1
The Proposition: To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.
In the probation of this proposition I will not be so curious as to gather whatsoever may amplify, set forth, or decore the same; but I am purposed, even as I have spoken my conscience in most plain and few words, so to stand content with a simple proof of every member, bringing in for my witness God’s ordinance in nature, his plain will revealed in his word, and the minds of such as be most ancient amongst godly writers.
A. Repugnant to nature
And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God by the order of his creation hath spoiled woman of authority and dominion, but also that man hath seen, proved and pronounced just causes why it so should be. Man, I say, in many other cases blind, doth in this behalf see very clearly. For the causes be so manifest that they cannot be hid. For who can deny but it repugneth to nature that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong, and finally, that the foolish, mad and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil regiment is but blindness: their strength, weakness: their counsel, foolishness: and judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.
I except such as God, by singular privilege and for certain causes known only to himself, hath exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience hath declared them to be unconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of all public office. For this writeth Aristotle in the second volume of his Politics:
What difference shall we put whether that women bear authority, or the husband that obey the empire of their wives be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensueth the one, must needs follow the other, to wit, injustice, confusion and disorder.[1]
The same author further reasoneth that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Grecians were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer, I pray you, have said to that realm or nation where a woman sitteth crowned in parliament amongst the midst of men.
Oh fearful and terrible are thy judgments, O Lord, which thus hast abased man for his iniquity!
I am assuredly persuaded that if any of those men which, illuminated only by the light of nature, did see and pronounce causes sufficient why women ought not to bear rule nor authority, should this day live and see a woman sitting in judgment or riding from parliament in the midst of men, having the royal crown upon her head, the sword and scepter borne before her in sign that the administration of justice was in her power–I am assuredly persuaded, I say, that such a sight should so astonish them that they should judge the whole world to be transformed into Amazons, and that such a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that country as poets do feign was made of the companions of Ulysses; or, at least, that albeit the outward form of men remained, yet should they judge that their hearts were changed from the wisdom, understanding, and courage of men, to the foolish fondness and cowardice of women. Yea, they further should pronounce that where women reign or be in authority, there must needs vanity be preferred to virtue, ambition and pride to temperance and modesty; and finally, that avarice, the mother of all mischief, must needs devour equity and justice. (Aristotle, Politics Book 2)[2]
But lest we shall seem to be of this opinion alone, let us hear what others have seen and decreed in this matter. In the rules of the law thus it is written:
Women are removed from all civil and public office, so that they neither may be judges, neither may they occupy the place of the magistrate, neither yet may they be speakers for others (Justinian’s Digest (“Pandects”) Book 50, “De Regulis Juris”).[3]
The same is repeated in the third and in the sixteenth books of the digests: where certain persons are forbidden (ne pro aliis postulent); that is, that they be no speakers nor advocates for others.[4][5]
And among the rest are women forbidden; and this cause is added, that they do not against shamefacedness intermeddle themselves with the causes of others (ad Senatus Consultum Velleianum),[6] neither yet that women presume to use the offices due to men.
The law in the same place doth further declare that a natural shamefacedness ought to be in womankind (Pandects Book 3 Title 1, “Concerning The Right Of Application To The Court”)[7] which most certainly she loseth whensoever she taketh upon her the office and estate of man. As in Calphurnia was evidently declared, who having license to speak before the senate, at length became so impudent and importunate, that by her babbling she troubled the whole assembly, and so gave occasion that this law was established.
In the first book of the digests, it is pronounced that the condition of the woman in many cases is worse than of the man (Pandects Book 1 Title 5 “On Status,” section 9).[8] As in jurisdiction (saith the law), in receiving of cure and tuition,[9] in adoption,[10] in public accusation, in delation,[11] in all popular action, and in motherly power,[12] which she hath not upon her own sons.
The law further will not permit that the woman give anything to her husband, because it is against the nature of her kind, being the inferior member, to presume to give any thing to her head (Pandects Book 24 Title 1, “Concerning Donations Between Husband And Wife”).[13]
The law doth moreover pronounce womankind to be the most avaricious,[14] which is a vice intolerable in those that should rule or minister justice.[15]
And Aristotle, as before is touched, doth plainly affirm that wheresoever women bear dominion there the people must needs be disordered, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess, and vanity; and finally, in the end, that they must needs come to confusion and ruin.[16]
Would to God the examples were not so manifest to the further declaration of the imperfections of women–of their natural weakness and inordinate appetites. I might adduce histories proving some women to have died for sudden joy; some, for impatience, to have murdered themselves; some to have burned with such inordinate lust that for the quenching of the same they have betrayed to strangers their country and city; and some to have been so desirous of dominion that for the obtaining of the same they have murdered the children of their own sons. Yea, and some have killed with cruelty their own husbands and children.[17]
But to me it is sufficient (because this part of nature is not my most sure foundation) to have proved that men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and have determined that it is a thing most repugnant to nature that women rule and govern over men. For those that will not permit a woman to have power over her own sons will not permit her, I am assured, to have rule over a realm: and those that will not suffer her to speak in defense of those that be accused, neither that will admit her accusation intended against man, will not approve her that she shall sit in judgment crowned with the royal crown, usurping authority in the midst of men.
B. Contumely to God
But now to the second part of nature, in which I include the revealed will and perfect ordinance of God; and against this part of nature, I say that it doth manifestly repugn that any woman shall reign or bear dominion over 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 contrary.
First, I say, that woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him, as Saint Paul doth reason in these words:
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 therefore ought the woman to have a power upon her head (that is, a coverture, in sign of subjection, 1 Corinthians 11).
Of which words it is plain that the Apostle meaneth that woman in her greatest perfection should have known that man was lord above her, and therefore that she should never have pretended any kind of superiority above him; no more than do the angels above God the creator, or above Christ Jesus their head.
So I say that in her greatest perfection woman was created to be subject to man; but after her fall and rebellion committed against God there was put upon her a new necessity, and she was made subject to man by the irrevocable sentence of God, pronounced in these words:
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. With sorrow shalt thou bear thy children, and thy will shall be subject to thy man: and he shall bear dominion over thee.
Hereby may such as altogether be not blinded plainly see that God, by his sentence, hath dejected woman from empire and dominion above man. For two punishments are laid upon her, to wit: a dolor, anguish and pain, as oft as ever she shall be mother; and a subjection of her self, her appetites and will, to her husband and to his will. From the former part of this malediction can neither art, nobility, policy, nor law made by man, deliver womankind; but whosoever attaineth to that honour to be mother proveth in experience the effect and strength of God’s word.
But alas–ignorance of God, ambition, and tyranny have studied to abolish and destroy the second part of God’s punishment. For women are lifted up to be heads over realms and to rule above 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 persons promoted–except they speedily repent. For they shall be dejected from the glory of the sons of God to the slavery of the devil, and to the torment that is prepared for all such as do exalt themselves against God. Against God can nothing be more manifest than that a woman shall be exalted to reign above man. For the contrary sentence hath he pronounced in these words (Genesis 3):
Thy will shall be subject to thy husband, and he shall bear dominion over thee.
As if God should say: forasmuch as thou hast abused thy former condition, and because thy free will hath brought thyself and mankind into the bondage of Satan, I therefore will bring thee in bondage to man. For where before thy obedience should have been voluntary, now it shall be by constraint and by necessity: and because thou hast deceived thy man, thou shalt therefore be no longer mistress[18] over thine own appetites, over thine own will nor desires. For in thee there is neither reason nor discretion which be able to moderate thy affections, and therefore they shall be subject to the desire of thy man. He shall be lord and governor, not only over thy body, but even over thy appetites and will. This sentence, I say, did God pronounce against Eve and her daughters, as the rest of the Scriptures doth evidently witness. So that no woman can ever presume to reign above man, but the same she must needs do in despite of God, and in contempt of his punishment and malediction.
I am not ignorant that the most part of men do understand this malediction of the subjection of the wife to her husband and of the dominion which he beareth above her: but the Holy Ghost giveth to us another interpretation of this place, taking from all women all kind of superiority, authority and power over man, speaking as followeth by the mouth of Saint Paul (1 Tim. 2.):
I suffer not a woman to teach, neither yet to usurp authority above man.
Here he nameth women in general, excepting none, affirming that she may usurp authority above no man. And he speaketh more plainly in another place, in these words (1 Cor. 14):
Let women keep silence in the congregation, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject as the law sayeth.
These two testimonies of the Holy Ghost be sufficient to prove whatsoever we have affirmed before, and to repress the inordinate pride of women, as also to correct the foolishness of those that have studied to exalt women in authority above man, against God, and against his sentence pronounced. But that the same two places of the Apostle may the better be understood, it is to be noted that in the latter, which is written in the first epistle to the Corinthians, the 14th chapter, before the Apostle had permitted that all persons should prophesy one after another, adding this reason: that all may learn and all may receive consolation. And lest any might have judged that amongst a rude multitude and the plurality of speakers many things little to purpose might have been affirmed, or else that some confusion might have arisen, he addeth: the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets–as if he should say, God shall always raise up some to whom the verity shall be revealed, and unto such ye shall give place, albeit they sit in the lowest seats. And thus the Apostle would have prophesying an exercise to be free to the whole church, that everyone should communicate with the congregation what God had revealed to them, providing that it were orderly done.
But from this general privilege he excludeth woman, saying: let women keep silence in the congregation. And why, I pray you? Was it because the Apostle thought no woman to have any knowledge? No, he giveth another reason, saying, let her be subject as the law saith. In which words is first to be noted, that the Apostle calleth this former sentence pronounced against woman a law–that is, the immutable decree of God, who by his own voice hath subjected her to one member of the congregation, that is to her husband. Whereupon the Holy Ghost concludeth that she may never rule nor bear empire above man. For she that is made subject to one may never be preferred to many; and that the Holy Ghost doth manifestly express, saying: I suffer not that women usurp authority above man. He sayeth not, I will not that woman usurp authority above her husband, but he nameth man in general, taking from her all power and authority to speak, to reason, to interpret, or to teach, but principally to rule or to judge in the assembly of men. So that woman by the law of God, and by the interpretation of the Holy Ghost, is utterly forbidden to occupy the place of God in the offices aforesaid, which he hath assigned to man, whom he hath appointed and ordained his lieutenant in earth: excluding from that honor and dignity woman, as this short argument shall evidently declare.
The Apostle taketh power from woman to speak in the assembly; ergo he permitteth no woman to rule above man. The former part is evident, whereupon doth the conclusion of necessity follow. For he that taketh from woman the least part of authority, dominion, or rule, will not permit unto her that which is greatest: But greater it is to reign above realms and nations, to publish and to make laws, and to command men of all estates, and finally to appoint judges and ministers, than to speak in the congregation. For her judgment, sentence, or opinion proposed in the congregation may be judged by all, may be corrected by the learned and reformed by the godly. But woman being promoted in sovereign authority, her laws must be obeyed, her opinion followed, and her tyranny maintained–even supposing that it be expressly against God and the profit of the commonwealth, as too manifest experience doth this day witness.
The minds of some ancient godly writers
And therefore yet again I repeat that which before I have affirmed, to wit, that a woman promoted to sit in the seat of God, that is, to teach, to judge or to reign above man, is a monster in nature, contumely to God, and a thing most repugnant to his will and ordinance. For he hath deprived them, as before is proved, of speaking in the congregation, and hath expressly forbidden them to usurp any kind of authority above man–how then will he suffer them to reign and have empire above realms and nations? He will never, I say, approve it, because it is a thing most repugnant to his perfect ordinance, as after shall be declared, and as the former Scriptures have plainly given testimony. To which, to add anything were superfluous, were it not that the world is almost now come to that blindness that whatsoever pleaseth not the princes and the multitude, the same is rejected as doctrine newly forged, and is condemned for heresy. I have therefore thought good to recite the minds of some ancient writers in the same matter, to the end that such as altogether be not blinded by the devil may consider and understand this my judgment to be no new interpretation of God’s Scriptures, but to be the uniform consent of the most part of godly writers since the time of the apostles.
Tertullian, in his book On Women’s Apparel, after he hath shown many causes why gorgeous apparel is abominable and odious in a woman, addeth these words, speaking as it were to every woman by name:
Dost thou not know that thou art Eve? the sentence of God liveth and is effectual against this kind, and in this world of necessity it is, that the punishment also live. Thou art the port and gate of the devil. Thou art the first transgressor of God’s law. thou didst persuade and easily deceive him whom the devil durst not assault. For thy merit (that is for thy death) it behooved the son of God to suffer the death, and doth it yet abide in thy mind to deck thee above thy skin coats?[19]
By these and many other grave sentences and quick interrogations did this godly writer labor to bring every woman in contemplation of herself, to the end that every one deeply weighing what sentence God had pronounced against the whole race and daughters of Eve might not only learn daily to humble and subject themselves in the presence of God, but also that they should avoid and abhor whatsoever thing might exalt them or puff them up in pride, or that might be occasion that they should forget the curse and malediction of God. And what, I pray you, is more able to cause woman to forget her own condition than if she be lifted up in authority above man?
It is a thing very difficult to a man–be he never so constant–promoted to honors, not to be tickled somewhat with pride; for the wind of vain glory doth easily carry up the dry dust of the earth. But as for woman, it is no more possible that she, being set aloft in authority above man, shall resist the motions of pride, than it is able to the weak reed, or to the turning weathercock, not to bow or turn at the vehemence of the unconstant wind. And therefore the same writer expressly forbiddeth woman to intermeddle with the office of man. For thus he writeth in his book On the Veiling of Virgins:
It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the congregation, neither to teach, neither to baptize, neither to claim to herself any office of man.[20]
The same he speaketh yet more plainly in the preface of his [first] book written against Marcion, where he, recounting certain monstrous things which were to be seen at the sea called Euxinum, amongst the rest, he reciteth this as a great monster in nature, that women in those parts were not tamed nor embased by consideration of their own sex and kind; but that all shame laid apart, they made expenses upon weapons and learned the feats of war, having more pleasure to fight than to marry and be subject to man.[21]
Thus far of Tertullian, whose words be so plain that they need no explanation. For he that taketh from her all office appertaining to man will not suffer her to reign above man; and he that judgeth it a monster in nature that a woman shall exercise weapons must judge it to be a monster of monsters that a woman shall be exalted above a whole realm and nation.
Of the same mind is Origen, and diverse others. Yea even till the days of Augustine, whose sentences I omit to avoid prolixity.
Augustine, in his 22nd book written against Faustus, proveth that a woman ought to serve her husband as unto God, affirming that in no thing hath woman equal power with man, saving that neither have power over their own bodies.[22] By which he would plainly conclude that a woman ought never to pretend nor thirst for that power and authority which is due to man. For so he doth explain himself in another place, affirming that woman ought to be repressed and bridled betimes, if she aspire to any dominion: alleging that dangerous and perilous it is to suffer her to proceed, although it be in temporal and corporeal things. And thereto he addeth these words:
God seeth not for a time, neither is there any new thing in his sight and knowledge, meaning thereby that what God hath seen in one woman (as concerning dominion and bearing of authority), the same he seeth in all. And what he hath forbidden to one, the same he also forbiddeth to all. (Augustine, On the Holy Trinity Book 12 Chapter 7)[23]
And this most evidently yet in another place he writeth, moving this question:
How can woman be the image of God, seeing she is subject to man and hath none authority, neither to teach, neither to be witness, neither to judge, much less to rule, or bear empire? (Pseudo-Augustine, Questions Old and New Testaments, question 45, “The Image”)[24]
These be the very words of Augustine, of which it is evident that this godly writer doth not only agree with Tertullian before recited, but also with the former sentence of the law, which taketh from woman not only all authority amongst men, but also every office appertaining to man. To the question how she can be the image of God, he answereth as followeth: Woman, compared to other creatures is the image of God, (for she beareth dominion over them): but compared unto man she may not be called the image of God, (for she beareth not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him).[25][26]
And how woman ought to obey man, he speaketh yet more clearly in these words:
The woman shall be subject to man as unto Christ. For woman hath not her example from the body and from the flesh, that so she shall be subject to man, as the flesh is unto the spirit. Because the flesh in the weakness and mortality of this life lusteth and striveth against the spirit, and therefore would not the Holy Ghost give example of subjection to the woman of any such thing… (Augustine, On Continence)[27]
This sentence of Augustine ought to be noted of all women, for in it he plainly affirmeth that woman ought to be subject to man, that she never ought more to desire preeminence above him than that she ought to desire above Christ Jesus.
With Augustine agreeth in every point Saint Ambrose, who thus writeth in his Hexaemeron:
Adam was deceived by Eve, and not Eve by Adam, and therefore just it is that woman receive and acknowledge him for governor whom she called to sin, lest again she slide and fall by womanly facility.[28]
And writing upon the epistle to the Ephesians he saith,
Let women be subject to their own husbands as unto the Lord: for the man is head to the woman, and Christ is head to the congregation, and he is the saviour of the body: but the congregation is subject to Christ, even so ought women to be to their husbands in all things.[29]
He proceedeth further saying:
Women are commanded to be subject to men by the law of nature because man is the author or beginner of the woman: for as Christ is the head of the church, so is man of the woman. From Christ the church took beginning, and therefore it is subject unto him: even so did woman take beginning from man, that she should be subject.[30]
Thus we hear the agreeing of these two writers to be such that a man might judge the one to have stolen the words and sentences from the other; and yet plain it is that during the time of their writing the one was far distant from the other. But the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of concord and unity, did so illuminate their hearts and direct their tongues and pens, that as they did conceive and understand one truth, so did they pronounce and utter the same, leaving a testimony of their knowledge and concord to us their posterity. If any think that all these former sentences be spoken only of the subjection of the married woman to her husband, as before I have proved the contrary by the plain words and reasoning of Saint Paul, so shall I shortly do the same by other testimonies of the aforesaid writers.
The same Ambrose, writing upon the second chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, after he hath spoken much of the simple arrayment of women, addeth these words:
Woman ought not only to have simple arrayment, but all authority is to be denied unto her: for she must be in subjection to man (of whom she hath taken her original) as well in habit as in service.[31][32]
And after a few words he saith:
Because that death did enter into the world by her, there is no boldness that ought to be permitted unto her, but she ought to be in humility.[33]
Hereof it is plain that from woman, be she married or unmarried, is all authority taken to execute any office that appertaineth to man. Yea, plain it is that woman is commanded to serve, to be in humility and subjection. Which thing yet speaketh the same writer more plainly in these words:
It is not permitted to women to speak, but to be in silence, as the law saith. What saith the law? Unto thy husband shall thy conversion be, and he shall bear dominion over thee (Genesis 3). This is a special law whose sentence, lest it should be violated, infirmed, or made weak, women are commanded to be in silence. (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14)[34]
Here he includeth all women. And yet he proceedeth further in the same place, saying,
It is shame for them to presume to speak of the law in the house of the Lord, who hath commanded them to be subject to their men.[35]
But most plainly speaketh he writing upon the 16th chapter of the epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, upon these words: “Salute Rufus and his mother.”
For this cause did the apostle place Rufus before his mother, for the election of the administration of the grace of God, in which a woman hath no place. For he was chosen and promoted by the Lord to take care over his business, that is, over the church, to which office could not his mother be appointed, albeit she was a woman so holy that the apostle called her his mother. (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans)[36]
Hereof it is plain that the administration of the grace of God is denied to woman. By the administration of God’s grace is understood not only the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, by which the grace of God is presented and ordinarily distributed unto man, but also the administration of civil justice, by which virtue ought to be maintained and vices punished; the execution whereof is no less denied to woman than is the preaching of the Evangel or administration of the sacraments, as hereafter shall most plainly appear.
Chrysostom, amongst the Grecian writers of no small credit, speaking in rebuke of men who in his days were become inferior to some women in wit and in godliness, saith, “For this cause was woman put under thy power,” (he speaketh to man in general), “and thou wast pronounced lord over her, that she should obey thee, and that the head should not follow the feet. But often it is, that we see the contrary, that he who in his order ought to be the head doth not keep the order of the feet,” (that is, doth not rule the feet), “and that she that is in place of the foot is constituted to be the head.” (Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Genesis 3:8)[37]
He speaketh these words as it were in wonder , that man was become so brutish that he did not consider it to be a thing most monstrous that woman should be preferred to man in anything, whom God had subjected to man in all things. He proceedeth, saying:
Nevertheless it is the part of the man with diligent care to repel the woman that giveth him wicked counsel: and woman, which gave that pestilent counsel to man, ought at all times to have the punishment which was given to Eve sounding in her ears.[38]
And in another place he induceth God speaking to the woman in this sort:
Because thou left him, of whose nature thou wast participant and for whom thou wast formed, and hast had pleasure to have familiarity with that wicked beast, and would take his counsel: therefore I subject thee to man, and I appoint and affirm him to be thy lord, that thou mayest acknowledge his dominion; and because thou couldest not bear rule, learn well to be ruled.[39]
Why they should not bear rule, he declareth in other places, saying,
Imprudent because she cannot consider with wisdom and reason the things which she heareth and seeth: and soft she is, because she is easily bowed. I know that Chrysostom bringeth in these words to declare the cause why false prophets do commonly deceive women: because they are easily persuaded to any opinion, especially if it be against God, and because they lack prudence and right reason to judge the things that be spoken. But hereof may their nature be espied, and the vices of the same, which in no wise ought to be in those that are appointed to govern others: for they ought to be constant, stable, prudent, and doing everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women cannot have in equality with men. For he doth witness in another place, saying:
Women have in themselves a tickling and study of vain glory, and that they may have common with men: they are suddenly moved to anger, and that they have also common with some men. (Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Ephesians 4:17-19)[42]
But virtues in which they excel they have not common with man, and therefore hath the Apostle removed them from the office of teaching, which is an evident proof that in virtue they far differ from man.
Let the reasons of this writer be marked, for further he yet proceedeth: after he hath in many words lamented the effeminate manners of men, who were so far degenerate to the weakness of women that some might have demanded, “Why may not women teach amongst such a sort of men, who in wisdom and godliness are become inferior unto women?” He finally concludeth that notwithstanding that men be degenerate, yet may not women usurp any authority above them; and in the end he addeth these words:
These things do not I speak to extol them (that is women) but to the confusion and shame of ourselves, and to admonish us to take again the dominion that is meet and convenient for us; not only that power which is according to the excellency of dignity, but that which is according to providence, and according to help and virtue. For then is the body in best proportion, when it hath the best governor.
O that both man and woman should consider the profound counsel and admonition of this father! He would not that man for appetite of any vain glory should desire preeminence above woman. For God hath not made man to be head for any such cause, but having respect to that weakness and imperfection which always letteth woman to govern. He hath ordained man to be superior, and that meaneth Chrysostom, saying, then is the body in best proportion, when it hath the best governor. But woman can never be the best governor, by reason that she, being spoiled of the spirit of regiment, can never attain to that degree, to be called or judged a good governor, because in the nature of woman lurketh such vices as in good governors are not tolerable; which the same writer expresseth in these words:
Womankind is rash and foolhardy, and their covetousness is like the gulf of hell, that is, insatiable.[43]
And therefore in another place he will that woman shall have nothing to do in judgment, in common affairs, or in the regiment of the commonwealth, because she is impatient of troubles; but that she shall live in tranquility and quietness. And if she have occasion to go from the house, that yet she shall have no matter of trouble, neither to follow her, nor to be offered unto her, as commonly there must be to such as bear authority.[44]
And with Chrysostom fully agreeth Basil the Great in a sermon which he maketh upon some places of Scripture, wherein he reproveth diverse vices; and amongst the rest he affirmeth woman to be a tender creature, flexible, soft and pitiful: which nature God hath given unto her, that she may be apt to nourish children; the which facility of the woman did Satan abuse, and thereby brought her from the obedience of God.[45]
And therefore in diverse other places doth he conclude that she is not apt to bear rule, and that she is forbidden to teach.
Innumerable more testimonies of all sorts of writers may be adduced for the same purpose; but with these I stand content, judging it sufficient to stop the mouth of such as accuse and condemn all doctrine as heretical which displeaseth them in any point that I have proved: by the determinations 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 is the interpreter of God’s sentence and law; and finally by the minds of those writers who in the church of God have been always held in greatest reverence: that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, to God’s will and appointed ordinance–yea that it cannot be without contumely committed against God–that a woman should be promoted to dominion or empire to reign over man, be it in realm, nation, province or city.
C. Subversion of good order, equity, and justice
Now resteth it in few words to be shown that the same empire of women is the subversion of good order, equity, and justice.
Augustine defineth order to be that thing by which God hath appointed and ordained all things (Augustine, De Ordine (“On Order”), Book 1 Chapter 10).[46] Note well, reader, that Augustine will admit no order where God’s appointment is absent and lacketh.
And in another place he saith that order is a disposition, giving their own proper places to things that be unequal, which he termeth in Latin parium et disparium, that is, of things equal or like, and things unequal or unlike (Augustine, City of God, Book 19 Chapter 13).[47] Of which two places and of the whole disputation, which is contained in his second book De Ordine, it is evident that whatsoever is done either without the assurance of God’s will, or else against his will manifestly revealed in his word, is done against order.
But such is the empire and regiment of woman, as evidently before is declared; and therefore I say: it is a thing plainly repugnant to good order, yea it is the subversion of the same. If any wish to reject the definition of Augustine, as either not proper to this purpose, or else as insufficient to prove my intent, let the same man understand that in so doing he hath infirmed my argument nothing. For as I depend not upon the determinations of men, so think I my cause no weaker, though their authority be denied unto me, provided that God by his will revealed, and manifest word, stand plain and evident on my side. That God hath subjected womankind to man by the order of his creation, and by the curse that he hath pronounced against her, is before declared.
The first other glass: the natural body of man
Besides these, he hath set before our eyes two other mirrors and glasses in which he will that we should behold the order which he hath appointed and established in nature: the one is the natural body of man: the other is the politic or civil body of that commonwealth, in which God by his own word hath appointed an order. In the natural body of man God hath appointed an order, that the head shall occupy the uppermost place. And the head hath he joined with the body, that from it doth life and motion flow to the rest of the members. In it hath he placed the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the tongue to speak, which offices are appointed to no other member of the body. The rest of the members have every one their own place and office appointed: but none may have the place nor office of the head. For who would not judge that body to be a monster where there was no head eminent above the rest, but that the eyes were in the hands, the tongue and mouth beneath in the belly, and the ears in the feet. Men, I say, should not only pronounce this body to be a monster; but assuredly they might conclude that such a body could not long endure.
And no less monstrous is the body of that commonwealth where a woman beareth empire. For either doth it lack a lawful head (as in very deed it doth) or else there is an idol exalted in the place of the true head. An idol I call that which hath the form and appearance, but lacketh 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 the craft and art of man give them: as the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David teacheth us, saying:
They have eyes, but they see not, mouth, but they speak not, nose, but they smell not, hands and feet, but they neither touch nor have power to go. (Psalm 115)
And such, I say, is every realm and nation where a woman beareth dominion. For in contempt of God–he of his just judgment so giving them over to a reprobate mind–may a realm, I confess, exalt up a woman to that monstrous honor, to be esteemed as head.
But impossible it is to man and angel, to give unto her the properties and perfect offices of a lawful head. For the same God that hath denied power to the hand to speak, to the belly to hear, and to the feet to see, hath denied to woman power to command man, and hath taken away wisdom to consider, and providence to forsee the things that be profitable to the commonwealth: yea, finally, he hath denied to her in any case to be head to man; but plainly hath pronounced that man is head to woman, even as Christ is head to all man (1 Cor. 11).
If men in a blind rage should assemble together and appoint themselves another head than Jesus Christ (as the papists have done their Romish Antichrist), should Christ therefore lose his own dignity, or should God give that counterfeit head power to give life to the body, to see whatsoever might damage or hurt it, to speak in defense, and to hear the request of every subject? It is certain that he would not. For that honor he hath appointed before all times to his only Son, and the same will he give to no creature besides; no more will he admit, nor accept woman to be the lawful head over man, although man, devil, and angel will conjure in their favor. For seeing he hath subjected her to one, as before is said, he will never permit her to reign over many. Seeing he hath commanded her to hear and obey one, he will not suffer that she speak, and with usurped authority command, realms and nations.
Chrysostom, explaining these words of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 11, the head of woman is man), compareth God in his universal regiment to a king sitting in his royal majesty, to whom all his subjects, commanded to give homage and obedience, appear before him, bearing every one such a badge and cognizance of dignity and honor as he hath given to them; which if they despise and scorn, then do they dishonor their king; even so, saith he, ought man and woman to appear before God, bearing the ensigns of the condition which they have received of him (Chrysostom, Homily 26 on First Corinthians).[48] Man hath 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 coverture upon his head, to witness that in earth man hath no head (beware Chrysostom what thou sayest–thou shalt be reputed a traitor if English men hear thee, for they must have my sovereign lady and mistress, and Scotland hath drunk also the enchantment and venom of Circe; let it be so to their own shame and confusion–he proceedeth in these words) but woman ought to be covered, to witness that in earth she hath a head, that is man.
True it is, woman is covered in both the said realms, but it is not with the sign of subjection, but with the sign of superiority, to wit, with the royal crown. To that he answereth in these words:
What if man neglect his honor? he is no less to be mocked than if a king should depose himself of his diadem or crown and royal estate and clothe himself in the habit of a slave. (Chrysostom, Homily 26 on First Corinthians)[49]
What, I pray you, should 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 ensigns of the 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 behalf, should any heart unfeignedly fearing God have judged of such men? I am assured that not only should they have been judged foolish but also enraged, and slaves to Satan, manifestly fighting against God and his appointed order. The more that I consider the subversion of God’s order which he hath placed generally in all living things, the more I do wonder at the blindness of man, who doth not consider himself in this case so degenerate that the brute beasts are to be preferred unto him in this behalf.
For nature hath in all beasts printed a certain mark of dominion in the male, and a certain subjection in the female, which they keep inviolate. For no man ever saw the lion make obeisance, and stoop before the lioness; neither yet can it be proved, that the hind taketh the conducting of the herd amongst the harts. And yet, alas, man, who by the mouth of God hath dominion appointed to him over woman, doth not only, to his own shame, stoop under the obedience of women, but also, in despite of God and of his appointed order, rejoiceth, and maintaineth that monstrous authority as a thing lawful and just.
The insolent joy, the bonfires and banqueting which were in London and elsewhere in England when that cursed Jezebel was proclaimed queen, did witness to my heart that men were become more than enraged. For else how could they so have rejoiced at their own confusion and certain destruction? For what man was there of so base judgment (supposing that he had any light of God) who did not see the erecting of that monster to be the overthrow of true religion and the assured destruction of England, and of the ancient liberties thereof? And yet nevertheless, all men so triumphed as if God had delivered them from all calamity.
But just and righteous, terrible and fearful are thy judgments, O Lord! For as sometimes thou didst so punish men for unthankfulness that man was ashamed not to commit villainy with man (Romans 1); and that because, knowing thee to be God, they glorified thee not as God, even so hast thou most justly now punished the proud rebellion and horrible ingratitude of the realms of England and Scotland. For when thou didst offer thyself most mercifully to them both, offering the means by which they might have been joined together forever in godly concord, then was the one proud and cruel, and the other unconstant and fickle of promise.
But yet, alas, did miserable England further rebel against thee. For albeit thou didst not cease to heap benefit upon benefit during the reign of an innocent and tender king, yet no man did acknowledge thy potent hand and marvelous working.
The stout courage of captains, the wit and policy of counselors, the learning of bishops, did rob thee of thy glory and honor. For what then was heard, as concerning religion, but the king’s proceedings, the king’s proceedings must be obeyed? It is enacted by parliament: therefore it is treason to speak the contrary. But this was not the end of this miserable tragedy. For thou didst yet proceed to offer thy favors, sending thy prophets and messengers to call for reformation of life in all estates.
For even from the highest to the lowest, all were declined from thee–yea, even those that should have been the lanterns to others; some, I am assured, did quake and tremble, and from the bottom of their hearts thirsted amendment, and for the same purpose did earnestly call for discipline. But then burst forth the venom which before lurked–then might they not contain their despiteful voices, but with open mouths did cry, we will not have such a one to reign over us. Then, I say, was every man so stout that he would not be brought in bondage–no, not to thee, O Lord–but with disdain did the multitude cast from them the amiable yoke of Christ Jesus. No man would suffer his sin to be rebuked, no man would have his life called to trial. And thus did they refuse thee, O Lord, and thy Son Christ Jesus to be their pastor, protector and prince. And therefore hast thou given them over into a reprobate mind. Thou hast taken from them the spirit of boldness, of wisdom and of righteous judgment. They see their own destruction, and yet they have no grace to avoid it.
Yea, they are become so blind that, knowing the pit, they headlong cast themselves into the same, as the nobility of England do this day, fighting in the defense of their mortal enemy the Spaniard. Finally, they are so destitute of understanding and judgment that although they know that there is a liberty and freedom which their predecessors have enjoyed, yet are they compelled to bow their necks under the yoke of Satan, and of his proud ministers, pestilent papists and proud Spaniards. And yet can they not consider that, where a woman reigneth and papists bear authority, there must needs Satan be president of the counsel. Thus hast thou, O Lord, in thy hot displeasure revenged the contempt of thy graces offered. But, O Lord, if thou shalt retain wrath to the end, what flesh is able to sustain?
We have sinned, O Lord, and are not worthy to be relieved. But worthy art thou, O Lord, to be a true God, and worthy is thy Son Christ Jesus to have his Evangel and glory advanced: which both are trodden underfoot in this cruel murder and persecution which the builders of Babylon commit in their fury, [and] have raised against thy children for the establishing of their kingdom. Let the sobs, therefore, of thy prisoners, O Lord, pass up to thine ears; consider their affliction: and let the eyes of thy mercy look down upon the blood of such as die for testimony of thy eternal verity: and let not thine enemies mock thy judgment forever. To thee, O Lord, I turn my wretched and wicked heart: to thee alone, I direct my complaint and groans: for in that Isle to thy saints there is left no comfort.
Albeit I have thus, talking with my God in the anguish of my heart, somewhat digressed; yet have I not utterly forgotten my former proposition, to wit, that it is a thing repugnant to the order of nature that any woman be exalted to rule over men. For God hath denied unto her the office of a head. And in the entreating of this part, I remember that I have made the nobility both of England and Scotland inferior to brute beasts, for they do to women which no male amongst the common sort of beasts can be proved to do to their females: that is, they reverence them, and quake at their presence; they obey their commandments; and that against God. Wherefore I judge them not only subjects to women, but slaves of Satan and servants of iniquity. If any man think these my words sharp or vehement, let him consider that the offense is more heinous than can be expressed by words. For where all things be expressedly 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 president of that counsel?
Plain it is that God ruleth not by his love, mercy, nor grace in the assembly of the ungodly. Then it resteth that the devil, the prince of this world, doth reign over such tyrants. Whose servants, I pray 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 be brought by the monstrous empire of women.
The second glass: the commonwealth
The second glass which God hath set before the eyes of man, wherein he may behold the order which pleaseth his wisdom concerning authority and dominion, is that commonwealth to which it pleaseth his majesty to appoint and give laws, statutes, rites and ceremonies, not only concerning religion, but also touching their policy and regiment of the same. And against that order it doth manifestly repugn, that any woman shall occupy the throne of God, that is, the royal seat, which he by his word hath appointed to man, as in giving the law to Israel concerning the election of a king is evident. For thus it is written:
If thou shalt say, I will appoint a king above me, as the rest of the nations which are about me: Thou shalt make thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall choose, one from amongst the midst of thy brethren thou shalt appoint king above thee. Thou mayest not make a stranger that is not thy brother. (Deuteronomy 17)
Here expressedly is a man appointed to be chosen king, and a man native amongst themselves, by which precept is every woman and stranger excluded. What may be objected for the part or election of a stranger shall be, God willing, answered in the blast of the second trumpet. For this present I say that the erecting of a woman to that honor is not only to invert the order which God hath established; but also it is to defile, pollute and profane, so far as in man lieth, the throne and seat of God, which he hath sanctified and appointed for man only, in the course of this wretched life, to occupy and possess as his minister and lieutenant; excluding woman from the same, as before is expressed.
If any think the afore written law did bind the Jews only, let the same man consider that the election of a king and appointing of judges did neither appertain to the ceremonial law, nor yet was it mere judicial; but that it did flow from the moral law as an ordinance, having respect to the conservation of both the tables. For the office of the magistrate ought to have the first and chief respect to the glory of God commanded and contained in the former table, as is evident by that which was enjoined to Joshua by God, what time he was accepted and admitted ruler and governor over his people, in these words:
Thou shalt divide the inheritance to this people, which I have sworn to their fathers to give unto them: so that thou be valiant and strong, that thou mayest keep and do according to that whole law which my servant Moses hath commanded thee. Thou shalt not decline from it, neither to the right hand, neither to the left hand, that thou mayest do prudently in all things that thou takest in hand, let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, but meditate in it day and night: that thou mayest keep and do according to everything that is written in it. For then shall thy ways prosper, and then shalt thou do prudently… (Joshua 1)
And the same precept giveth God by the mouth of Moses to kings after they be elected, in these words:
When he shall sit in the throne or seat of his kingdom, he shall write to himself a copy of this law in a book, and that shall be with him, that he may read in 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, that he may do them… (Deut. 17)
Of these two places it is evident, that principally it appertaineth to the king or to the chief magistrate to know the will of God, to be instructed in his law and statutes, and to promote his glory with his whole heart and study, which be the chief points of the first table. No man denieth but that the sword is committed to the magistrate, to the end that he should punish vice and maintain virtue. To punish vice I say, not only that which troubleth the tranquility and quiet estate of the commonwealth by adultery, theft or murder committed, but also such vices as openly impugn the glory of God: as idolatry, blasphemy, and manifest heresy, taught and obstinately maintained: as the histories and notable acts of Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah do plainly teach us; whose study and care was not only to glorify God in their own life and conversation, but also they unfeignedly did travel to bring subjects to the true worshipping and honoring of God, and did destroy all monuments of idolatry, did punish to death the teachers of it, and removed from office and honors such as were maintainers of those abominations. Whereby I suppose that it be evident that the office of the king or supreme magistrate hath respect to the law moral, and to the conservation of both the tables.
Now if the law moral be the constant and unchangeable will of God, to which the Gentile is no less bound than was the Jew; and if God will that amongst the Gentiles the ministers and executors of his law be now appointed, as sometimes they were appointed amongst the Jews: further if the execution of justice be no less requisite in the policy of the Gentiles than ever it was amongst the Jews: what man can be so foolish as to suppose or believe that God will now admit those persons to sit in judgment or to reign over men in the commonwealth of the Gentiles, whom he by his expressed word and ordinance did before debar and exclude from the same? And that women were excluded from the royal seat, which ought to be the sanctuary to all poor afflicted, and therefore is justly called the seat of God–besides the place before recited of the election of a king, and besides the places of the New Testament, which be most evident–the order and election which was kept in Judah and Israel doth manifestly declare. For when the males of the kingly stock failed, as oft as it chanced in Israel and sometimes in Judah, it never entered into the hearts of the people to choose and promote to honors any of the king’s daughters, had he never so many–but knowing God’s vengeance to be poured forth upon the father by the away taking of his sons, they had no further respect to his stock, but elected such one man or other as they judged most apt for that honor and authority. Of which premises, I conclude as before, that to promote a woman head over men is repugnant to nature, and a thing most contrary to that order which God hath approved in that commonwealth which he did institute and rule by his word.
But now to the last point, to wit, that the empire of a woman is a thing repugnant to justice, and the destruction of every commonwealth where it is received. In probation whereof, because the matter is more than evident, I will use few words.
First, I say, if justice be a constant and perpetual will to give to every person their own right (as the most learned in all ages have defined it to be), 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; therefore to promote her to that estate or dignity can be nothing else but repugnancy to justice. If I should speak no more, this were sufficient. For except that either they can improve the definition of justice, or else that they can entreat God to revoke and call back his sentence pronounced against woman, they shall be compelled to admit my conclusion. If any find fault with justice, as it is defined, he may well accuse others, but me he shall not hurt. For I have the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of him who assuredly will defend this quarrel, and he commandeth me to cry: whatsoever repugneth to the will of God expressed in his most sacred word, repugneth to justice: but that women have authority over men repugneth to the will of God expressed in his word: and therefore my author commandeth me to conclude without fear that all such authority repugneth to justice.
The first part of the argument I trust dare neither Jew nor Gentile deny: for it is a principle not only universally confessed, but also so deeply printed in the heart of man, be his nature never so corrupted, that whether he will or no, he is compelled at one time or other to acknowledge and confess that justice is violated when things are done against the will of God expressed by his word. And to this confession are no less the reprobate compelled and constrained than be the chosen children of God, albeit to a diverse end. The elect, with displeasure of their deeds, confess their offense, having access to grace and mercy, as did Adam, David, Peter, and all other penitent offenders.
But the reprobate, notwithstanding they are compelled to acknowledge the will of God to be just which they have offended, yet are they never inwardly displeased with their iniquity, but rage, complain and storm against God, whose vengeance they cannot escape, as did Cain (Genesis 4), Judas (Matthew 27), Herod, Julian called Apostate, yea Jezebel; and Athaliah.
For Cain no doubt was convicted in conscience that he had done against justice in murdering of his brother.
Judas did openly before the high priest confess that he had sinned in betraying innocent blood.
Herod, being stricken by the angel, did mock those his flatterers, saying unto them: behold your God (meaning himself) cannot now preserve himself from corruption and worms.
Julian was compelled in the end to cry, O Galilean (so always in contempt did he name our Saviour Jesus Christ), thou hast now overcome.
And who doubteth but Jezebel and Athaliah, before their miserable end, were convicted in their cankered consciences to acknowledge that the murder which they had committed, and the empire which the one had six years usurped, were repugnant to justice: even so shall they, I doubt not, which this day do possess and maintain that monstrous authority of women, shortly be compelled to acknowledge that their studies and devices have been bent against God: and that all such authority as women have usurped repugneth to justice, because, as I have said, it repugneth to the will of God expressed in his sacred word.
And if any man doubt hereof, let him mark well the words of the Apostle, saying:
I permit not a woman to teach, neither yet to usurp authority above man. (1 Timothy 2)
No man, I trust, will deny these words of the Apostle to be the will of God expressed in his word: and he saith openly, “I permit not,” etc. Which is as much as I will not, that a woman have authority, charge or power over man, for so much importeth the Greek word αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) in that place. Now let man and angel conspire against God, let them pronounce their laws, and say, we will suffer women to bear authority, who then can depose them? Yet shall this one word of the eternal God spoken by the mouth of a weak man, thrust them every one into hell. Jezebel may for a time sleep quietly in the bed of her fornication and whoredom; she may teach and deceive for a season; but neither shall she preserve herself, nor yet her adulterous children from great affliction, and from the sword of God’s vengeance, which shall shortly apprehend such works of iniquity (Revelation 2).
The admonition I defer to the end. Here might I bring in the oppression and injustice which is committed against realms and nations which sometimes lived free and now are brought in bondage of foreign nations by the reason of this monstrous authority and empire of women. But that I delay till better opportunity.
- “…Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator’s hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier’s life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice.” —Aristotle’s Politics book 2 part 9 ↵
- See footnote 1. ↵
- “Women are excluded from all civil or public employments; therefore they cannot be judges, or perform the duties of magistrates, or bring suits in court, or become sureties for others, or act as attorneys.” —Justinian’s Digest (Pandects), book 50, Title 17, “Concerning Different Rules Of Ancient Law” ↵
- "Under the second head the Edict deals with persons who are forbidden to move on behalf of others: here the praetor excludes on the ground of sex and accidental defect, he also puts a mark on persons who deserve one for bad character. With regard to sex, he forbids women to move on behalf of other persons. The principle of this prohibition is that of preventing women from mixing themselves up with other people's affairs contrary to the modesty which becomes their sex, or discharging offices proper to men; the first case that gave occasion to the prohibition was that of one Carfania, a most pertinacious woman, who so worried the magistrate with shameless applications as to give ground for the rule laid down in the Edict." --The Digest of Justinian Volume 1, Charles Henry Monro, ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1904. p. 140. ↵
- “The Velleian Decree of the Senate very fully provides that women cannot become sureties for anyone. (1) For as, by our customs, women are deprived of civil office and very many things which they do are void by mere operation of law, much more should they be deprived of the power to perform an act in which not only their services and the mere employment of the same are involved, but also the risk of their entire private property. (2) It seems to be just to come to the relief of a woman in this manner, so that an action should be granted against an old debtor, or against a party who had rendered a woman liable in his behalf, for the reason that he, rather than the creditor, had taken advantage of her. 2. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book XXIX. In the first place, during the reign of the Divine Augustus, and subsequently during that of Claudius, it was forbidden by Imperial Edicts that women should become sureties for their husbands. (1) Afterwards, a Decree of the Senate was enacted by which relief was granted in the most perfect manner to all women. The terms of this Decree of the Senate are as follows: “Whereas, Marcus Silanus and Velleius Tutor, Consuls, have made statements concerning the obligations of women who have become responsible for the debts of other persons, and have given advice on this subject, as to what was necessary to be done; and, whereas this matter relates to securities and the making of loans in behalf of others for whom women had become bound, and although it appears to have been formerly decided by law that no demand, on this account, could be made upon them, nor any action be brought against them when they performed the duties of men, and as it is not just for them to be liable to obligations of this description; therefore, the Senate has decreed that those to whom application is made in court must act properly and in conformity with the established mode of procedure, and exert themselves so that the will of the Senate with respect to this matter may be observed.” (2) Therefore, let us examine the terms of this Decree of the Senate, after having previously eulogized the forethought of this most distinguished body of men which has brought relief to women on account of the weakness of their sex, in many supposed, as well as actual instances. (3) Relief is only granted to them, however, where they have not been guilty of deceit, and this the Divine Pius and Severus stated in a Rescript, for assistance is rendered to those who have been deceived, but not to such as are guilty of fraud; and this is set forth in the Rescript of Severus, written in the Greek language, which says that this Decree of the Senate is not for the purpose of aiding women who are guilty of deception, for it is the infirmity of women, and not their cunning, that deserves assistance. (4) Every kind of obligation is included in the Velleian Decree of the Senate, whether women have rendered themselves liable verbally, by the delivery of property, or by any other contract whatsoever. (5) Where a woman even appears voluntarily in defence of anyone, there is no doubt that she binds herself in his favor, for she assumes the obligation of another, since she exposes herself to have judgment rendered against him in a matter of this kind. Hence a woman is not permitted to undertake the defence of her husband, her child, or her father… —Pandects Book 16 Title 1, “On The Velleian Decree Of The Senate” ↵
- “Senatus Consultum Velleianum (Lat.) In the civil law. The Velleian decree of the senate. A decree enacted in the consulship of Velleius, by which married women were prohibited from making contracts.” —The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary: With an Exhaustive Collection of Legal Maxims, Volume 1, 2nd ed., Walter A. Shumaker & George Foster Longsdorf. Chicago: Callaghan & Company, 1922, p. 928. ↵
- See footnote 4. ↵
- "There are many points in our law in respect of which women are in a worse legal position than men." --The Digest of Justinian, Charles Henry Monro, ed. p. 25. ↵
- "There is another kind of tutelage [guardianship] called fiduciary; for, if an ascendant emancipates, below the age of puberty, a son or a daughter, a grandson or a granddaughter, or any other descendant, he is their legal tutor [i.e., guardian]; but if, at his death, he leaves male children, they become the fiduciary tutors of their own sons, or brother, or sister, or other descendants of the deceased. But when a patron, who is a legal tutor, dies, his children also become legal tutors; the reason of this distinction being that a son, who has not been emancipated in his father's lifetime, becomes sui juris at the death of his father, and does not fall under power of his brothers, nor, therefore, under their tutelage; while the freedman, had he remained a slave, would also have been, after the death of his master, the slave of his master's children. These persons, however, are not called to be tutors unless of full age, a rule which by our constitution applies generally to all tutors and curators." --The Institutes of Justinian, with English Introduction, Translation, and Notes, 6/e. Thomas Collett Sandars, translator. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1878. p.64 (see also translator's notes at pp.64-65). ↵
- "Women, also, cannot adopt; for they have not even their own children in their power; but by the indulgence of the emperor, as a comfort for the loss of their own children, they are allowed to adopt."[Sandars' notes:] "Women could not adopt, because the meaning of adoption was that the person adopted passed into the patria potestas of the person adopting. The adoption mentioned in the text (which was permitted by a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian), only placed the adopted children in the same relation to the woman as her own children would have held. She gained nothing like patria potestas over them." --The Institutes of Justinian etc., Sandars, translator. p. 46. ↵
- "Let us now inquire, by whom suspected persons may be accused. Now an accusation of this sort is in a measure public, that is, it is open to all. Nay, by a rescript of the Emperors Severus and Antoninus, even women are admitted to be accusers; but only those who are induced to do so through feelings of affection; as a mother, a nurse, or a grandmother, or a sister, who may all become accusers. But the praetor will admit any woman to make the accusation, in whom he recognises a character that, bent on the fulfilment of duty and not overstepping the modesty of the sex, but animated by dutiful affection, can not endure the pupil suffering harm." [Sandars' notes:] "The action is called quasi publico, because on the one hand it had the private object of securing the pupil's interests, and on the other had, like public actions, criminal consequences, and might be brought by a person not interested in the private result. "Women, as a general rule, could not institute public actions." --The Institutes of Justinian etc., Sandars, translator. p. 85. ↵
- See reference for footnote 10. ↵
- “(6) The wife and daughter-in-law, on their part, are forbidden to make gifts to a husband or a son-in-law. Moreover, a gift will not be valid where it is given to those under their control or under the control of the parties to whose authority they are subject; provided the husband and father-in-law are under the control of the same person, or the husband is under the control of the father-in-law… (7) A mother-in-law is not prohibited from bestowing gifts upon her daughter-in-law, or vice versa, because in this instance the right of paternal authority is not involved.” —Pandects Book 24 Title 1, “Concerning Donations Between Husband And Wife” ↵
- [I have not been able to find this reference in Justinian’s Digest ("Pandects") or Justinian's Institutes, to one or the other of which Knox is usually referring in this work when he says “the law”; the closest reference I have been able to find is Aristotle’s Politics, book 2 part 9 (see footnote 1). –DSM] ↵
- "A proconsul is not obliged to make an absolute point of declining presents, but he must use moderation; in short, he need not be so scrupulous as to decline them altogether, but he must not be so grasping as to accept them to an excessive amount. This matter is put very well in a letter of the Divine Severus and the present Emperor Antoninus, in which they set down the limitations to be observed in this matter; the words are as follows: — "With regard to presents, what we hold is this, — there is an old saying, 'Not everything, nor every day, nor from everybody'; of course it is very discourteous to accept no presents at all, but it is a very contemptible thing to accept them indiscriminately, and to accept all is absolutely sordid." With regard to the injunction contained in the proconsul's instructions, that neither he nor any other officer is to accept any gift or present or make any purchase except of supplies for everyday subsistence, this does not apply to trifling gifts, but only where the amount is beyond what is required for ordinary consumption. Still, on the other hand, presents must not be taken to such an extent as to make them amount to positive largess." --The Digest of Justinian, Charles Henry Monro, ed. pp. 53-54. ↵
- See footnote 1. ↵
- [The Arber edition lists the following examples in the margin: –DSM]
- Romilda the wife of Gisulf betrayed to Cacan the dukedom of Friuli in Italy
- Jane queen of Naples hanged her husband
- Athaliah, 2 Kings 11
- Hirene [Irene of Athens?]
- Anton [Perhaps an Antonia?]
- Sabell [Probably Queen Isabella of France]
- [Knox's word here, "maistress," carried more weight than today's "mistress," and was essentially a feminine form of "master"--cf. the entry for maistress in the University of Michigan’s online Middle English Dictionary. –DSM] ↵
- “And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?” —Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Book 1 Chapter 1 ↵
- Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Chapter 9 ↵
- “The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. As you would not account it hospitable from its situation, so is it severed from our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilization; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked. Moreover, when they gratify secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes, to warn off the curious and rash observer. Thus without a blush do they prostitute their weapons of war. The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. They who have not died so as to become food for others, are thought to have died an accursed death. Their women are not by their sex softened to modesty. They uncover the breast, from which they suspend their battle-axes, and prefer warfare to marriage. In their climate, too, there is the same rude nature.” —Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 1 Chapter 1 ↵
- “So, again, when Faustus says that the wife’s being privy to her husband’s conduct made the matter worse, while he is prompted only by the uncharitable wish to reproach Abraham and his wife, he really, without intending it, speaks in praise of both. For Sara did not connive at any criminal action in her husband for the gratification of his unlawful passions; but from the same natural desire for children that he had, and knowing her own barrenness, she warrantably claimed as her own the fertility of her handmaid; not consenting with sinful desires in her husband, but requesting of him what it was proper in him to grant. Nor was it the request of proud assumption; for every one knows that the duty of a wife is to obey her husband. But in reference to the body, we are told by the apostle that the wife has power over her husband’s body, as he has over hers; so that, while in all other social matters the wife ought to obey her husband, in this one matter of their bodily connection as man and wife their power over one another is mutual,—the man over the woman, and the woman over the man. So, when Sara could not have children of her own, she wished to have them by her handmaid, and of the same seed from which she herself would have had them, if that had been possible. No woman would do this if her love for her husband were merely an animal passion; she would rather be jealous of a mistress than make her a mother. So here the pious desire for the procreation of children was an indication of the absence of criminal indulgence.” —Tertullian, Against Faustus, Book 22 section 31 ↵
- "But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, “God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them.” For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete [only] in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after saying that God made man in the image of God, “He created him,” it says, “male and female:” or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, “male and female created He them.” How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one. As we said of the nature of the human mind, that both in the case when as a whole it contemplates the truth it is the image of God; and in the case when anything is divided from it, and diverted in order to the cognition of temporal things; nevertheless on that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it is the image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to the cognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God. And since it is so much the more formed after the image of God, the more it has extended itself to that which is eternal, and is on that account not to be restrained, so as to withhold and refrain itself from thence; therefore the man ought not to cover his head. But because too great a progression towards inferior things is dangerous to that rational cognition that is conversant with things corporeal and temporal; this ought to have power on its head, which the covering indicates, by which it is signified that it ought to be restrained. For a holy and pious meaning is pleasing to the holy angels. For God sees not after the way of time, neither does anything new take place in His vision and knowledge, when anything is done in time and transitorily, after the way in which such things affect the senses, whether the carnal senses of animals and men, or even the heavenly senses of the angels." —Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, Book 12 Chapter 7 section 10 ↵
- "3. Aliquibus tamen uidetur, quia in dominatione imago so dei factus est homo, quia dixit: et dominetur piscium maris et uolatilium caeli et totius terrae, cum non solum uiro, sed et mulieri ista cernantur subiecta, quam constat dei imaginem non habere. quod quidem duplici modo caret ratione; per hoc enim neque ad filium dixisse deus adseritur: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, sed ad dominationes caelestes, quas apostolus memorat, si imagenem dei homo in dominatione habet, et mulieri datur, ut et ipsa imago dei sit, quod absurdum est. quo modo enim potest de mulieri dici, quia imago dei est, quam constat dominio uiri subiectam et nullam auctoritatem habere? nec docere enim potest nec testis esse neque tidem dicere nec iudicare: quanto magis imperare!" —Pseudo-Augustinus, Quaestiones veteris et novi testamenti – ed. A. Souter 1908, CSEL 50 – Chapter 45, “De Imagine,” section 3 ↵
- "But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, “God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them.” For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete [only] in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after saying that God made man in the image of God, “He created him,” it says, “male and female:” or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, “male and female created He them.” How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one. As we said of the nature of the human mind, that both in the case when as a whole it contemplates the truth it is the image of God; and in the case when anything is divided from it, and diverted in order to the cognition of temporal things; nevertheless on that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it is the image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to the cognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God. And since it is so much the more formed after the image of God, the more it has extended itself to that which is eternal, and is on that account not to be restrained, so as to withhold and refrain itself from thence; therefore the man ought not to cover his head. But because too great a progression towards inferior things is dangerous to that rational cognition that is conversant with things corporeal and temporal; this ought to have power on its head, which the covering indicates, by which it is signified that it ought to be restrained. For a holy and pious meaning is pleasing to the holy angels. For God sees not after the way of time, neither does anything new take place in His vision and knowledge, when anything is done in time and transitorily, after the way in which such things affect the senses, whether the carnal senses of animals and men, or even the heavenly senses of the angels." —Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, Book 12 Chapter 7 section 10 ↵
-
[Following are two examples of Augustine teaching the biblical truth that wives must obey their husbands. –DSM]
But as this divine Master inculcates two precepts,—the love of God and the love of our neighbor,—and as in these precepts a man finds three things he has to love,—God, himself, and his neighbor,—and that he who loves God loves himself thereby, it follows that he must endeavor to get his neighbor to love God, since he is ordered to love his neighbor as himself. He ought to make this endeavor in behalf of his wife, his children, his household, all within his reach, even as he would wish his neighbor to do the same for him if he needed it; and consequently he will be at peace, or in well-ordered concord, with all men, as far as in him lies. And this is the order of this concord, that a man, in the first place, injure no one, and, in the second, do good to every one he can reach. Primarily, therefore, his own household are his care, for the law of nature and of society gives him readier access to them and greater opportunity of serving them. And hence the apostle says, “Now, if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” This is the origin of domestic peace, or the well-ordered concord of those in the family who rule and those who obey. For they who care for the rest rule,—the husband the wife, the parents the children, the masters the servants; and they who are cared for obey,—the women their husbands, the children their parents, the servants their masters. But in the family of the just man who lives by faith and is as yet a pilgrim journeying on to the celestial city, even those who rule serve those whom they seem to command; for they rule not from a love of power, but from a sense of the duty they owe to others—not because they are proud of authority, but because they love mercy. —Augustine, City of God, Book 19 Chapter 14
14. And not without just cause a doubt is raised, whether he said this of all married women, or of such as so many are, as that nearly all may be thought so to be. For neither doth that, which he saith of unmarried women, “She, that is unmarried, thinkest of the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit:” pertain unto all unmarried women: whereas there are certain widows who are dead, who live in delights. However, so far as regards a certain distinction and, as it were, character of their own, of the unmarried and married; as she deserves the excess of hatred, who containing from marriage, that is, from a thing allowed, does not contain from offenses, either of luxury, or pride, or curiosity and prating; so the married woman is seldom met with, who, in the very obedience of married life, hath no thought save how to please God, by adorning herself, not with plaited hair, or gold and pearls and costly attire, but as becometh women making profession of piety, through a good conversation. Such marriages, forsooth, the Apostle Peter also describes by giving commandment. “In like manner,” saith he, “wives obeying their own husbands; in order that, even if any obey not the word, they may be gained without discourse through the conversation of the wives, seeing your fear and chaste conversation: that they be not they that are adorned without with crispings of hair, or clothed with gold or with fair raiment; but that hidden man of your heart, in that unbroken continuance of a quiet and modest spirit, which before the Lord also is rich. For thus certain holy women, who hoped in the Lord, used to adorn themselves, obeying their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord: whose daughters ye are become, when ye do well, and fear not with any vain fear. Husbands in like manner living at peace and in chastity with your wives, both give ye honor as to the weaker and subject vessel, as with co-heirs of grace, and see that your prayers be not hindered.” Is it indeed that such marriages have no thought of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord? But they are very rare: who denies this? And, being, as they are, rare, nearly all the persons who are such, were not joined together in order to be such, but being already joined together became such. —Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 14
↵ - “And yet the woman received not pattern from the body, or flesh, to be so subject to the husband as the flesh to the spirit; but either the Apostle would have understood by consequence, what he omitted to state: or haply because the flesh lusteth against the spirit in the mortal and sick estate of this life, therefore he would not set the woman a pattern of subjection from it.” —Augustine, On Continence, section 23 ↵
- See Ambrose, The Six Days, Book 5 Chapter 7 ↵
- [The following quote is the closest I've been able to find, though I don't think it's the one Knox was citing. --DSM]
On this account, that the building may be raised within us more rapidly, the Apostle exhorts us to open the eyes of our understanding, to lift them to things above, diligently to follow after the knowledge of God, to unravel the truth, to hide in our hearts the commandments of God, to put off deceitful lusts and hidden deeds of shame, to seek to be renewed by the graces of the Sacraments, to moderate anger, to calm all disturbance of spirit before the sun goes down, to beware lest the adversary gain the upper hand of us, that mighty spirit who entered into the heart of Judas, and broke through the gates of his soul, overpowering his resistance, to shut out theft, to eschew falsehood, to rise from the dead, to put on sobriety. He tells us likewise that wives should be subject to their husbands, as the Church is to Christ, and that husbands should offer up their own lives for their wives, as Christ gave Himself for the Church. And lastly, that, as good soldiers, we should put on the armour of God, and continually fight, not only against flesh and blood, but also against spiritual wickedness; that we may neither be corrupted by friends nor vanquished by enemies." —Ambrose, Letter 76 To Irenaeus, paragraph 14
↵ - [I have been unable to locate the source of this quote. –DSM] ↵
- Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas (ad Galatas, ad Efesios, ad Filippenses, ad Colosenses, ad Thesalonicenses, ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad Filemonem)[See for example the CSEL edition, ed. H. J. Vogels 1969, CSEL 81/3, pp. 263-264. –DSM] ↵
- [Another place Ambrose speaks of this is in his Letter 69 to Irenaeus, reproduced below in its entirety. –DSM]
LETTER LXIX. AMBROSE TO IRENAEUS, GREETING. 1. You have referred to me, as to a father, the inquiry which has been made of you, why the Law was so severe in pronouncing those unclean who used the garments of the other sex, whether they were men or women, for it is written, The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord. 2. Now, if you will consider it well, that which nature herself abhors must be incongruous. For why do you not wish to be thought a man, seeing that you are born such? why do you assume an appearance which is foreign to you? why do you play the woman, or you, O woman, the man? Nature clothes each sex in their proper raiment. Moreover in men and women, habits, complexion, gestures, gait, strength and voice are all different. 3. So also in the rest of the animal creation; the form, the strength, the roar of the lion and lioness, of the bull and heifer are different. Deer also differ as much in form as they do in sex, so that you may distinguish the stag from the hind even at a distance. But in the case of birds the similitude between them and men, as regards covering, is still closer; for in them Nature distinguishes their sex by their very plumage. The peacock is beautiful, but the feathers of its consort are not variegated with equal, beauty. Pheasants also have different colours to mark the difference of the sexes. And so with poultry. How sonorous is the cock’s voice, night by night performing his natural office of calling us from sleep by crowing. They do not change their form; why then do we desire to change ours? 4. A Greek custom has indeed prevailed for women to wear men’s tunics as being shorter. Be it allowed however that they should imitate the nature of the more worthy sex; but why should men choose to assume the appearance of the inferior? A falsehood is base even in word, much more in dress. So in the heathen temples, where there is a false faith, there also is a false nature. It is there considered holy for men to assume women’s garments, and female gestures. And therefore the Law says that every man who puts on a woman’s garment is an abomination unto the Lord. 5. I conceive however that it is spoken not so much of garments as of manners, and of our habits and actions, in that one kind of act becomes a man, the other a woman. Wherefore the Apostle also says, as the interpreter of the Law, Let your women keep silence in the Churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. And to Timothy: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection; but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man. 6. But how unseemly is it for a man to do the works of a woman! As for those who curl their hair, like women, let them conceive also, let them bring forth. Yet the one sex wears veils, the other wages war. Let them however be excused who follow their national usages, barbarous though they be, the Persians and Goths and Armenians. Nature is superior to country. 7. And what shall we say of others who think it belongs to luxury to have in their service slaves wearing curls and ornaments of the neck? It is but just that chastity should be lost where the distinction of sexes is not preserved, a point wherein the teaching of nature is unambiguous, according to the Apostle’s words; Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him: but if a woman hath long hair, it is a glory unto her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Such is the answer which you may make to those who have referred to you. Farewell; love me as a son, for I love you as a father.
↵ - See reference for footnote 31. ↵
- Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas (ad Corinthios) [See for example the CSEL edition, ed. H. J. Vogels 1968, CSEL 81/2, p. 163. –DSM] ↵
- Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas (ad Corinthios) [See for example the CSEL edition, ed. H. J. Vogels 1968, CSEL 81/2, p. 164. –DSM] ↵
- Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas (ad Romanos) [See for example the CSEL edition, ed. H. J. Vogels 1966, CSEL 81/1, p. 484. –DSM] ↵
- See Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Genesis 3:8 ↵
- See footnote 37. ↵
- See Chrysostom, Homily 17 on Genesis 3:8 ↵
- [The closest match I have found for this reference is Chrysostom’s Homily 37 on 1 Corinthians, quoted below. –DSM]:
Seest thou the wisdom of Paul, what kind of testimony he adduced, one that not only enjoins on them silence, but silence too with fear; and with as great fear as that wherewith a maid servant ought to keep herself quiet. Wherefore also having himself said, “it is not permitted unto them to speak,” he added not, “but to be silent,” but instead of “to be silent,” he set down what is more, to wit, “the being in subjection.” And if this be so in respect of husbands, much more in respect of teachers, and fathers, and the general assembly of the Church. “But if they are not even to speak,” saith one, “nor ask a question, to what end are they to be present?” That they may hear what they ought; but the points which are questioned let them learn at home from their husbands. Wherefore also he added, Ver. 35. “And if they would learn any thing, let them ask their own husbands at home.” Thus, “not only, as it seems, are they not allowed to speak,” saith he, “at random, but not even to ask any question in the church.” Now if they ought not to ask questions, much more is their speaking at pleasure contrary to law. And what may be the cause of his setting them under so great subjection? Because the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded. Here you see why he set over them their husbands as teachers, for the benefit of both. For so he both rendered the women orderly, and the husbands he made anxious, as having to deliver to their wives very exactly what they heard. —Chrysostom, Homily 37 on First Corinthians
↵ - [Another reference for this in Chrysostom –DSM]:
Now if they make the summer season their excuse: for I hear of their saying things of this kind, “the present stifling heat is excessive, the scorching sun is intolerable, we cannot bear being trampled and crushed in the crowd, and to be steaming all over with perspiration and oppressed by the heat and confined space:” I am ashamed of them, believe me: for such excuses are womanish: indeed even in their case who have softer bodies, and a weaker nature, such pretexts do not suffice for justification. —Chrysostom, Homily to those who had not attended the assembly, etc.
↵ - "The sex is fond of ornament, and it has this failing. Yet even in this you husbands surpass them, who pride yourselves even upon them, as your own proper ornament; for I do not think that the wife is so ostentatious of her own jewels, as the husband is of those of his wife. He is not so proud of his own golden girdle, as he is of his wife’s wearing jewels of gold. So that even of this you are the causes, who light the spark and kindle up the flame. But what is more, it is not so great a sin in a woman as in a man. Thou art ordained to regulate her; in every way thou claimest to have the preëminence. Show her then in this also, that thou takest no interest in this costliness of hers, by thine own apparel. It is more suitable for a woman to adorn herself, than for a man. If then thou escape not the temptation, how shall she escape it? They have moreover their share of vainglory, but this is common to them with men. They are in a measure passionate, and this again is common to them with men. But as to those things wherein they excel, these are no longer common to them with men; their sanctity, I mean, their fervency, their devotion, their love towards Christ. Wherefore then, one may say, did Paul exclude them from the teacher’s seat? And here again is a proof how great a distance they were from the men, and that the women of those days were great. For, tell me, while Paul was teaching, or Peter, or those saints of old, had it been right that a woman should intrude into the office? Whereas we have gone on till we have come so debased, that it is worthy of question, why women are not teachers. So truly have we come to the same weakness as they. These things I have said not from any desire to elate them, but to shame ourselves, to chastise, and to admonish us, that so we may resume the authority that belongs to us, not inasmuch as we are greater in size, but because of our foresight, our protection of them, and our virtue." —Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Ephesians 4:17-19 ↵
- [I have been unable to find this reference. There are echoes of it in the following quote from Basil the Great, though his argument is against the wealth-loving wife, not womankind generally. –DSM]
“I am filled with amazement,” says the preacher, “at the invention of superfluities. The vehicles are countless, some for conveying goods, others for carrying their owners; all covered with brass and with silver. There are a vast number of horses, whose pedigrees are kept like men’s, and their descent from noble sires recorded. Some are for carrying their haughty owners about the town, some are hunters, some are hacks. Bits, girths, collars, are all of silver, all decked with gold. Scarlet cloths make the horses as gay as bridegrooms. There is a host of mules, distinguished by their colours, and their muleteers with them, one after another, some before and some behind. Of other household servants the number is endless, who satisfy all the requirements of men’s extravagance; agents, stewards, gardeners, and craftsmen, skilled in every art that can minister to necessity or to enjoyment and luxury; cooks, confectioners, butlers, huntsmen, sculptors, painters, devisers and creators of pleasure of every kind. Look at the herds of camels, some for carriage, some for pasture; troops of horses, droves of oxen, flocks of sheep, herds of swine with their keepers, land to feed all these, and to increase men’s riches by its produce; baths in town, baths in the country; houses shining all over with every variety of marble,—some with stone of Phrygia, others with slabs of Spartan or Thessalian. There must be some houses warm in winter, and others cool in summer. The pavement is of mosaic, the ceiling gilded. If any part of the wall escapes the slabs, it is embellished with painted flowers….You who dress your walls, and let your fellow-creatures go bare, what will you answer to the Judge? You who harness your horses with splendour, and despise your brother if he is ill-dressed; who let your wheat rot, and will not feed the hungry; who hide your gold, and despise the distressed? “And, if you have a wealth-loving wife, the plague is twice as bad. She keeps your luxury ablaze; she increases your love of pleasure; she gives the goad to your superfluous appetites; her heart is set on stones,–pearls, emeralds, and sapphires. Gold she works and gold she weaves, and increases the mischief with never-ending frivolities. And her interest in all these things is no mere by-play: it is the care of night and day. Then what innumerable flatterers wait upon their idle wants! They must have their dyers of bright colours, their goldsmiths, their perfumes their weavers, their embroiderers. With all their behests they do not leave their husbands breathing time. No fortune is vast enough to satisfy a woman’s wants,–no, not if it were to flow like a river! They are as eager for foreign perfumes as for oil from the market. They must have the treasures of the sea, shells and pinnas, and more of them than wool from the sheep’s back. Gold encircling precious stones serves now for an ornament for their foreheads, now for their necks. There is more gold in their girdles; more gold fastens hands and feet. These gold-loving ladies are delighted to be bound by golden fetters,–only let the chain be gold! When will the man have time to care for his soul, who has to serve a woman’s fancies?” –from Basil the Great, Homily 7 “Against the rich”, quoted in Schaff’s prolegomena to Basil’s works
↵ - [I have been unable to find this reference. –DSM] ↵
- [I have been unable to find this reference –DSM] ↵
- [See for example Augustine, On Order (De Ordine), English-Latin bilingual edition, translated and introduction by Silvano Borruso. St. Augustine’s Press, South Bend, Indiana, 2007. –DSM] ↵
- "The peace of the body then consists in the duly proportioned arrangement of its parts. The peace of the irrational soul is the harmonious repose of the appetites, and that of the rational soul the harmony of knowledge and action. The peace of body and soul is the well-ordered and harmonious life and health of the living creature. Peace between man and God is the well-ordered obedience of faith to eternal law. Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquillity of order. Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place. And hence, though the miserable, in so far as they are such, do certainly not enjoy peace, but are severed from that tranquillity of order in which there is no disturbance, nevertheless, inasmuch as they are deservedly and justly miserable, they are by their very misery connected with order. They are not, indeed, conjoined with the blessed, but they are disjoined from them by the law of order." — Augustine, The City Of God, Book 19 Chapter 13 ↵
- "Ver. 7. “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” This is again another cause. “Not only,” so he speaks, “because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman.” For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that hath the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee. And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. “But the woman is the glory of the man.” Therefore the rule of the man is natural." —Chrysostom, Homily 26 on First Corinthians ↵
- "Ver. 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.”
“For this cause:” what cause, tell me? “For all these which have been mentioned,” saith he; or rather not for these only, but also “because of the angels.” “For although thou despise thine husband,” saith he, “yet reverence the angels.”
It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.
Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, thou puttest thyself to shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And thou doest the same as if having received a diadem, thou shouldest cast the diadem from thy head, and instead of it take a slave’s garment." —Chrysostom, Homily 26 on First Corinthians
↵