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,

Womankind is imprudent and soft (or flexible)…^[40][41]

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.