And now I think it expedient to answer such objections as carnal and worldly men, yea men ignorant of God, use to make for maintenance of this tyranny (authority it is not worthy to be called) and most unjust empire of woman.

First they do object the examples of Deborah and of Huldah the prophetess; of whom the one judged Israel, and the other, by all appearance, did teach and exhort.

Secondarily they do object the law made by Moses for the daughters of Zelophehad.

Thirdly, the consent of the estates of such realms as have approved the empire and regiment of women; and last, the long custom which hath received the regiment of women. Their valiant acts and prosperity, together with some papistical laws, which have confirmed the same.

Objection 1: The examples of Deborah and Huldah

To the first I answer that particular examples do establish no common law. The causes were known to God alone, why he took the spirit of wisdom and force from all men of those ages, and did so mightily assist women against nature, and against his ordinary course, that the one he made a deliverer to his afflicted people Israel, and to the other he gave not only perseverance in the true religion when the most part of men had declined from the same, but also to her he gave the spirit of prophecy, to assure King Josiah of the things which were to come.

With these women, I say, did God work potently and miraculously, yea, to them he gave most singular grace and privilege. But who hath commanded that a public, yea a tyrannical and most wicked law, be established upon these examples? The men that object the same are not altogether ignorant that examples have no strength when the question is of law. As if I should ask, what marriage is lawful? and it should be answered that lawful it is to man not only to have many wives at once, but also it is lawful to marry two sisters and to enjoy them both living at once, because David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God, did the same; I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reason.

Or if the question were demanded, if a Christian with good conscience may defraud, steal or deceive, and answer were made that so he might by the example of the Israelites, who at God’s commandment deceived the Egyptians and spoiled them of their garments, gold and silver; I think likewise this reason should be mocked. And what greater force, I pray you, hath the former argument? Deborah did rule in Israel, and Huldah spoke prophecy in Judah: ergo it is lawful for women to reign above realms and nations, or to teach in the presence of men. The consequent is vain and of none effect. For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law, but we are always bound to the law written, and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God forbiddeth no less that any woman reign over man, than it forbiddeth man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder or to lie. If any of these hath been transgressed, and yet God hath not imputed the same, it maketh not the like fact or deed lawful unto us. For God, being free, may for such causes as be approved by his inscrutable wisdom dispense with the rigor of his law, and may use his creatures at his pleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom he hath made subject to his law and not to the examples of fathers. And this I think sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirits. But to repress the raging of woman’s madness I will descend somewhat deeper into the matter, and not fear to affirm that as we find a contrary spirit in all these most wicked women that this day be exalted into this tyrannous authority, to the spirit that was in those godly matrons: so I fear not, I say, to affirm, that their condition is unlike, and that their end shall be diverse. In those matrons we find that the spirit of mercy, truth, justice and of humility did reign.

Under them we find that God did show mercy to his people, delivering them from the tyranny of strangers and from the venom of idolatry by the hands and counsel of those women: but in these of our ages, we find cruelty, falsehood, pride, covetousness, 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, by their practices and deceit we find ancient realms and nations given and betrayed into the hands of strangers, the titles and liberties of them taken from the just possessors; which one thing is an evident testimony how unlike our mischievous Marys be unto Deborah, under whom were strangers chased out of Israel, God so raising her up to be a mother and deliverer to his oppressed people.

But alas, he hath raised up these Jezebels to be the uttermost of his plagues, which man’s unthankfulness hath long deserved. But his secret and most just judgment shall excuse neither them nor their maintainers, because their counsels be diverse. But to prosecute my purpose, let such as wish to defend these monsters in their tyranny prove first that their sovereign mistresses be like to Deborah in godliness and pity; and secondarily, that the same success doth follow their tyranny, which did follow the extraordinary regiment of that godly matron. Which things although they were able to do (as they never shall be, let them blow till they burst), yet shall her example profit them nothing at all. For they are never able to prove that either Deborah, or any other godly woman (having the commendation of the Holy Ghost within the Scriptures) hath usurped authority above any realm or nation by reason of their birth and blood, neither yet did they claim it by right or inheritance; but God by his singular privilege, favor, and grace, exempted Deborah from the common malediction given to women in that behalf: and against nature he made her prudent in counsel, strong in courage, happy in regiment, and a blessed mother and deliverer to his people; the which he did partly to advance and notify the power of his majesty as well to his enemies, as to his own people, in that that he declared himself able to give salvation and deliverance by means of the most weak vessels: and partly he did it to confound and shame all man of that age, because they had for the most part declined from his true obedience. And therefore was the spirit of courage, regiment, and boldness taken from them for a time, to their confusion and further humiliation.

But what maketh this for Mary and her match Philip? One thing I would ask of such as depend upon the example of Deborah: whether she was widow or wife when she judged Israel, and when God gave that notable victory to his people under her? If they answer she was widow, I would lay against them the testimony of the Holy Ghost, witnessing that she was wife to Lapidoth. And if they will shift, and allege that so she might be called, notwithstanding that her husband was dead, I urge them further, that they are not able to prove it to be any common phrase and manner of speech in the Scriptures that a woman shall be called the wife of a dead man, except that there be some note added whereby it may be known that her husband is departed, as is witnessed of Anna. But in this place of the judges there is no note added that her husband should be dead, but rather the expressed contrary. For the text saith,

In that time a woman named Deborah a prophetess, wife to Lapidoth, judged Israel…

The Holy Ghost plainly speaketh, that what time she judged Israel, she was wife to Lapidoth. If she was wife, and if she ruled all alone in Israel, then I ask why did she not prefer her husband to that honor to be captain, and to be leader to the host of the Lord. If any think that it was her husband, the text proveth the contrary. For it affirmeth that Barak of the tribe of Naphtali was appointed to that office. If Barak had been her husband, to what purpose should the Holy Ghost so diligently have noted the tribe, and another name than was before expressed? Yea, to what purpose should it be noted that she sent and called him? Whereof I doubt not but that every reasonable man doth consider that this Barak was not her husband; and thereof likewise it is evident that her judgment or government in Israel was no such usurped power as our queens unjustly possess this day, but that it was the spirit of prophecy which rested upon her, what time the multitude of the people wrought wickedly in the eyes of the Lord: by which spirit she did rebuke the idolatry and iniquity of the people, exhort them to repentance, and in the end, did bring them this comfort: that God should deliver them from the bondage and thralldom of their enemies. And this she might do, notwithstanding that another did occupy the place of the supreme magistrate, (if any was in those days in Israel) for, so I find did Huldah the wife of Shallum in the days of Josiah king of Judah speak prophecy and comfort the king: and yet he resigned to her neither the scepter nor the sword.

That this our interpretation how Deborah did judge in Israel is the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, the pondering and weighing of the history shall manifestly prove. When she sendeth for Barak, I pray you, in whose name giveth she him his charge? Doth she speak to him as kings and princes used to speak to their subjects in such cases? No, but she speaketh as she that had a special revelation from God which neither was known to Barak nor to the people, saying: hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded thee? This is her preface by which she would stir up the dull senses of Barak and of the people, willing to persuade unto them that the time was come when God would show himself their protector and deliverer–in which preface she usurpeth to herself neither power nor authority. For she saith not: I, being thy princess, thy mistress, thy sovereign lady and queen, command thee upon thine allegiance, and under pain of treason to go and gather an army. No, she spoileth herself of all power to command, attributing that authority to God, of whom she had her revelation and certitude to appoint Barak captain, which after appeareth more plainly.

For when she had declared to him the whole counsel of God, appointing unto him as well the number of his soldiers as the tribes out of which they should be gathered: and when she had appointed the place of the battle, (which she could not have done, but by special revelation of God) and had assured him of victory in the name of God, and yet he fainted and openly refused to enter into that journey except that the prophetess would accompany him, she did use against him no external power, she did not threaten him with rebellion and death, but for assurance of his faint heart and weak conscience, being content to go with him, she pronounceth, that the glory should not be his in that journey, but that the Lord should sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. Such as have more pleasure in light than in darkness may clearly perceive that Deborah did usurp no such power nor authority as our queens do this day claim, but that she was endued with the spirit of wisdom, of knowledge, and of the true fear of God; and by the same she judged the deeds of the rest of the people. She rebuked their defection and idolatry, yea and also did redress, to her power, the injuries that were done by man to man.

But all this, I say, she did by the spiritual sword–that is, by the Word of God–and not by any temporal regiment or authority which she did usurp over Israel; in which, I suppose, at that time there was no lawful magistrate, by reason of their great affliction. For so witnesseth the history, saying:

And Ehud being dead, the Lord sold Israel in to the hand of Jabin king of Canaan. And he by Sisera his captain afflicted Israel greatly the space of twenty years.

And Deborah herself, in her song of thanksgiving, confesseth that before she did arise mother in Israel, and in the days of Jael, there was nothing but confusion and trouble.

If any stick to the term, alleging that the Holy Ghost saith that she judged Israel, let them understand that neither doth the Hebrew word, neither yet the Latin, always signify civil judgment or the execution of the temporal sword, but most commonly is taken in the sense which we have before expressed. For of Christ it is said, he shall judge many nations,^[1] and that he shall pronounce judgment to the Gentiles;^[2] and yet it is evident that he was no minister of the temporal sword. God commandeth Jerusalem and Judah to judge betwixt him and his vineyard,^[3] and yet he appointed not them all to be civil magistrates.

To Ezekiel it is said:

Shalt thou not judge them, Son of man? (Ezekiel 20:4)

And after:

Thou Son of man, shalt thou not judge? Shalt thou not judge, I say, the city of blood? (Ezekiel 22:2a)

And also:

Behold, I shall judge betwixt beast and beast. (Ezekiel 34:17)

And such places in great number are to be found throughout the whole Scriptures; and yet I trust no man 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 by corporeal punishment. No, the manner of their judgment is expressed in these words:

Declare to them all their abominations, and thou shalt say to them: Thus saith the Lord God: a city shedding blood in the midst of her, that her time may approach, and which hath made idols against herself, that she might be polluted. Thou hast transgressed in the blood which thou hast shed, and thou are polluted in the idols, which thou hast made. (Ezekiel 22:2b-4)

Thus, I say, do the prophets of God judge, pronouncing the sentence of God against malefactors. And so I doubt not but Deborah judged, what time Israel had declined from God: rebuking their defection, and exhorting them to repentance, without usurpation of any civil authority. And if the people gave unto her for a time any reverence or honour, as her godliness and happy counsel did well deserve, yet was it no such empire as our monsters claim. For which of her sons or nearest kinsmen left she ruler and judge in Israel after her? The Holy Ghost expresseth no such thing; whereof it is evident that by her example God offereth no occasion to establish any regiment of women above men, realms, and nations.

Objection 2: The law made by Moses for the daughters of Zelophehad

But now to the second objection, in which women require (as to them appeareth) nothing but equity and justice, whilst they and their patrons for them require dominion and empire above men. For this is their question: Is it not lawful that women have their right and inheritance, like as the daughters of Zelophehad were commanded by the mouth of Moses to have their portion of ground in their tribe?

I answer, it is not only lawful that women possess their inheritance, but I affirm also that justice and equity require that so they do. But therewith I add that which gladly they list not understand: that to bear rule or authority over man can never be right nor inheritance to woman. For that can never be just inheritance to any person which God by his word hath plainly denied unto them: but to all women hath God denied authority above man, as most manifestly is before declared: therefore to her it can never be inheritance. And thus must the advocates of our ladies provide some better example and stronger argument, for the law made in favor of the daughters of Zelophehad will serve them nothing. And assuredly great wonder it is that in so great light of God’s truth men wish to grope and wander in darkness. For let them speak of conscience, if the petition of any of these forenamed women was to reign over any one tribe, yea or yet over any one man within Israel. Plain it is they did not, but only required that they might have a portion of ground among the men of their tribe, lest the name of their father should be abolished. And this was granted unto them without respect had to any civil regiment.

And what maketh this, I pray you, for the establishing of this monstrous empire of women? The question is not if women may succeed to possession, substance, patrimony, or inheritance, such as fathers may leave to their children, for that I willingly grant. But the question is, if women may succeed to their fathers in offices; and chiefly to that office, the executor whereof doth occupy the place and throne of God. And that I absolutely deny, and fear not to say that to place a woman in authority above a realm is to pollute and profane the royal seat, the throne of justice, which ought to be the throne of God; and that to maintain them in the same is nothing else but continually to rebel against God.

One thing there is yet to be noted and observed in the law made concerning the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad, to wit, that it was forbidden unto them to marry without their own tribe, lest such portion as fell to their lot should be transferred from one tribe to another, and so should the tribe of Manasseh be defrauded and spoiled of their just inheritance by their occasion; for avoiding of which it was commanded by Moses that they should marry in the family or household of the tribe and kindred of their father. Wonder it is that the advocates and patrons of the right of our ladies did not consider and ponder this law before they counseled the blind princes and unworthy nobles of their countries to betray the liberties thereof into the hands of strangers. England, for satisfying of the inordinate appetites of that cruel monster Mary (unworthy, by reason of her bloody tyranny, of the name of a woman), betrayed (alas) to the proud Spaniard; and Scotland, by the rash madness of foolish governors and by the practices of a crafty dame, resigned likewise, under title of marriage, into the power of France.

Doth such translation of realms and nations please the justice of God, or is the possession by such means obtained, lawful in his sight? Assured I am that it is not. Not otherwise, I say, than is that possession whereunto thieves, murderers, tyrants and oppressors do attain by theft, murder, tyranny, violence, deceit, and oppression, which God, of his secret (but yet most just) judgment doth often permit for punishment, as well of the sufferers as of the violent oppressors, but doth never approve the same as lawful and godly. For if he would not permit that the inheritance of the children of Israel should pass from one tribe to another by the marriage of any daughter–notwithstanding that they were all one people; all spake one tongue, all were descended of one father, and all did profess one God, and one religion–if yet, I say, God would not suffer that the commodity and usual fruit which might be gathered of the portion of ground limited and assigned to one tribe should pass to another, will he suffer that the liberties, laws, commodities, and fruits of whole realms and nations be given into the power and distribution of others by reason of marriage, and in the powers of such, as besides that they be of a strange tongue, of strange manners and laws, they are also ignorant of God, enemies to his truth, deniers of Christ Jesus, persecutors of his true members, and haters of all virtue? As the odious nation of Spaniards doth manifestly declare; who for very contempt, which they do bear against Christ Jesus–whom their forefathers did crucify (for Jews they are, as histories do witness, and they themselves confess)–do this day make plain war against all true professors of his holy Gospel.

And how blindly and outrageously the French king and his pestilent prelates do fight against the verity of God the flaming fires, which lick up the innocent blood of Christ’s members, do witness, and by his cruel edicts is notified and proclaimed.

And yet to these two cruel tyrants (to France and Spain I mean) is the right and possession of England and Scotland appointed. But just or lawful shall that possession never be, till God do change the statute of his former law; which he will not do for the pleasure of man. For he hath not created the earth to satisfy the ambition of two or three tyrants, but for the universal seed of Adam,^[4] and hath appointed and defined the bounds of their habitation to diverse nations, assigning diverse countries as he himself confesseth, speaking to Israel in these words:

You shall pass by the bounds and limits of your brethren the sons of Esau, who dwell in Mount Seir. They shall fear you. But take diligent heed that ye show not yourselves cruel against them. For I will give you no part of their land. No, not the breadth of a foot. For Mount Seir I have given to Esau to be possessed. (Deuteronomy 2:4-5)

And the same he doth witness of the sons of Lot, to whom he had given Ar to be possessed.^[5]

And Moses plainly affirmeth that when the Almighty did distribute and divide possessions to the Gentiles, and when he did disperse and scatter the sons of men, that then he did appoint the limits and bounds of peoples for the number of the sons of Israel.

Whereof it is plain that God hath not exposed the earth in prey to tyrants, making all things lawful which by violence and murder they may possess, but that he hath appointed to every several nation a several possession, willing them to stand content with that portion which by lot and just means they had enjoyed (cf. Cicero, On Duties, Book 1).^[6]

For what causes God permitteth this his distribution to be troubled, and the realms of ancient nations to be possessed of strangers, I delay at this time to treat. Only this I have recited to give the world to understand that the reign, empire, and authority of women hath no ground within God’s Scriptures; yea, that realms or provinces possessed by their marriage is nothing but unjust conquest. For so little doth the law made for the daughters of Zelophehad help the cause of your queens that it utterly fighteth against them, damning both their authority and deeds.

Objection 3: Consent and long custom have established women’s authority

But now to the third objection.

The consent, say they, of realms and laws pronounced and admitted in this behalf, long consuetude and custom, together with felicity of some women in their empires, have established their authority.

To whom I answer, that neither may the tyranny of princes, nor the foolishness of people, nor wicked laws made against God, nor yet the felicity that in this earth may hereof ensue, make that thing lawful which he by his word hath manifestly condemned. For if the approbation of princes and people, laws made by men, or the consent of realms, may establish anything against God and his word, then should idolatry be preferred to the true religion. For more realms and nations, more laws and decrees published by emperors with common consent of their counsels, have established the one than have approved the other. And yet I think that no man of sound judgment will therefore justify and defend idolatry. No more ought any man to maintain this odious empire of women, although it were approved of all men by their laws. For the same God that in plain words forbiddeth idolatry doth also forbid the authority of women over man, as the words of Saint Paul before rehearsed do plainly teach us. And therefore whether women be deposed from that unjust authority (have they never usurped it so long) or if all such honor be denied unto them, I fear not to affirm that they are neither defrauded of right nor inheritance. For to women can that honor never be due nor lawful (much less inheritance) which God hath so manifestly denied unto them.

I am not ignorant that the subtle wits of carnal men (which can never be brought under obedience of God’s simple precepts to maintain this monstrous empire) have yet two vain shifts.

First, they allege that, 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 substitute. Secondarily, say they, 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.

To both I answer in few words. First, that from a corrupt and venomed fountain can spring no wholesome water; secondarily, that no person hath power to give the thing which doth not justly appertain to themselves. But the authority of a woman is a corrupted fountain, and therefore from her can never spring any lawful officer. She is not born to rule over men: and therefore she can appoint none by her gift, nor by her power (which she hath not) to the place of a lawful magistrate. And therefore whosoever receiveth of a woman office or authority are adulterous and bastard officers before God.

This may appear strange at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent and equal in the cause of God as we can be in the cause of man the reason shall suddenly appear. The case supposed that a tyrant by conspiracy usurped the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in the same did so establish himself, that he appointed officers and did what he wished for a time; and in this meantime the native king made strait inhibition to all his subjects, that none should adhere to this traitor, nor yet receive any dignity of him, yet nevertheless they would honor the same traitor as king and become his officers in all affairs of the realm.

If afterwards the native prince did recover his just honor and possession, should he repute or esteem any man of the traitor’s appointment for a lawful magistrate, or for his friend and true subject? Or should he not rather with one sentence condemn the head with the members? And if so he should do, who were able to accuse him of rigor? much less to condemn his sentence of injustice. And dare we deny the same power to God in the like case?

For if woman reigneth above man, she hath obtained it by treason and conspiracy committed against God; how can it be then, that she, being criminal and guilty of treason against God committed, can appoint any officer pleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible. Wherefore let men that receive of women authority, honor or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power they declare themselves enemies to God.

If any think that because the realm and estates thereof have given their consents to a woman and have established her and her authority, that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God, let the same men remember what I have said before, to wit, that God cannot approve the doing nor consent of any multitude concluding any thing against his word and ordinance; and therefore they must have a more assured defense against the wrath of God than the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of the consuming fire: 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, because she is a traitoress and rebel against God. And finally they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power.

The same is the duty of the nobility and estates, by whose blindness a woman is promoted. First, insofar as they have most heinously offended against God, placing in authority such as God by his word hath removed from the same, unfeignedly they ought to call for mercy, and being admonished of their error and damnable deeds, in sign and token of true repentance, with common consent they ought to retreat that which unadvisedly and by ignorance they have pronounced, and ought without further delay to remove from authority all such persons as by usurpation, violence, or tyranny, do possess the same.

For so did Israel and Judah after they had revolted from David, and Judah alone in the days of Athaliah (2 Kings 11). For after she by murdering her son’s children had obtained the empire over the land and had most unhappily reigned in Judah six years, Jehoiada the high priest called together the captains and chief rulers of the people, and showing to them the king’s son Joash, did bind them by an oath to depose that wicked woman and to promote the king to his royal seat, which they faithfully did, killing at his commandment not only that cruel and mischievous woman, but also the people did destroy the temple of Baal, break his altars and images, and kill Mathan, Baal’s high priest, before his altars.

The same is the duty as well of the estates as of the people that hath been blinded: first they ought to remove from honor and authority that monster in nature (so call I a woman clad in the habit of man, yea a woman against nature reigning above man). Secondarily, if any presume to defend that impiety, they ought not to fear, first to pronounce, and then after to execute against them the sentence of death.

If any man be afraid to violate the oath of obedience which they have made to such monsters, let them be most assuredly persuaded that as the beginning of their oaths proceeding from ignorance was sin, so is the obstinate purpose to keep the same nothing but plain rebellion against God. But of this matter in the second blast, God willing, we shall speak more at large.