greatly because of that book, nor does she genuinely favor the tranquility of your majesty’s reign and realm that she would take such great and earnest efforts unless her crafty counsel aimed at a further goal.

Two yeres ago I wrote vnto your maiestie my full Declaration tuoching that work, experience since hath schawen that I am not Desirous of Innovations [i.e. in Government], so that CHRIST JESUS be not in his members openlie troden vnder the feitt of the vngodlie. With furthie purgation I will not trouble your maiestie for the present. Besechinge the Eternall so to assist your Highnes in all affaires, that in his sight you may be found acceptable, your regiment profitable to your common wealht, and your factes [deeds] to be such that Iustlie thei may be praised of all godlie vnto the cuming of the lord JESUS to whose mighty protection I unfeanedlie committ your maiestie.

Two years ago, I wrote to your majesty my complete statement regarding that matter. Experience since then has shown me that I do not want changes in government, as long as Christ Jesus is not openly trampled underfoot by the wicked. I won’t trouble your majesty further with additional explanations for now. I pray that the Eternal assists your Highness in all matters, so that you may be found acceptable in His sight, your reign beneficial to your commonwealth, and your deeds worthy of praise by all who are righteous until the return of the Lord Jesus, to whose mighty protection I sincerely commit your majesty.

From Edinburgh the 5 of August 1561

From Edinburgh on August 5, 1561

Your maiesties suruand to command in godlines

Your majesties, ready to command in righteousness.

Endorsed JOHN KNOX.

Supported JOHN KNOX.

To the myghty and excellent princess ELIZABETH the Quenes maiestie of ENGLAND be these deliuered.

To the mighty and excellent princess Elizabeth, the Queen's Majesty of England, these are delivered.

State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 6, Art 55.

State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 6, Art 55.


Despite this triumphant appeal to his quiet citizenship under MARY STUART, the following description of her mother shows that the great Scotchman never altered his private opinion on this subject.

Even with this victorious claim to his humble citizenship under MARY STUART, the next description of her mother reveals that the great Scotsman never changed his personal views on this issue.

The peace as said is contracted. The Queene Dowager past by sea to F[r]aunce with gallies that for that purpose were prepared and tooke with her diuerse of the nobilitie of Scotland. The Earles HUNTLY, GLENCAIRNE, MERSHELL, CASSILLES. The Lordes MAXWELL, flying, Sir GEORGE DOWGLASSE, together with all the kings sonnes, and diuerse Barrones, and gentlemen of Ecclesiasticall estate: the Bishop of GALLOWAY, and manie others, with promise that they should be rechlie rewarded for their good seruice. What they receaued we can not tell, but few were made rich at their returning. The Dowager had to practise somewhat with her brethren, the Duke of GWYSE and the Cardinal of LORA[I]NE. The weight wherof the gouernour after felt: for shortlie after his returning, was the gouernour deposed of the gouernement (Iustlie by GOD, but most iniustlie by man) and she made regent, in the yere of our Lord 1554. And a crowne put vpon her head, as seemelie a sight (if men had eyes) as to put a saddle vpon the back of an vnruly cow. And so beganne she to practise, practise vpon practise, how Fraunce might be aduanced, hir friends made rich, and she brought to immortall glorie. For that was her common talke, “So that I may procure the wealth and honour of my friendes, and a good fame vnto my selfe, I regarde not what GOD doe after with me.” And in verie deede in deepe dissimulation to bring her owne purpose to effect she passed the common sort of women, as we will after heare. But yet GOD to whose Gospell she declared her selfe enemie, in the end [did] frustrate her of her deuises.

The peace, as it was said, was negotiated. The Dowager Queen went by sea to France with galleys prepared for that purpose and took with her several nobles of Scotland: the Earls of Huntly, Glencairn, Merse, and Cassillis, along with Lords Maxwell, Flodden, Sir George Douglas, all the king's sons, and various barons and gentlemen of the church, including the Bishop of Galloway and many others, with the promise that they would be generously rewarded for their service. We can't say what they received, but few became wealthy upon their return. The Dowager had to work a bit with her allies, the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine. The impact of this was felt by the governor shortly after his return; for not long after, he was removed from power (justly by God, but unjustly by man), and she was made regent in the year of our Lord 1554. A crown was placed on her head, as fitting a sight (if people had eyes) as putting a saddle on an unruly cow. Thus, she began to scheme, scheming upon scheming, to advance France, enrich her friends, and achieve immortal glory. Her common conversation was, “As long as I can secure wealth and honor for my friends, and good fame for myself, I don’t care what God does with me afterward.” Indeed, in deep deceit to achieve her own goals, she surpassed the average woman, as we will hear later. Yet God, to whom she declared herself an enemy of the Gospel, ultimately frustrated her plans.

The Historic of the Church of Scotland, pp. 192-193. [Ed. 1584].

The History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 192-193. [Ed. 1584].


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!