{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_9660/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_9660","id":"gutenberg_9660","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9660","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of Scotland -- Doctrines","Reformed Church -- Doctrines","Women -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Women -- Social and moral questions","Women heads of state"],"text":"Produced by Steve Schulze, Debra Storr and PG Distributed Proofreaders.\n\n\n\n\nThe First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women\n\nJohn Knox\n\n1558.\n\nEdited by EDWARD ARBER, F.S.A., etc.,\nLECTURER IN ENGLISH LITERATURE, ETC.,\nUNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.\n\nSOUTHGATE, LONDON, N.\n15 August 1878.\nNo. 2.\n(All rights reserved.)\n\n[Transcribers Note: The image source for this book was a .pdf of the\nabove edition. The production of the pdf seems to have generated some\nerrors e.g. royal1 for royall. Such errors have been fixed but\notherwise the text aims to be true to the printed book.]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n Bibliography INTRODUCTION Extracts from Mr. DAVID LAING\u2019S Preface The\n First Blast of the Trumpet &c.\n\nTHE PREFACE.\n\nThe wonderful silence of the godly and zealous preachers, the learned\nmen and of grave judgment, now in exile, that they do not admonish the\ninhabitants of \u201cgreate Brittanny\u201d how abominable before GOD is the\nEmpire or Rule of Wicked Woman, yea, of a traitress and bastard.\n\nThis is contrary to the examples of the ancient prophets.\n\nI am assured that GOD hath revealed unto some in this our age, that it\nis more than a monster in nature that a Woman shall reign and have\nempire above Man.\n\nANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS\n\nWhy no such doctrine ought to be published in these our dangerous days.\n\n(a) _It may seem to tend to sedition_.\n\n(b) _It shall be dangerous not only to the writer or publisher, but to\nall as shall read the writings, or favour this truth spoken_.\n\n(c) _It shall not amend the chief offenders, because_\n_1. It shall never come to their ears_\n_2. They will not be admonished_.\n\nIf any think that the Empire of Women is not of such importance that\nfor the surpressing of the same any man is bound to hazard his life: I\nanswer, that to suppress it, is in the hand of GOD alone; but to utter\nthe impiety and abomination of the same, I say, it is the duty of every\ntrue messenger of GOD to whom the truth is revealed in that behalf.\n\nThe First Blast to awake Women degenerate.\n\nTHE DECLAMATION.\n\n_The_ Proposition. To promote a Woman to bear rule, superiority,\ndominion or empire above any realm, nation or city is\nA. Repugnant to nature.\nB. Contumely to GOD.\nC. The subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.\n\nA. Men illuminated only by the light of nature have seen and determined\nthat it is a thing most repugnant to nature, that Women rule and govern\nover men.\n\nB. 1. Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man,\nnot to rule and command him.\n\n2. After the fall, she was made subject to man by the irrevocable\nsentence of GOD. In which sentence there are two parts.\n(a) A dolour, anguish and pain as oft as ever she shall be a mother.\n(b) A subjection of her self, her appetites and will to her husband and\nhis will.\n\nFrom the former part of this malediction can neither art, nobility,\npolicy nor law made by man deliver women: but, alas, ignorance of GOD,\nambition and tyranny have studied to abolish and destroy the second\npart of GOD\u2019s punishment.\n\n3. This subjection, understood by many to be that of the wife to the\nhusband, is extended by Saint PAUL to women in general To which consent\nTERTULLIAN, AUGUSTINE, AMBROSE, CHRYSOSTOM, BASIL\n\n4. The two other Mirrors, in which we may behold the order of Nature.\n(a) The natural body of man\n(b) The civil body of that Commonwealth [of the Jews] in which GOD by\nhis own word hath appointed an order.\n\nC. The Empire of a Woman is a thing repugnant to justice, and the\ndestruction of every commonwealth where it is received.\n(a) If justice be a constant and perpetual will to give to every person\ntheir own right: then to give or to will to give to any person that\nwhich is not their right, must repugn to justice. But to reign above\nMan can never be the right to Woman: because it is a thing denied unto\nher by GOD, as is before declared.\n(b) Whatsoever repugneth to the will of GOD expressed in His most\nsacred word, repugneth to justice. That Women have authority over Men\nrepugneth to the will of GOD expressed in His word. Therefore all such\nauthority repugneth to justice.\n\nANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS.\n\n1. _The examples of DEBORAH [Judges iv. 4] and HULDAH [2 Kings xxii\n14_.]\n\n2. _The law of MOSES for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD [Numb. xxvii. 7,\nand xxxvi. 11_]\n\n3. _The consent of the Estates of such realms as have approved the\nEmpire and Regiment of Women_.\n\n4 [_The long custom which hath received the Regiment of Women. The\nvaliant acts and prosperity. Together with some Papistical laws which\nhave confirmed the same_.\n\n*** This objection was not directly replied to; but instead, the two\nfollowing ones.]\n(a) _Albeit Women may not absolutely reign by themselves; because they\nmay neither sit in judgment, neither pronounce sentence, neither\nexecute any public office: yet may they do all such things by their\nLieutenants, Deputies, and Judges substitutes_.\n(b) _A woman born to rule over any realm, may choose her a husband; and\nto him she may transfer and give her authority and right_.\n\nTHE ADMONITION.\n\nAnd now to put an end to the First Blast. Seeing that by the Order of\nNature; by the malediction and curse pronounced against Woman; by the\nmouth of Saint PAUL, the interpreter of GOD\u2019s sentence; by the example\nof that Commonwealth in which GOD by His word planted order and policy;\nand finally, by the judgment of the most godly writers: GOD hath\ndejected women from rule, dominion, empire and authority above man.\nMoreover, seeing that neither the example of DEBORAH, neither the law\nmade for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD, neither yet the foolish consent\nof an ignorant multitude: be able to justify that which GOD so plainly\nhath condemned. Let all men take heed what quarrel and cause from\nhenceforth they do defend. If GOD raise up any noble heart to vindicate\nthe liberty of his country and to suppress the monstrous Empire of\nWomen: let all such as shall presume to defend them in the same, most\ncertainly know; that in so doing they lift their hand against GOD, and\nthat one day they shall find His power to fight against their\nfoolishness.\n\nJOHN KNOX to the Reader\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n1559.\n\n12 July. JOHN KNOX to Sir WILLIAM CECIL\n\n20 July. JOHN KNOX\u2019S Declaration to Queen ELIZABETH\n\n1561.\n\n20 Mar. THOMAS RANDOLPH to Sir WILLIAM CECIL\n\n5 Aug. JOHN KNOX\u2019S Second Defence to Queen ELIZABETH\n\nExtracts from JOHN KNOX\u2019S History of the Church of Scotland\n\n\n\n\n_BIBLIOGRAPHY._\n\n\n_The First Blast of the Trumpet etc._\n\nISSUES IN THE AUTHOR\u2019S LIFETIME.\n\nA. _As a separate publication_.\n\n1. 1558. [i.e. early in that year at Geneva. 8vo.] See title at p. 1.\n\nB. _With other Works._\n\nNone known.\n\nISSUES SINCE HIS DEATH.\n\nA. _As a separate publication_.\n\n2. [?1687? Edinburgh.] 8vo. The First Blast of the Trumpet against the\nmonstrous Regimen[t] of Women.\n\n4. 15. Aug. 1878. Southgate London N. _English Scholar\u2019s Library_.\nThe present impression.\n\nB. _With other Works_.\n\n1846-1848. Edinburgh. 8vo. _Bannatyne Club_. The Works of JOHN KNOX.\nCollected and edited by DAVID LAING. In 6 Vols. A special and limited\nedition of 112 copies of the First Two Volumes was struck off for this\nPrinting Club.\n\n1846-1848. Edinburgh. 8vo. _Wodrow Club_. The same Two Volumes issued\nto this Society.\n\n1854-1864. Edinburgh. 8vo. The remaining Four Volumes published by Mr.\nT. G. STEVENSON. The First Blast &c. is at Vol. iv. 349.\n\nEarly Replies to the First Blast etc.\n\n1. 26 Apr. 1559. Strasburgh. 4to. [JOHN AYLMER, afterwards Bishop of\nLONDON]. An Harborovve for faithfull and trewe subiectes, agaynst the\nlate blowne Blaste, concerninge the Gouernmente of VVemen wherin he\nconfuted all such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe,\nwith a breife exhortation to Obedience. Anno. M.D. lix.\n\n[This calling John Knox a \u201cstranger\u201d sounds to us like a piece of\nimpudence, but may bring home to us that Scotland was then to\nEnglishmen a foreign country.]\n\n2. 1565-6. Antwerp. 8vo. PETRUS FRARINUS, M.A. Oration against the\nVnlawfull Insurrections of the Protestantes of our time, under the\npretence to refourme religion.\n\nMade and pronounced in the Schole of Artes at Louaine, the xiiij of\nDecember. Anno 1565. And now translated into English with the aduise of\nthe Author. Printed by JOHN FOWLER in 1566.\n\nThe references to KNOX and GOODMAN are at E. vj and F. ij. At the end\nof this work is a kind of Table of Contents, each reference being\nillustrated with a woodcut depicting the irightful cruelties with which\nthe Author in the text charges the Protestants. One woodcut is a\ncurious representation of GOODMAN and NOKES.\n\nDoctor FULKE wrote a _Confutation_ of this work.\n\n3. 1579. Paris. 8vo. DAVID CHAMBERS of Ormond. Histoire abreg\u00e9e de tous\nles Roys de France, Angleterre et Escosse, etc. In three Parts, each\nwith a separate Title page.\n\nThe Third Part is dated 21 August 1573; is dedicated to CATHERINE DE\nMEDICI; and is entitled\n\nDiscours de la legitime succession des femmes aux possessions de leurs\nparens: et du gouernement des princesses aux Empires et Royaumes.\n\n4. 1584. [Printed abroad]. 8vo. JOHN LESLEY, Bishop of ROSS. A treatise\ntowching the right, title and interest of the most Excellent Princesse\nMARIE, Queen of Scotland, And of the most noble King JAMES, her Graces\nsonne, to the succession of the Crowne of England. ... Compiled ahd\npublished before in Latin, and after in English. The Blast is alluded\nto at C. 2.\n\n5. 1590. [Never printed.] Lord HENRY HOWARD [created Earl of\nNORTHAMPTON 13 March 1604.], a voluminous writer, but few of whose\nwritings ever came to the press.\n\nA dutifull defence of the lawfull Regiment of women deuided into three\nbookes. The first conteyneth reasons and examples grounded on the law\nof nature. The second reasons and examples grownded on the Ciuile\nlawes. The third reasons and examples grounded on the sacred lawes of\ngod with an awnswer to all false and friuolous obiections which haue\nbene most vniustlie cowntenaunced with deceitfull coulores forced oute\nof theis lawes in disgrace of their approued and sufficient authorytie.\n_Lansd. MS_. 813 and _Harl. MS_. 6257.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nAt the time this tract was written the destinies, immediate and\nprospective, of the Protestant faith seemed to lay wholly in the laps\nof five women, viz:\u2014\n\nCATHERINE DE MEDICI, Queen of France.\n\nMARIE DE LORRAINE, Queen Regent of Scotland, whose sole heir was her\ndaughter MARY, afterwards Queen of Scots.\n\nMARY TUDOR, Queen of England, having for her heir apparent the Princess\nELIZABETH.\n\nOf these, the last\u2014also of least account at this moment, being in\nconfinement\u2014was the only hope of the Reformers. The other four, largely\ndirecting the affairs of three kingdoms, were steadfastly hostile to\nthe new faith. Truly, the odds were heavy against it. Who could have\nanticipated that within three years of the writing of this book both\nMARY TUDOR and MARY DE LORRAINE would have passed away; that KNOX\nhimself would have been in Scotland carrying on the Reformation; and\nthat ELIZABETH would have commenced her marvellous reign. So vast a\nchange in the political world was quite beyond all reasonable\nforesight.\n\nMeanwhile there was only present to the vision and heart of the\nReformer as he gazed seaward, from Dieppe, but the unceasing blaze of,\nthe martyr fires spreading from Smithfield all over England. Month\nafter month this horrid work was deliberately carried on and was\nincreasing in intensity.\n\nWe se our countrie set furthe for a pray to foreine nations, we heare\nthe blood of our brethren, the membres of Christ Iesus most cruellie to\nbe shed, and the monstruous empire of a cruell women (the secrete\ncounsel of God excepted) we knowe to be the onlie occasion of all the\nmiseries: and yet with silence we passe the time as thogh the mater did\nnothinge appertein to vs. p. 3.\n\nThe vigour of the persecution had struck all heart out of the\nProtestants. Was this to go on for ever? Heart-wrung at the ruthless\nslaughter\u2014as we, in our day, have been by the horrors of the Indian\nmutiny or of the Bulgarian atrocities\u2014the Reformer sought to know the\noccasion of all these calamities. At that moment, he found it in the\nEmpire of Woman. Afterwards he referred much of this book to the time\nin which it was written [pp. 58 and 61]. Shall we say that his heart\ncompelled his head to this argument, that his indignation entangled his\nunderstanding on this subject? Just as MILTON was led to the discussion\nof the conditions of divorce, through his desertion by his wife MARY\nPOWELL; so the fiery martyrdoms of England led KNOX to denounce the\nfemale sex in the person of her whom we still call \u201cBloody MARY\u201d that\nwas the occasion of them all.\n\nIf in the happiest moment of his happiest dream, JOHN KNOX could have\nforeseen our good and revered Queen VICTORIA reigning in the hearts of\nthe millions of her subjects, and ruling an Empire wider by far than\nthose of Spain and Portugal in his day; if he could have seen England\nand Scotland ONE COUNTRY, bearing the name which, as almost of\nprophecy, he has foreshadowed for them in this tract, \u201cthe Ile of\ngreate Britanny;\u201d if he could have beheld that one country as it now\nabides in its strength and its wealth, the most powerful of European\nstates; if he could have realized free Italy with Rome, the Popes\nwithout temporal power, and modern civilisation more than a match for\nPapal intrigues; if he could have known that the gospel for which he\nlived had regenerated the social life of Great Britain, that it was tha\nconfessed basis of our political action and the perennial spring of our\nChristian activities, so that not merely in physical strength, but in\nmoral, force and mental enlightenment we are in the van of the nations\nof the world: if the great Scotch Reformer had but had a glimpse of\nthis present reality, this tract would never have been written, and he\nwould willingly have sung the paean of aged SIMEON and passed out of\nthis life.\n\nBut this work was the offspring of the hour of darkness, if not of\ndespair. Something must be done. A warrior of the pen, he would forge a\ngeneral argument against all female rule that would inclusively destroy\nthe legal right of MARY to continue these atrocities.\n\n\nII.\n\nThe first note of this trumpet blast, \u201cThe Kingdom apperteineth to our\nGOD,\u201d shows us the vast difference between the way in which men\nregarded the Almighty Being then and now. Shall we say that the awe of\nthe Deity has departed! Now so much stress is laid on the Fatherhood of\nGOD: in KNOX\u2019S time it was His might to defend His own or to take\nvengeance on all their murderers. Both views are true. Nevertheless\nthis age does seem wanting in a general and thorough reverence for His\ngreat name and character.\n\nKNOX seems like some great Hebrew seer when he thus pronounces the doom\nof MARY and her adherents.\n\nThe same God, who did execute this greuous punishment, euen by the\nhandes of those, whom he suffred twise to be ouercomen in batel, doth\nthis day retein his power and iustice. Cursed Iesabel of England, with\nthe pestilent and detestable generation of papistes, make no litle\nbragge and boast, that they haue triumphed not only against Wyet, but\nalso against all such as haue entreprised any thing against them or\ntheir procedinges. But let her and them consider, that yet they haue\nnot preuailed against god, his throne is more high, then that the\nlength of their hornes be able to reache. And let them further\nconsider, that in the beginning of their bloodie reigne, the haruest of\ntheir iniquitie was not comen to full maturitie and ripenes. No, it was\nso grene, so secret I meane, so couered, and so hid with hypocrisie,\nthat some men (euen the seruantes of God) thoght it not impossible, but\nthat wolues might be changed in to lambes, and also that the vipere\nmight remoue her natural venom. But God, who doth reuele in his time\napointed the secretes of hartes, and that will haue his iudgementes\niustified euen by the verie wicked, hath now geuen open testimonie of\nher and their beastlie crueltie. For man and woman, learned and\nvnlearned, nobles and men of baser sorte, aged fathers and tendre\ndamiselles, and finailie the bones of the dead, as well women as men\nhaue tasted of their tyrannie, so that now not onlie the blood of\nfather Latimer, of the milde man of God the bishop of Cantorburie, of\nlearned and discrete Ridley, of innocent ladie Iane dudley, and many\ngodly and worthie preachers, that can not be forgotten, such as fier\nhath consumed, and the sworde of tyrannie moste vniustlie hath shed,\ndoth call for vengeance in the eares of the Lord God of hostes: but\nalso the sobbes and teares of the poore oppressed, the groninges of the\nangeles, the watch men of the Lord, yea and euerie earthlie creature\nabused by their tyrannie do continuallie crie and call for the hastie\nexecution of the same. I feare not to say, that the day of vengeance,\nwhiche shall apprehend that horrible monstre Iesabal of England, and\nsuche as maintein her monstruous crueltie, is alredie apointed in the\ncounsel of the Eternall; and I verelie, beleue that it is so nigh, that\nshe shall not reigne so long in tyrannie, as hitherto she hath done,\nwhen God shall declare him selfe to be her ennemie, when he shall poure\nfurth contempt vpon her, according to her crueltie, and shal kindle the\nhartes of such, as sometimes did fauor her with deadly hatred against\nher, that they may execute his iudgementes. And therfore let such as\nassist her, take hede what they do.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThere are some notable incidental matters in this tract. First in\nmatters of State. As\n\nThe spaniardes are Iewes and they bragge that Marie of England is the\nroote of Iesse. p. 46.\n\nThat most important testimony that the Reformation under EDWARD VI was\nmainly the work of the King and his court; as it had been in the days\nof his father HENRY VIII.\n\nFor albeit thou diddest not cease to heape benefit vpon benefit, during\nthe reigne of an innocent and tendre king, yet no man did acknowledge\nthy potent hand and meruelouse working. The stoute courage of\ncapitaines, the witte and policie of counselers, the learning of\nbishoppes[1], did robbe the of thy glorie and honor. For what then was\nheard, as concerning religion, but the kinges procedinges, the kinges\nprocedinges must be obeyed? It is enacted by parliament: therefore it\nis treason to speake in the contrarie. p. 30.\n\nThe political shrewdness of the Writer on the entanglement of England\nin the Spanish War against France, whereby we lost Calais on the 6th\nJanuary 1558.\n\nThey see their owne destruction, and yet they haue no grace to auoide\nit. Yea they are becomen so blinde, that knowing the pit, they headlong\ncast them selues into the same, as the nobilitie[2] of England, do this\nday, fighting in the defense of their mortall ennemie the Spaniard.\nFinallie they are so destitute of vnderstanding and iudgement, that\nalthogh they knowe that there is a libertie and fredome, the whiche\ntheir predecessors haue inioyed; yet are they compelled to bowe their\nneckes vnder the yoke of Satan, and of his proude ministres, pestilent\npapistes and proude spaniardes. And yet can they not consider that\nwhere a woman reigneth and papistes beare authoritie, that there must\nnedes Satan be president of the counsel, p. 31.\n\nThe absence of any specific allusion to Calais shows that this book was\nwholly written before its capture.\n\nNext, in the imagery with which he expresses his insight into the\nnature of things. As\n\nIt is a thing verie difficile to a man, (be he neuer so constant)\npromoted to honors, not to be tickled some what with pride (for the\nwinde of vaine glorie doth easelie carie vp the, drie dust of the\nearth). p. 19.\n\nThe wise, politic, and quiet spirites of this world, p. 8.\n\nThe veritie of God[3] is of that nature, that at one time or at other,\nit will pourchace to it selfe audience. It is an odour and smell, that\ncan not be suppressed, yea it is a trumpet that will sound in despite\nof the adversarie.\n\nLastly, the marvellous lashing of women, throughout: climaxing in\n\nWoman ... the porte and gate of the deuil.\n\n [1] what robbed God of his honor in England in the time of the\n Gospell.\n\n [2] The nobilitie and the hole realme of England, caste themselves\n willing in to the pit.\n\n [3] The propertie of Goddes truth.\n\n\nIV.\n\nThis work is therefore to us rather \u201cthe groaning of this angel,\u201d this\n\u201cwatchman of the LORD\u201d at the national subjection, the fiery\nmartyrdoms, \u201cthe sobs and tears of the poor oppressed;\u201d than the\nexpression of any fundamental principle on which GOD has constituted\nhuman society. Intellectually, there is partiality, forgetfulness and\ndisproportion in the argument. It applies as much to a Man as to a\nWoman, and more to a wicked than a good Woman. He started on the\nassumption that almost all women in authority were wicked. Time however\nalters many things; and he lived to love and reverence Queen ELIZABETH.\n\nSo these trumpet notes are the outpouring of a very great nature, if\nnot of a great thinker; of one whose absolute and dauntless devotion to\nGOD, to truth, to right, whose burning indignation against wrong-doing\nand faith in the Divine vengeance to overtake it, fitted him to do a\ngiant\u2019s work in the Reformation, and will enshrine his memory in the\naffection of all good men till time shall end.\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM MR. DAVID LAING\u2019S PREFACE.\n\n\nWith some other hints, gratefully acknowledged.\n\nOf the various writings of the Reformer, no one was the occasion of\nexciting greater odium than his _First Blast against the monstrous\nRegiment or Government of Women_. Unlike all his other publications, it\nappeared anonymously, although he had no intention of ultimately\nconcealing his name. His purpose was, as he tells us, \u201cThrice to Blow\nthe Trumpet in the same matter, if GOD so permit,\u201d and, on the last\noccasion, to announce himself as the writer, to prevent any blame being\nimputed to others. This intention, it is well known, was never carried\ninto effect. That KNOX\u2019S views were in harmony with those of his\ncolleagues, GOODMAN, WHITTINGHAM, and GILBY, need hardly be stated: but\nthe reception of the little work fully confirmed the Author\u2019s opinion,\nthat it would not escape \u201cthe reprehension of many.\u201d This may in a\ngreat measure be attributed to the course of public events within a few\nmonths of its publication.\n\nThe subject of Female Government had engaged his attention at an\nearlier period. One of his Questions submitted to BULLINGER in 1554 was\n\u201cWhether a Female can preside over, and rule a kingdom by divine\nright?\u201d And in answer to some doubts regarding the Apparel of Women, he\nhimself says that \u201cif women take upon them the office which GOD hath\nassigned to men, they shall not escape the Divine malediction.\u201d In his\n_Additions_ to the _Apology for The Protestants in prison at Paris_, he\nexpresses his conviction that the government of Princes had come to\nthat state of iniquity that \u201cno godly person can enjoy office or\nauthority under them.\u201d This assertion indeed was not specially\napplicable to Female government, but his feelings in reference to the\npersecutions in England under MARY, and in Scotland under the Queen\nRegent, impelled him to treat of a subject which all others at the time\nseemed most sedulously to avoid.\n\nHis First _Blast_ was probably written at Dieppe towards the end of\n1557; and it was printed early in the following year at Geneva, as is\napparent upon comparison with other books from the press of JOHN\nCRESPIN in that city.\n\nA copy of the work having been sent to JOHN FOX, then residing at\nBasle, he wrote \u201ca loving and friendly letter\u201d to the author, in which\nhe expostulates with him on the impropriety of the publication. In\nKNOX\u2019S reply, dated the 18th of May 1558, he says, he will not excuse\n\u201chis rude vehemencie and inconsidered affirmations, which may appear\nrather to proceed from choler than of zeal or reason.\u201d \u201cTo me,\u201d he\nadds, \u201cit _is_ enough to say, that black is not white, and man\u2019s\ntyranny and foolishness is not GOD\u2019s perfect ordinance.\u201d\n\nThe similar work of GOODMAN on _Obedience to Superior_ Powers which\nappeared at Geneva about the same time, was also suggested by the\npersecuting spirit which then prevailed. But both works were published\nsomewhat unseasonably, as such questions on _Government_ and\n_Obedience_, it is justly observed, might have been more fitly argued\nwhen a King happened to fill the throne. The terms used by GOODMAN in\nreference to MARY, Queen of England, are not less violent than\nunseemly. She died on the 17th of November 1558, and her successor\nregarded the authors of those works with the utmost dislike; although\nneither of them, in their writings, had any special reference or the\nleast intention of giving offence to Queen ELIZABETH....\n\nThat these works, and every person supposed to entertain similar\nsentiments, should be regarded with marked aversion by Queen ELIZABETH,\nneed excite no surprise.\n\nIn the beginning of the year 1559, CALVIN having revised and\nrepublished his _Commentaries_ on _ISAIAH_, originally dedicated to\nEDWARD VI. in 1551; he addressed the work in a printed Epistle to Her\nMajesty: but his messenger brought him back word that his homage was\nnot kindly received by Her Majesty, because she had been offended with\nhim by reason of some writings published with his approbation at\nGeneva.\n\nCALVIN felt so greatly annoyed at this imputation, that he addressed a\nletter[1] to Sir WILLIAM CECIL, in which he expresses himself with no\nsmall degree of asperity on the subject of KNOX\u2019S First B_last_. He\nsays\u2014\n\nTwo years ago [i.e. _in_ 1557] JOHN KNOX asked of me, in a private\nconversation, what I thought about the Government of Women. I candidly\nreplied, that as it was a deviation from the original and proper order\nof nature, it was to be ranked, no less than slavery, among the\npunishments consequent upon the fall of man: but that there were\noccasionally women so endowed, that the singular good qualities which\nshone forth in them made it evident that they were raised up by Divine\nauthority; either that GOD designed by such examples to condemn the\ninactivity of men, or for the better setting forth of His own glory. I\nbrought forth Huldah and Deborah; and added, that GOD did not vainly\npromise by the mouth of Isaiah that \u201cQueens should be nursing mothers\nof the Church\u201d; by which prerogative it is very evident that they are\ndistinguished from females in private life. I came at length to this\nconclusion, that since, both by custom, and public consent, and long\npractice, it hath been established, that realms and principalities may\ndescend to females by hereditary right, it did not appear to me\nnecessary to move the question, not only because the thing would be\nmost invidious; but because in my opinion it would not be lawful to\nunsettle governments which are ordained by the peculiar providence of\nGOD.\n\nI had no suspicion of the book, and for a whole year was ignorant of\nits publication. When I was informed of it by certain parties, I\nsufficiently shewed my displeasure that such paradoxes should be\npublished; but as the remedy was too late, I thought that the evil,\nwhich could not now be corrected, should rather be buried in oblivion\nthan made a matter of agitation.\n\nInquire also at your father in law [Sir ANTHONY COOKE] what my reply\nwas, when he informed me of the circumstance through Beza. And MARY was\nstill living, so that I could not be suspected of flattery.\n\nWhat the books contain, I cannot tell; but KNOX himself will allow that\nmy conversation with him was no other than what I have now stated.\n\nCalvin then proceeds to say, that great confusion might have arisen by\nany decided opposition, and there would have been cause to fear, that\nin such a case\u2014\n\nBy reason of the thoughtless arrogance of one individual, the wretched\ncrowd of exiles would have been driven away, not only from this city\n[of Geneva] but even from almost the whole world.\n\nSome years later, and subsequent to CALVIN\u2019S death, BEZA, in a letter\nto BULLINGER, adverts to Queen ELIZABETH\u2019S continued dislike to the\nChurch of Geneva. In his letter, dated the 3rd of September 1566, he\nsays\u2014\n\nSome years later, and subsequent to CALVIN\u2019S death, BEZA, in a letter\nto BULLINGER, adverts to Queen ELIZABETH\u2019S continued dislike to the\nChurch of Geneva. In his letter, dated the 3rd of September 1566, he\nsays\u2014\n\nFor as to our Church, I would have you know that it is so hateful to\nthe Queen [of England], that on this account she has never said a\nsingle word in acknowledgement of the gift of my _Annotations [on the\nNew Testament]_. The reason of her dislike is twofold; one, because we\nare accounted too severe and precise, which is very displeasing to\nthose who fear reproof; the other is, because formerly, though without\nour knowledge, during the lifetime of Queen MARY, two books were\npublished here in the English language, one by Master KNOX against the\n_Government of Women_, the other by Master GOODMAN on the _Rights of\nthe Magistrate_.\n\nAs soon as we learned the contents of each, we were much displeased,\nand their sale was forbidden in consequence; but she, notwithstanding,\ncherishes the opinion she has taken into her head[2].\n\n[1] The letter is not dated, but it was subsequent to one written on\nthe 29th of January 1559 [i.e. 1560], _Zurich Letters_. Second Series,\np. 35.\n\n[2] _Zurich Letters_. Second Series, p. 34.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FIRST BLAST OF THE TRUMPET AGAINST THE MONSTRVOVS REGIMENT OF\nWOMEN.\n\n\nVeritas temporis filia,\n\nM. D. LVIII.\n\n\nTHE KINGDOME APPERTEINETH TO OVR GOD.\n\nWonder it is, that amongest so many pregnant wittes as the Ile of\ngreate Brittanny hath produced, so many godlie and zelous preachers as\nEngland did somtime norishe, and amongest so many learned and men of\ngraue iudgement, as this day by Iesabel are exiled, none is found so\nstowte of courage, so faithfull to God, nor louing to their natiue\ncountrie, that they dare admonishe the inhabitantes of that Ile how\nabominable before God, is the Empire or Rule of a wicked woman, yea of\na traiteresse and bastard. And what may a people or nation left\ndestitute of a lawfull head, do by the authoritie of Goddes worde in\nelecting and appointing common rulers and magistrates. That Ile (alas)\nfor the contempt and horrible abuse of Goddes mercies offred, and for\nthe shamefull reuolting to Satan frome Christ Iesus, and frome his\nGospell ones professed, doth iustlie merite to be left in the handes of\ntheir own counsel, and so to come to confusion and bondage of\nstrangiers. But yet I feare that this vniuersall negligence[1] of such\nas somtimes were estemed watchemen, shall rather aggrauate our former\ningratitude, then excuse this our vniuersall and vngodlie silence, in\nso weightie a mater. We se our countrie set furthe for a pray to\nforeine nations, we heare the blood of our brethren, the membres of\nChrist Iesus most cruellie to be shed, and the monstruous empire of a\ncruell woman (the secrete counsel of God excepted) we knowe to be the\nonlie occasion of all these miseries: and yet with silence we passe the\ntime as thogh the mater did nothinge appertein to vs. But the contrarie\nexamples of the auncient prophetes[2] moue me to doubte of this our\nfact. For Israel did vniuersalie decline frome God by embrasing\nidolatrie vnder Ieroboam. In whiche they did continue euen vnto the\ndestruction of their common welthe[3]. And Iuda withe Ierusalem did\nfollowe the vile superstition and open iniquitie of Samaria[4]. But yet\nceased not the prophetes of God to admonishe the one and the other: Yea\neuen after that God had poured furthe his plagues vpon them[5]. For\nIeremie did write to the captiues of Babylon, and did correct their\nerrors, plainlie instructing them, who did remaine in the middest of\nthat idolatrouse nation. Ezechiel[6] frome the middest of his brethren\nprisoners in Chaldea, did write his vision to those that were in\nIerusalem, and sharplie rebukinge their vices, assured them that they\nshuld not escape the vengeance of God by reason of their abominations\ncommitted.\n\n[1]: the Negligence of watchemen.\n\n[2]: The diligence of the olde prophetes of God.\n\n[3]: I. Reg. 12.\n\n[4]: Ezech. 16.\n\n[5]: Ierem. 29.\n\n[6]: Ezech. 7,8,9.\n\nThe same prophetes for comfort of the afflicted and chosen saintes of\nGod, who did lie hyd amongest the reprobate of that age[7] (as\ncommonlie doth the corne amongest the chaffe) did prophecie and before\nspeake the changes of kingdomes, the punishmentes of tyrannes, and the\nvengeance[8] whiche God wold execute vpon the oppressors of his people.\nThe same did Daniel and the rest of the prophetes euerie one in their\nseason. By whose examples and by the plaine precept, which is geuen to\nEzechiel, commanding him that he shall say to the wicked: Thou shalt\ndie the death. We in this our miserable age are bounde to admonishe[9]\nthe world and the tyrannes thereof, of their sodeine destruction, to\nassure them, and to crie vnto them, whether they list to heare or not.\nThat the blood of the saintes, which by them is shed, continuallie\ncrieth and craueth[10] vengeance in the presence of the Lorde of\nhostes. And further it is our dutie to open the truthe reueled vnto vs,\nvnto the ignorant and blind world, vnlest that to our owne condemnation\nwe list to wrap vp and and hyde the talent committed to our charge. I\nam assured that God hath reueled to some in this our age, that it is\nmore then a monstre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and haue\nempire aboue man. And yet with vs all, there is suche silence, as if\nGod therewith were nothing offended. The naturall man, ennemy to God\nshall fynd, I knowe, many causes why no suche doctrine oght to be\npublished in these our dangerous dayes. First, for that it may seme to\ntend to sedition[11]: secondarilie, it shal be dangerous, not onlie to\nthe writer or publisher, but also to all such as shall reade the\nwritinges, or fauor this truth spoken: and last it shall not amend the\nchief offenders, partlie because it shall neuer come to their eares,\nand partlie because they will not be admonished in such cases. I\nanswer, yf any of these be a sufficient reason that a truth knowen\nshalbe conceled, then were the auncient prophetes of God very fooles,\nwho did not better prouide for their owne quietnes, then to hasard\ntheir liues for rebuking of vices, and for the opening of such crimes,\nas were not knowen to the world, And Christ Iesus did iniurie to his\nApostles, commanding them to preache repentance and remission of synnes\nin his name to euerie realme and nation. And Paule did not vnderstand\nhis owne libertie, when he cried, wo be to me, if I preache not the\nEuangile. Yf feare, I say, of persecution[12], of sclander, or of any\ninconuenience before named might have excused, and discharged the\nseruantes of God[13], from plainlie rebuking the sinnes of the world;\niuste cause had euerie one of them to haue ceased frome their office.\nFor sodeinlie their doctrine was accused by termes of sedition, of newe\nlearning, and of treason: persecution and vehement trouble did shortlie\ncome vpon the professours with the preachers[14]: kinges, princes and\nworldlie rulers did conspire against God and against his anoynted\nChrist Iesus. But what? Did any of these moue the prophetes and\nApostles to faynt in their vocation? no. But by the resistance, whiche\nthe deuill made to them by his suppostes, were they the more inflamed\nto publishe the truthe reueled vnto them and to witnesse with their\nblood, that greuous condemnation and Goddes heuie vengeance shuld\nfolowe the proude contempt of graces offred. The fidelitie, bold\ncourage, and constancie of those that are passed before vs, oght to\nprouoke vs to folowe their footsteppes, onles we loke for an other\nkingdome then Christ hath promised to such as perseuere in profession\nof his name to the end. Yf any think that the empire of women, is not\nof such importance, that for the suppressing of the same, any man is\nbounde to hasarde his life, I answer, that to suppresse it, is in the\nhand of god alone. But to vtter the impietie and abomination of the\nsame, I say, it is the dutie of euerie true messager of God, to whome\nthe truth is reueled in that behalfe. For the especiall dutie[15] of\nGoddes messagers is to preache repentance, to admonishe the offenders\nof their offenses, and to say to the wicked, thou shalt die the death,\nexcept thou repent. This, I trust, will no man denie to be the propre\noffice of all Goddes messagers to preache (as I haue said) repentance\nand remission of synnes. But nether of both can be done, except the\nconscience of the offenders be accused and conuicted of transgression.\nFor howe shall any man repent not knowing wher in he hath offended? And\nwhere no repentance is founde[16], there can be no entrie to grace. And\ntherfore I say, that of necessitie it is, that, this monstriferouse\nempire of women, (which amongest all enormities, that this day do\nabound vpon the face of the hole earth, is most detestable and\ndamnable) be openlie reueled and plainlie declared to the world, to the\nend that some may repent and be saued. And thus farre to the first\nsorte.\n\n[7]: God alway had his people amongst the wicked, who neuer lacked\ntheir prophetes and teachers.\n\n[8]: Isaie. 13. Ierem. 6. Ezech. 36.\n\n[9]: Examples what teachers oght to do in this time.\n\n[10]: Ezech. 2, Apoca. 6.\n\n[11]: Thre chef reasons, that do stay man from speaking the truthe.\n\n[12]: 1. Cor. 9.\n\n[13]: Mat. 26. Act. 18, 21.\n\n[14]: Psalm. 2. Act. 4.\n\n[15]: It is necessarie for everie man to open the impietie, whiche he\nknoweth to hurt his commonwelth.\n\n[16]: No man can repent except he knowe his synne.\n\nTo such as thinke that it will be long before such doctrine come to the\neares of the chief offenders, I answer that the veritie of God is of\nthat nature, that at one time or at other, it will pourchace to it\nselfe audience. It is an odour and smell, that can not be\nsuppressed[17], yea it is a trumpet that will sound in despite of the\naduersarie. It will compell the verie ennemies to their own confusion,\nto tes tifie and beare witnesse of it. For I finde that the prophecie\nand preaching of Heliseus was declared in the hall of the king of Syria\nby the seruantes and flatterers of the same wicked king[18], making\nmention that Heliseus declared to the king of Israel, what so euer the\nsaid king of Syria spake in his most secret chamber. And the wonderous\nworkes of Iesus Christ were notified to Herode[19], not in any greate\npraise or commendation of his doctrine, but rather to signifie that\nChrist called that tyranne a fox: and that he did no more regarde his\nauthoritie then did Iohn the Baptist, whom Herode before had beheaded\nfor the libertie of his tonge. But whether the bearers of the rumors\nand tidinges were fauourers of Christ or flatterers of the tyranne,\ncertain it is that the fame, as well of Christes doctrine, as of his\nworkes came to the eares of Herod: euen so may the sounde of our weake\ntrumpet, by the support of some wynd (blowe it from the south or blowe\nit from the northe it is no mater) come to the eares of the chief\noffenders. But whether it do or not, yet dare we not cease to blowe as\nGod will giue strength[20]. For we are debters to mo then to princes,\nto witte, to the multitude of our brethren, of whome, no doubte a\ngreate nomber haue here to fore offended by errour and ignorance,\ngeuing their suffragies, consent and helpe to establishe women in their\nkingdomes and empires[21], not vnderstanding howe abominable, odious\nand detestable is all such vsurped authoritie in the presence of God.\nAnd therfore must the truthe, be plainlie spoken, that the simple and\nrude multitude may be admonished.\n\n[17]: The propertie of Goddes truth.\n\n[18]: 2. Reg. 6.\n\n[19]: Mat. 14.\n\n[20]: Rum. 1.\n\n[21]: The ignorant multitide hath set up the authoritie of women not\nknowinge the danger.\n\nAnd as concerning the danger, which may hereof insue, I am not\naltogether so brutishe and insensible, but that I haue laid mine\naccompt what the finishinge of the worke may coste me for mine own\nparte. First, I am not ignorant howe difficile and dangerous it is to\nspeake against a common error[22], especiallie when that the ambitious\nmindes of men and women are called to the obedience of goddes simple\ncommandement. For to the most parte of men, laufull and godlie\nappeareth, what soeuer antiquitie hath receiued. And secondarilie, I\nlooke to haue mine aduersaries not onlie of the ignorant multitude, but\nalso of the wise, politike, and quiet spirites of this worlde, so that\naswell shall suche as oght to mainteine the truth and veritie of God\nbecome ennemies to me in this case, as shall the princes and ambitious\npersons, who to mainteine their vniust tyrannie do alwayes studie to\nsuppresse the same. And thus I am most certeinlie persuaded, that my\nlabour shall not escape reprehension of many. But because I remembre\nthat accomptes[23] of the talentes receiued must be made to him, who\nnether respecteth the multitude, nether yet approueth the wisdome,\npolicie, peace, nor antiquitie, concluding or determining any thinge\nagainst his eternall will reueled to vs in his moste blessed worde, I\nam compelled to couer myne eyes, and shut vp myne eares, that I nether\nse the multitude, that shall withstand me in this mater, nether that I\nshall heare the opprobries, nor consider the dangers, which I may\nincurre for vttering the same. I shalbe called foolishe, curious,\ndespitefull, and a sower of sedition: and one day parchance (althogh\nnow I be nameles) I may be attainted of treason. But seing that\nimpossible it is[[24], but that ether I shall offend God, dailie\ncalling to my conscience, that I oght to manifest the veritie knowen,\nor elles that I shall displease the worlde for doing the same, I haue\ndetermined to obey God, not withstanding that the world shall rage\ntherat. I knowe that the world offended (by Goddes permission) may kill\nthe bodie, but Goddes maiestie offended, hath power to punishe bodie\nand soule for euer. His maiestie is offended, when that his preceptes\nare contemned, and his threatninges estemed to be of none effect. And\namongest his manifold preceptes geuen to his prophetes, and amongest\nhis threatninges, none is more vehement, then is that, which is\npronounced to Ezechiel in these wordes[25]: Sonne of man, I haue\nappointed the a watchman to the house of Israel, that thou shuldest\nheare from my mouthe the worde, and that thou maist admonishe them\nplainlie, when I shall say to the wicked man: O wicked, thou shalt\nassuredlie die. Then if thou shalt not speake, that thou maist plainlie\nadmonishe him, that he may leaue his wicked way, the wicked man shall\ndie in his iniquitie, but his blood will I requier of thy hand. But and\nif thou shalt plainlie admonishe the wicked man, and yet he shall not\nturne from his way, such a one shall die in his iniquitie, but thou\nhast deliuered thy soule.\n\n[22]: A very dangerous thing to speake against olde errors.\n\n[23]: Accomptes will be had of Goddes giftes.\n\n[24]: The cause mouing the author to write.\n\n[25]: Ezech. 33.\n\nThis precept, I say, with the threatning annexed, togither with the\nrest, that is spoken in the same chapter, not to Ezechiel onlie, but to\neuerie one, whom God placeth whatchman ouer his people and flocke, (and\nwatchman are they whose eyes he doth open, and whose conscience he\npricketh to admonishe the vngodlie) compelleth me to vtter my\nconscience in this mater, notwithstanding that the hole worlde shuld be\noffended with me for so doing. Yf any wonder, why I do concele my name,\nlet him be assured, that the feare of corporall punishement is nether\nthe onlie, nether the chef cause. My purpose is thrise to blowe the\ntrumpet in the same mater, if God so permitte[26]: twise I intende to\ndo it without name, but at the last blast, to take the blame vpon my\nselfe, that all others may be purged.\n\n[26]: For the Authors name.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FIRST BLAST TO AWAKE WOMEN DEGENERATE.\n\n\nTo promote a woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion or empire\naboue any realme, nation, or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie\nto God, a thing most contrarious to his reueled will and approued\nordinance, and finallie it is the subuersion of good order, of all\nequitie and iustice\n\nIn the probation of this proposition, I will not be so curious, as to\ngather what soeuer may amplifie, set furth, or decore the same, but I\nam purposed, euen as I haue spoken my conscience in most plaine and\nfewe wordes, so to stand content with a simple proofe of euerie membre,\nbringing in for my witnesse Goddes ordinance in nature, his plaine will\nreueled in his worde, and the mindes of such as be moste auncient\namongest godlie writers.\n\nAnd first, where that I affirme the empire of a woman to be a thing\nrepugnant to nature, I meane not onlie that God by the order of his\ncreation hath spoiled woman of authoritie and dominion, but also that\nman hath seen, proued and pronounced iust causes why that it so shuld\nbe. Man, I say, in many other cases blind, doth in this behalfe see\nverie clearlie. For the causes be so manifest, that they can not be\nhid. For who can denie but it repugneth to nature, that the blind shal\nbe appointed to leade and conduct such as do see? That the weake, the\nsicke, and impotent persones[1] shall norishe and kepe the hole and\nstrong, and finallie, that the foolishe, madde and phrenetike shal\ngouerne the discrete, and giue counsel to such as be sober of mind? And\nsuch be al women, compared vnto man in bearing of authoritie. For their\nsight in ciuile regiment, is but blindnes: their strength, weaknes:\ntheir counsel, foolishenes: and iudgement, phrenesie, if it be rightlie\nconsidered.\n\n[1]: Causes why women shuld not have preeminence ouer men.\n\nI except such as God by singular priuiledge, and for certein causes\nknowen onlie to him selfe, hath exempted from the common ranke of\nwomen[2], and do speake of women as nature and experience do this day\ndeclare them. Nature I say, doth paynt them furthe to be weake, fraile,\nimpacient, feble and foolishe: and experience hath declared them to be\nvnconstant, variable, cruell and lacking the spirit of counsel and\nregiment. And these notable faultes haue men in all ages espied in that\nkinde, for the whiche not onlie they haue remoued women from rule and\nauthoritie, but also some haue thoght that men subiect to the counsel\nor empire of their wyues were vn worthie of all publike office. For\nthis writeth Aristotle in the seconde of his Politikes[3]: what\ndifference shal we put, saith he, whether that women beare authoritie,\nor the husbanesd that obey the empire of their wyues be appointed to be\nmagistrates? For what insueth the one, must nedes folowe the other, to\nwitte, iniustice, confusion and disorder. The same author further\nreasoneth, that the policie or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other\nwayes amongest the Grecians were moste excellent) was not worthie to be\nreputed nor accompted amongest the nombre of common welthes, that were\nwell gouerned, because the magistrates, and rulers of the same were to\n[o] muche geuen to please and obey their wyues. What wolde this writer\n(I pray you) haue said to that realme or nation, where a woman sitteth\ncrowned in parliament amongest the middest of men. Oh fearefull and\nterrible are thy iudgementes[4] (o Lord) whiche thus hast abased man\nfor his iniquitie! I am assuredlie persuaded that if any of those men,\nwhich illuminated onelie by the light of nature, did see and pronounce\ncauses sufficient, why women oght not to beare rule nor authoritie,\nshuld this clay liue and see a woman sitting in iudgement, or riding\nfrome parliament in the middest of men, hauing the royall crowne vpon\nher head, the sworde and sceptre borne before her, in signe that the\nadministration of iustice was in her power: I am assuredlie persuaded,\nI say, that suche a sight shulde so astonishe them, that they shuld\niudge the hole worlde to be transformed into Amazones[5], and that\nsuche a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that\ncountrie, as poetes do feyn was made of the companyons of Vlisses, or\nat least, that albeit the owtwarde form of men remained, yet shuld they\niudge that their hartes were changed frome the wisdome, vnderstanding,\nand courage of men, to the foolishe fondnes and cowardise of women. Yea\nthey further shuld pronounce, that where women reigne or be in\nauthoritie, that there must nedes vanitie be preferred to vertue,\nambition and pride to temperancie and modestie, and finallie, that\nauarice the mother of all mischefe must nedes deuour equitie and\niustice. But lest that we shall seme to be of this opinion alone[6],\nlet vs heare what others haue seen and decreed in this mater. In the\nrules of the lawe thus it is written[7]: Women are remoued from all\nciuile and publike office[8], so that they nether may be iudges, nether\nmay they occupie the place of the magistrate, nether yet may they be\nspeakers for others. The same is repe[a]ted in the third and in the\nsextenth bokes of the digestes[9]: Where certein persones are\nforbidden, Ne pro aliis postulent, that is, that they be no speakers\nnor aduocates for others. And among the rest are women forbidden, and\nthis cause is added, that they do not against shamefastnes intermedle\nthem selues with the causes of others[10], nether yet that women\npresume to vse the offices due to men. The lawe in the same place doth\nfurther declare, that a naturall shamfastnes oght to be in\nwomankind[11], whiche most certeinlie she loseth, when soeuer she\ntaketh vpon her the office and estate of man. As in Calphurnia[12] was\neuidentlie declared, who hauing licence to speake before the senate, at\nlength became so impudent and importune, that by her babling she\ntroubled the hole assemblie. And so gaue occasion that this lawe was\nestablished.\n\n[2]: Priuate example do not breake the generall ordinance.\n\n[3]: 2 Politicorum Aristotelis.\n\n[4]: Reade Isaie the thirde chaptre.\n\n[5]: Amazones were monstruouse women, that coulde not abide the\nregiment of men, and therfore killed their husbandes, reade Iustine.\n\n[6]: Arist. 2. Politic.\n\n[7]: Lib. 50. de regulis iuris.\n\n[8]: What women may not be.\n\n[9]: 3. 16. lib. Digestorum.\n\n[10]: Ad Senatus consul, Veleianum.\n\n[11]: Lib. 3. de posulationse Tit. 1.\n\n[12]: Calphurnia.\n\nIn the first boke of the digestes[13], it is pronounced that the\ncondition of the woman in many cases is worse then of the man. As in\niurisdiction (saith the lawe[14]) in receiuing of care and tuition, in\nadoption, in publike accusation, in delation, in all populat action,\nand in motherlie power, which she hath not vpon her owne sonnes. The\nlawe further will not permit, that the woman geue any thing to her\nhusband, because it is against the nature of her kinde, being the\ninferiour membre to presume to geue any thing to her head[15]. The lawe\ndoth more ouer pronounce womankinde to be the most auaricious[16]\n(which is a vice intolerable in those that shulde rule or minister\niustice). And Aristotle[17], as before is touched, doth plainly\naffirme, that wher soeuer women beare dominion, there must nedes the\npeople be disorded, liuinge and abounding in all intemperancie, geuen\nto pride, excesse, and vanitie. And finallie in the end, that they must\nnedes come to confusion and ruine[18].\n\n[13]: De statu homino Titul. 8. Frome women.\n\n[14]: power is taken away by the Ciuile lawe ouer their own children.\n\n[15]: Dig. lib. 24. de donatione inter virum et foeminane.\n\n[16]: women be couetous therefore vnmete gouernors.\n\n[17]: Lib. 1. Digest. de le gib. et senatuscon Titul. 3, Politic. 2.\n\n[18]: England and Scotland beware.\n\nWold to god the examples were not so manifest, to the further\ndeclaration of the imperfections of women[19], of their naturall\nweaknes, and inordinat appetites. I might adduce histories, prouing\nsome women to haue died for sodein ioy, some for vnpaciencie to haue\nmurthered them selues, some to haue burned with such inordinat lust,\nthat for the quenching of the same, they haue betrayed[20] to\nstrangiers their countrie and citie: and some to haue bene so desirous\nof dominion, that for the obteining of the same, they haue murthered\nthe children of their owne sonnes. Yea and some haue killed with\ncrueltie their owne husbandes[21] and children. But to me it is\nsufficient (because this parte of nature is not my moste sure\nfoundation) to haue proued[22], that men illuminated onlie by the light\nof nature, haue seen and haue determined, that it is a thing moste\nrepugnant to nature, that women rule and gouerne ouer men. For those\nthat will not permit a woman to haue power ouer her owne sonnes, will\nnot permit her (I am assured) to haue rule ouer a realme[23]: and those\nthat will not suffer her to speake in defense of those that be accused,\nnether that will admit her accusation intended against man, will not\napprouel her, that she shal sit in iudgement crowned with the royal\ncrowne, vsurping authoritie in the middest of men. But now to the\nsecond part of nature: In the whiche I include the reueled will and\nperfect ordinance of God, and against this parte of nature, I say, that\nit doth manifestlie repugne that any woman shal reigne or beare\ndominion ouer man. For God first by the order of his creation, and\nafter by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman, by\nthe, reason of her rebellion, hath pronounced the contrarie. First, I\nsay, that woman in her greatest perfection, was made to serue and obey\nman[24], not to rule and command him:[25] As saint Paule doth reason in\nthese wordes. Man is not of the woman but the woman of the man. And man\nwas not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause\nof man, and therfore oght the woman to haue a power vpon her head (that\nis a couerture in signe of subiection). Of whiche words it is plaine\nthat the Apostle meaneth, that woman in her greatest perfection shuld\nhaue knowen, that man was Lord aboue her: and therfore that she shulde\nneuer haue pretended any kind of superioritie aboue him, no more then\ndo the angels aboue God the creator[26], or aboue Christ Iesus their\nhead. So, I say, that in her greatest perfection woman was created to\nbe subiect to man: But after her fall and rebellion committed against\nGod, their was put vpon her a newe necessitie, and she was made subiect\nto man by the irreuocable sentence of God, pronounced in these\nwordes[27]: I will greatlie multiplie thy sorowe and thy conception.\nWith sorowe shalt thou beare thy children, and thy will shall be\nsubiect to thy man: and he shal beare dominion ouer the. Herebie may\nsuch as altogither be not blinded plainlie see, that God, by his\nsentence, hath deiected all woman frome empire and dominion aboue man.\nFor two punishmentes are laid vpon her, to witte, a dolor, anguishe and\npayn, as oft as euer she shal be mother; and a subiection of her selfe,\nher appetites and will, to her husband, and to his will. Frome the\nformer parte of this malediction can nether arte, nobilitie, policie,\nnor lawe made by man, deliuer womankinde, but who soeuer atteineth to\nthat honour to be mother, proueth in experience the effect and strength\nof goddes word. But (alas) ignorance of God, ambition, and tyrannie\nhaue studied to abolishe and destroy the second parte of Goddes\npunishment. For women are lifted vp to be heades ouer realmes, and to\nrule aboue men at their pleasure and appetites. But horrible is the\nvengeance, which is prepared for the one and for the other, for the\npromoters, and for the persones promoted, except they spedelie repent.\nFor they shall be deiected from the glorie of the sonnes of God[28], to\nthe sclauerie of the deuill, and to the torment that is prepared for\nall suche, as do exalte them selues against God. Against God can\nnothing be more manifest, then that a woman shall be exalted to reigne\naboue man. For the contrarie sentence hath he pronounced in these\nwordes[29]: Thy will shall be subiect to thy husband, and he shall\nbeare dominion ouer the. As God shuld say: forasmuch as thou hast\nabused thy former condition, and because thy free will hath broght thy\nselfe and mankind in to: the bondage of Satan, I therfore will bring\nthe in bondage to man. For where before, thy obedience shuld haue bene\nvoluntarie, nowe it shall be by constraint and by neeessitie: and that\nbecause thou hast deceiued thy man, thou shalt therfore be no longar\nmaistresse ouer thine own appetites, ouer thine owne will nor desires.\nFor in the there is nether reason nor discretion, whiche be able to\nmoderate thy affections, and therfore they shall, be subiect to the\ndesire of thy man. He shall be Lord and gouernour, not onlie ouer thy\nbodie, but euen ouer thy appetites and will. This sentence, I say, did\nGod pronounce against Heua, and her daughters, as the rest of the\nScriptures doth euidentlie witnesse. So that no woman can euer presume\nto reigne aboue man, but the same she must nedes do in despite, of God,\nand in contempt of. his punishment, and maledictjon[30].\n\n[19]: Great imperfections of women.\n\n[20]: Ronsilda the wife of Gisulphus betrayed to Cacanus the dukedome\nof friaul in Italie.\n\n[21]: Iane quene of Naples hanged her husband.\n\n[22]: Athalia, 4. Reg. II. Hurene, Anton. Sabell.\n\n[23]: If the lesse thinges be denied to women, the greater cannot be\ngranted.\n\n[24]: woman in her greatest perfection was made to serue man.\n\n[25]: I. Cor. II.\n\n[26]: A good comparison.\n\n[27]: A newe necessity of womans subiection. woman by the sentence of\nGod, subiect to man. Gene. 3.\n\n[28]: The punishment of women unjustlie promoted and of their\npromoters.\n\n[29]: Gene. 3.\n\n[30]: Let all women take hede.\n\nI am not ignorant, that the most part of men do vnderstand this\nmalediction of the subiection of the wife to her husband, and of the\ndominion, which; he beareth aboue her[31]: but the holie ghost geueth\nto vs an other interpretation of this place, taking from all women all.\nkinde of superioritie, authoritie and power ouer man, speaking as\nfoloweth, by the mouth of saint Paule[32]. I suffer not a woman to\nteache, nether yet to vsurpe authoritie aboue man. Here he nameth women\nin generall, excepting none, affirming that she may vsurpe authoritie\naboue no man. And that he speaketh more plainly, in an other place in\nthese wordes[33]: Let women kepe silence in the congregation, for it is\nnot permitted to them to speake, but to be subiect as the lawe sayeth.\nThese two testimonies of the holy ghost, be sufficient to proue what\nsoeuer we haue affirmed before, and to represse the inordinate pride of\nwomen, as also to correct the foolishnes of those that haue studied to\nexalt women in authoritie aboue man, against God, and against his\nsentence pronounced. But that the same two places of the apostle may\nthe better he vnderstand: it is to be noted, that in the latter, which\nis writen in the first epistle to the Corinthes the 14. chapitre,\nbefore the apostle had permitted that all persones shuld prophecie one\nafter an other: addinge this reason: that all may learne and all may\nreceiue consolation. And lest that any might haue iudged, that amongest\na rude multitude, and the pluralitie of speakers, manie, thinges litle\nto purpose might haue bene affirmed, or elles that some confusion might\nhaue risen: he addeth, the spirites of the prophetes are subiect to the\nprophetes: As he shuld say, God shall alwayes raise vp some, to whome\nthe veritie shalbe reueled, and vnto such ye shal geue place, albeit\nthey sit in the lowest seates. And thus the apostle wold haue\nprophecying an exercise to be free to the hole churche, that euerie one\nshuld communicate with the congregation, what God had reueled to them,\nprouidinge that it were orderlie done. But frome this generall\npriuiledge he secludeth all woman, sayinge: let women kepe silence in\nthe congregation. And why I pray you? was it because that the apostle\nthoght no woman to haue any knowledge? no he geueth an other reason,\nsaying; let her be subiect as the lawe saith[34]. In which wordes is\nfirst to be noted, that the apostle calleth this former sentence\npronounced against woman a lawe, that is, the immutable decree of God,\nwho by his owne voice hath subiected her to one membre of the\ncongregation[35], that is to her husband, wherupon the holie ghost\nconcludeth, that she may neuer rule nor bear empire ahoue man. For she\nthat is made subiect to one, may neuer be preferred to many, and that\nthe holie ghoste doth manifestlie expresse, saying: I suffer not that\nwomen vsurpe authoritie aboue man: he sayth not, I will not, that woman\nvsurpe authoritie aboue her husband, but he nameth man in generall,\ntaking frome her all power and authoritie, to speake, to reason, to\ninterprete, or to teache, but principallie to rule or to iudge in the\nassemblie of men. So that woman by the lawe of God, and by the\ninterpretation of the holy ghost, is vtterly forbidden to occupie the\nplace of God in the offices afore said, which he hath assigned to man,\nwhome he hath appointed and ordeined his lieutenant in earth: secluding\nfrome that honor and dignitie all woman, as this short argument shall\neuidentlie declare.\n\n[31]: Answer to an obiection.\n\n[32]: 1 Tim. 2.\n\n[33]: I. Cor. 14.\n\n[34]: From a general privilege is woman secluded.\n\n[35]: She that is, subject to one may not rule many.\n\nThe apostle taketh power frome all woman to speake in the\nassemblie[36]. Ergo he permitteth no woman to rule aboue man. The\nformer parteis euident, whereupon doth the conclusion of necessitie\nfolowe. For he that taketh from woman the least parte of\nauthoritie[37], dominion or rule, will not permit vnto her that whiche\nis greatest: But greater it is to reigne aboue realmes and nations, to\npublish and to make lawes, and to commande men of all estates, and\nfinallie to appoint iudges and ministers, then to speake in the\ncongregation. For her iudgement, sentence, or opinion proposed in the\ncongregation, may be iudged by all, may be corrected by the learned,\nand reformed by the godlie. But woman being promoted in souereine\nauthoritie, her lawes must be obeyed, her opinion folowed, and her\ntyrannic mainteined: supposing that it be expreslie against God, and\nthe prophet [profit] of the common welth, as to[o] manifest experience\ndoth this day witnesse. And therfore yet againe I repete that, whiche\nbefore I haue affirmed: to witt, that a woman promoted to sit in the\nseate of God, that is, to teache, to iudge or to reigne aboue man, is\namonstre in nature, contumelie to God, and a thing most repugnant to\nhis will and ordinance. For he hath depriued them as before is proued,\nof speakinge in the congregation, and hath expreslie forbidden them to\nvsurpe any kinde of authoritie aboue man. Howe then will he suffer them\nto reigne and haue empire aboue realmes and nations? He will neuer, I\nsay, approue it, because it is a thing most repugnant to his perfect\nordinance, as after shalbe declared, and as the former scriptures haue\nplainlie geuen testimonie. To the whiche, to adde any thing were\nsuperfluous, were it not that the worlde is almost nowe comen to that\nblindnes, that what soeuer pleaseth not the princes and the multitude,\nthe same is reiected as doctrine newelie forged, and is condemned, for\nheresie. I haue therfore thoght good to recite the mindes of some\nauncient writers in the same mater, to the end that suche as altogither\nbe not blinded by the deuil, may consider and vnderstand this my\niudgement to be no newe interpretation of Goddes scriptures, but to be\nthe vniforme consent of the most parte of godlie writers, since the\ntime of the apostles. Tertullian[38] in his boke of womens apparell,\nafter that he hath shewed many causes why gorgious apparell is\nabominable and odiouse in a woman, addeth these wordes, speaking as it\nwere to euery woman by name: Dost thou not knowe (saith he) that thou\nart Heua? the sentence of God liueth and is effectuall against this\nkind, and in this worlde of necessity it is, that the punishment also\nliue. Thou art the porte and gate of the deuil. Thou art the first\ntransgressor of goddes law. thou diddest persuade and easely deceiue\nhim whome the deuil durst not assault[39]. For thy merit (that is for\nthy death) it behoued the son of god to suffre the death, and doth it\nyet abide in thy mind to decke the aboue thy skin coates? By these and\nmany other graue sentences, and quicke interrogations, did this godlie\nwriter labour to bring euerie woman in contemplation of her selfe, to\nthe end that euerie one depelie weying, what sentence God had\npronounced against the hole race and doughters of Heua, might not onely\nlearne daily to humble and subiect them selues in the presence of God,\nbut also that they shulde auoide and abhorre what soeuer thing might\nexalte them or puffe them vp in pride, or that might be occasion, that\nthey shuld forget the curse and malediction of God. And what, I pray\nyou, is more able to cause woman to forget her owne condition, then if\nshe be lifted vp in authoritie aboue man? It is a thingverie difficile\nto a man, (be he neuer so constant) promoted to honors, not to be\ntickled some what with pride (for the winde of vaine glorie doth\neaselie carie vp the drie dust of the earth). But as for woman[40], it\nis no more possible, that she being set aloft in authoritie aboue man,\nshall resist the motions of pride, then it is able to the weake reed,\nor to the turning wethercocke, not to bowe or turne at the vehemencie\nof the vnconstant wind. And therfore the same writer expreslie\nforbiddeth all woman to intremedle with the office of man. For thus he\nwriteth in his book de virginibus velandis[41]: It is not permitted to\na woman, to speake in the congregation, nether to teache, nether to\nbaptise, nether to vendicate to her selfe any office of man. The same\nhe speaketh yet more plainly in the preface of his sixte boke writen\nagainst Marcion[42], where he recounting certain monstruous thinges,\nwhiche were to be sene at the sea called Euxinum, amongest the rest, he\nreciteth this as a greate monstre in nature, that women in those\npartes, were not tamed nor embased by consideration of their own sex\nand kind: but that all shame laide a parte, they made expenses vpon\nweapons and learned the feates of warre, hauinge more pleasure to\nfight, then to mary and be subiect to man. Thus farre of Tertullian,\nwhose wordes be so plain, that they nede no explanation. For he that\ntaketh from her all office apperteining to man, will not suffre her to\nreigne aboue man: and he that iudgeth it a monstre in nature, that a\nwoman shall exercise weapons, must iudge it to be a monstre of\nmonstres, that a woman shalbe exalted aboue a hole realme and nation.\nOf the same minde is Origen, and diuers others. Yea euen till the dayes\nof Augustine, whose sentences I omit to auoide prolixitie.\n\n[36]: A strong argument.\n\n[37]: NOTE.\n\n[38]: Tertullian de habitu mulierum.\n\n[39]: Let women hearken what Tertullian an olde Docto saith.\n\n[40]: NOTE\n\n[41]: Tertull, lib 8. de virginilis verlandis.\n\n[42]: In pro\u00e6mio 6. lib. contra Marcionem.\n\nAugustine in his 22. boke writen against Faustus[43], proueth that a\nwoman oght to serue her husband as vnto God: affirming that in no thing\nhath woman equall power with man, sauing that nether of both haue power\nouer their owne bodies. By whiche he wold plainlie conclude, that a\nwoman oght neuer to pretend nor thirst for that power and authoritie\nwhich is due to man. For so he doth explane him selfe in an other\nplace[44], affirming that woman oght to be repressed and brideled be\ntimes, if she aspire to any dominion: alledging that dangerous and\nperillous it is to suffre her to procede, althogh it be in temporall\nand corporall thinges. And therto he addeth these wordes: God seeth not\nfor a time, nether is there any newe thinge in his sight and knowledge,\nmeaninge therby, that what God hath sene in one woman (as concerning\ndominion and bearing of authoritie) the same he seeth in all. And what\nhe hath forbidden to one, the same he also forbiddeth to all. And this\nmost euidentlie yet in an other place he writeth, mouing this question:\nhowe can woman be the image of God, seing (saith he[45]) she is subiect\nto man, and hath none authoritie, nether to teache, nether to be\nwitnesse, nether to iudge, muche lesse to rule, or beare empire? These\nbe the verie wordes of Augustine, of which it is euident that this\ngodlie writer[46], doth not onelie agree withe Tertullian before\nrecited, but also with the former sentence of the lawe, whiche taketh\nfrome woman not onelie all authoritie amongest men, but also euerie\noffice apperteining to man. To the question howe she can be the image\nof God, he answereth as foloweth. Woman (saith he) compared to other\ncreatures is the image of God, for she beareth dominion ouer them: but\ncompared vnto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she\nbeareth not rule and lordship ouer man, but oght to obey him &c. And\nhowe that woman oght to obey man, he speaketh yet more clearlie in\nthese words: the woman shalbe subiect to man as vnto Christ. For woman\n(saith he[47]) hath not her example frome the bodie and from the\nfleshe, that so she shalbe subiect to man, as the fleshe is vnto the\nspirite. Because that the flesh in the weaknes and mortalitie of this\nlife, lusteth and striueth against the spirit, and therfore wold not\nthe holie ghost geue example of subiection to the woman of any suche\nthing &c. This sentence of Augustine oght to be noted of all women, for\nin it he plainlie affirmeth, that woman oght to be subiect to man, that\nshe neuer oght, more to desire preeminence aboue him, then that she\noght to desire aboue Christe Iesus. With Augustine agreeth in euerie\npoint S. Ambrose, who thus writeth in his Hexaemeron[48]: Adam was\ndeceiued by Heua, and not Heua by Adam, and therfore iust it is, that\nwoman receiue and acknowledge him for gouernor whom she called to\nsinne, lest that again she slide and fall by womanlie facilitie. And\nwriting vpon the epistle to the Ephesians[49], he saith: let women be\nsubiect to their owne husbandes as vnto the Lorde: for the man is heade\nto the woman, and Christ is heade to the congregation, and he is the\nsauiour of the bodie: but the congregation is subiect to Christ, euen\nso oght women to be to their husbandes in all thing-es. He procedeth\nfurther saying: women are commanded to be subiect to men by the lawe of\nnature, because that man is the author or beginner of the woman: for as\nChrist is the head of the churche, so is man of the woman. From Christ,\nthe church toke beginning, and therfore it is subiect vnto him: euen so\ndid woman take beginning from man, that she shuld be subiect. Thus we\nheare the agreing of these two writers to be such, that a man might\niudge the one to haue stolen the wordes and sentences from the other.\nAnd yet plain it is, that duringe the time of their writinge, the one\nwas farre distant frome the other. But the holie ghost, who is the\nspirite of Concorde and vnitie, did so illuminate their hartes, and\ndirecte their tonges, and pennes, that as they did conceiue and\nvnderstand one truth, so did they pronounce and vtter the same, leauing\na testimonie of their knowledge and Concorde to vs their posteritia. If\nany thinke that all these former sentences, be spoken onelie of the\nsubiection of the maryed woman to her husband, as before I haue proued\nthe contrarie, by the plain wordes and reasoning of S. Paule, so shal I\nshortlie do the same, by other testimonies of the forsaid writers. The\nsame Ambrose writing vpon the second chapitre of the first epistle to\nTimothie[50], after he hath spoken much of the simple arrayment of\nwomen: he addeth these wordes: woman oght not onelie to haue simple\narrayment, but all authoritie is to be denied vnto her: for she must be\nin subiection to man (of whome she hath taken her originall) aswell in\nhabit as in seruice. And after a fewe wordes he saith: because that\ndeath did entre in to the world by her, there is no boldenes that oght\nto be permitted vnto her, but she oght to be in humilitie. Hereof it is\nplain, that frome all woman, be she maried or vnmaried, is all\nauthoritie taken to execute any office, that apperteineth to man. Yea\nplain it is that all woman is commanded, to serue, to be in humilitie\nand subiection. Whiche thing yet speaketh the same writer, more\nplainlie in these wordes[51]. It is not permitted to women to speake,\nbut to be in silence, as the lawe saith[52]. What saith the lawe? Vnto\nthy husband, shall thy conuersion be, and he shall beare dominion ouer\nthe. This is a speciall lawe (saith Ambrose) whose sentence, lest it\nshulde be violated, infirmed, or made weake, women are commanded to be\nin silence. Here he includeth all women. And yet he procedeth further\nin the same place saying[53]: It is shame for them to presume to speake\nof the lawe in the house of the Lord, who hath commanded them to be\nsubiect to their men. But moste plainly speaketh he writing vpon the\n16. chapitre of the epistle of S. Paule to the Romaines, vpon these\nwordes[54a]: Salute Rufus and his mother. For this cause (saith\nAmbrose) did the apostle place Rufus before his mother, for the\nelection of the administration of the grace of God, in the whiche a\nwoman hath no place. For he was chosen and promoted by the Lorde, to\ntake care ouer his busines, that is, ouer the churche, to the whiche\noffice could not his mother be appointed, albeit she was a woman so,\nholie, that the apostle called her his mother. Hereof it is plaine that\nthe administration of the grace of God, is denied to all woman. By the\nadministration of Goddes grace, is vnderstand not onely the preaching\nof the worde and administration of the sacramentes, by the whiche the\ngrace of God is presented and ordinarilie distributed vnto man, but\nalso the administration of ciuile iustice, by the whiche, vertue oght\nto be mainteined, and vices punished. The execution wherof is no lesse\ndenied to woman, then is the preaching of the Euangile, or\nadministration of the sacramentes, as herafter shall most plainlie\nappeare.\n\n[43]: August. lib. 22. contra Faustum, c.31.\n\n[44]: De Trinitat, lib. 12 cap. 7\n\n[45]: In quaect. veteris Testamenti, quaest. 45.\n\n[46]: NOTE.\n\n[47]: Lib. de Continentia cap. 4.\n\n[48]: Ambros. in Hexaemero lib. 5. c. 7.\n\n[49]: Cap. 5.\n\n[50]: Ambros. super. 2. c. I epist. ad Timoth.\n\n[51]: Ambros. in I. epist. ad Corin. cap. 14.\n\n[52]: Genes 3.\n\n[53]: whose house I pray you ought the parliament house to be, Goddes\nor the deuilles?\n\n[54a]: Rufus is by S. Paul saluted before his mother.\n\nChrysostome amongest the Grecian writers of no small credit, speaking\nin rebuke of men, who in his dayes, were becdmen inferior to some women\nin witt and in godlines, saith[54]: for this cause was woman put vnder\nthy power (he speaketh to man in generall) and thou wast pronounced\nLorde ouer her, that she shulde obey the, and that the head shuld not\nfolowe the feet. But often it is, that we see the contrary, that he who\nin his ordre oght to be the head, doth not kepe the ordre of the feet\n(that is, doth not rule the feet) and that she, that is in place of the\nfoote, is constitute to be the head. He speaketh these wordes as it\nwere in admiration[55], that man was becomen so brutish, that he did\nnot consider it to be a thing most monstruouse, that woman shulde be\npreferred to man in any thing, whom God had subiected to man in all\nthinges. He procedeth saying: Neuer the lesse it is the parte of the\nman, with diligent care to repel the woman, that geueth him wicked\ncounsel: and woman, whiche gaue that pestilent counsel to man, oght at\nall times to haue the punishment, whiche was geuen to Heua, sounding in\nher eares. And in an other place he induceth God speaking to the woman\nin this sorte[56]: Because thou left him, of whose nature thou wast\nparticipant, and for whome thou wast formed, and hast had pleasure to\nhaue familiaritie with that wicked beast, and wold take his counsel:\ntherfore I subiect the to man, and I apointe and affirme him to be thy\nLorde, that thou maist acknowledge his dominion, and because thou\ncouldest not beare rule learne well to be ruled. Why they shulde not\nbeare rule, he declareth, in other places, saying[57]: womankinde is\nimprudent and soft, (or flexible) imprudent because she can not\nconsider withe wisdome and reason the thinges which she heareth and\nseeth: and softe she is, because she is easelie bowed. I knowe that\nChrysostome bringeth in these wordes[58] to declare the cause why false\nprophetes do commonlie deceiue women: because they are easelie\npersuaded to any opinion, especiallie if it be against God, and because\nthey lacke prudence and right reason to iudge the thinges that be,\nspoken. But hereof may their nature be espied, and the vices of the\nsame, whiche in no wise oght to be in, those, that are apointed to\ngouerne others: For they oght to be constant, stable, prudent and doing\neuerie thing with discretion and reason, whiche vertues women can not\nhaue in equalitie with men. For that he doth witnesse in an other\nplace, saying: women haue in them selues a tickling and studhe of vaine\nglorie, and that they may haue common with men: they are sodeinlie\nmoued to anger, and that they haue also common with some men. But\nvertues. in which they excell[59], they haue not common with man, and\ntherfore hath the apostle remoued them from the office of teachinge,\nwhich is an euident proof that in vertue they farre differ frome man.\nLet the reasons of this writer be marked, for further he yet procedeth:\nafter that he hath in many wordes lamented the effeminate maners of\nmen, who were so farre degenerate to the weaknes of women, that some\nmight haue demanded: why may not women teache amongest suche a sorte of\nmen, who in wisdome and godlines are becomen inferior vnto women? We\nfinallie concludeth: that not withstanding that men be degenerate, yet\nmay not women vsurpe any authoritie aboue them, and in the end, he\naddeth these wordes: These thinges do not I speake to extolle them\n(that is women) but to the confusion and shame of our selues, and to\nadmonish vs to take again the dominion, that is mete and conuenient for\nvs, not onelie that power which is according to the excellencie of\ndignitie: but that which is accordinge to prouidence, and according to\nhelpe, and vertue. For then is the bodie in best proportion[60], when\nit hath the best gouernor. O that both man and woman shulde consider\nthe profound counsel and admonition of this father! He wolde not that\nman for appetit of any vaine glorie shuld desire preeminence aboue\nwoman. For God hath not made man to be heade for any suche cause: but\nhauing respecte to that weaknes and imperfection which alwayes letteth\nwoman to gouerne. He hath ordeined man to be superior, and that meaneth\nChrysostome, saying: then is the bodie in best proportion, when it hath\nthe best gouernor. But woman can neuer be the best gouernor, by reason\nthat she-being spoiled of the spirit of regiment, can neuer attein to\nthat degree, to be called or iudged a good gouernor. Because in the\nnature of all woman, lurketh suche vices, as in good gouernors are not\ntolerable. Which the same writes expresseth. in these wordes[61]:\nwomankind (saith he) is rashe and foolhardie, and their couetousnes is\nlike the goulf of hell, that is, insaciable. And therfore in an other\nplace[62], he will that woman shall haue no thing to do in iudgement,\nin common affaires, or in the regiment of the common welth, because she\nis impacient of troubles, but that she shall liue in tranquillitie; and\nquietnes. And if she haue occasion to go frome the house, that yet she\nshal haue no matter of trouble, nether to, folowe her, nether to be\noffered vnto her, as commonlie there must be to such as beare\nauthoritie: And with Chrysostome fullie agreeth Basilius Magnus in a\nsermon[63] which he maketh vpon some places of scripture, wherin he\nreproueth diuers vices and amongest the rest, he affirmeth woman to be\na tendre creature, flexible, soft and pitifull: whiche nature, God hath\ngeuen vnto her, that she may be apt to norishe children. The which\nfacilitie of the woman, did Satan abuse, and therby broght her frome\nthe obedience of God. And therfore in diuers other places doth he\nconclude, that she is not apt to beare rule, and that she is forbidden\nto teache. Innumerable mo testimonies, of all sortes of writers may be\nadduced for the same purpose, but withe these I stand content: iudgeing\nit sufficient to stoppe the mouthe of such as accuse and condemne all\ndoctrine, as hereticall, which displeaseth them in any point that I\nhaue proued, by the determinations and lawes of men illuminated onelie\nby the light of nature, by the ordre of Goddes creation, by the curse\nand malediction pronounced against woman, by the mouth of saint Paule,\nwho is the interpreter of Goddes sentence, and lawe, and finallie by\nthe mindes of those writers, who in the church of God, haue bene\nalwayes holden in greatest reuerence: that it is a thing moste\nrepugnant to nature, to Goddes will and apointed ordinance, (yea that\nit can not be without contumelie committed against God) that a woman\nshuld be promoted to dominion or empire to reigne ouer man, be it in\nrealme, nation, prouince or citie. Now resteth it in few wordes, to be\nshewed, that the same empire of women is the subuersion of good ordre\nequitie and iustice.\n\n[54]: Chrysost. homil. 17. in genes.\n\n[55]: NOTE\n\n[56]: Homil. 15 in Genes.\n\n[57]: God graunt all womens hartes to understand and folow this\nsentence.\n\n[58]: In Mat. cap. 23. homil. 44.\n\n[59]: woman can no haue vertue in equalitie with man. Ad Ephe. cap. 4.\nsermone 13. NOTE\n\n[60]: The body lackinge the head, can not be well gouerened nether can\ncommon welth lackinge man.\n\n[61]: In ca. 22. Ioh. homil. 87.\n\n[62]: In Ioh. homil. 41.\n\n[63]: Basilius Mag. in aliquot scripturae locos.\n\nAugustine defineth[64] ordre to be that thing, by the whiche God hath\nappointed and ordeined all thinges. Note well reader, that Augustine\nwill admit no ordre, where Goddes apointment is absent and lacketh.\n\n[64]: De ordine lib. I C. 10\n\nAnd in an other place he saith[65], that ordre is a disposition, geuing\ntheir owne propre places to thinges that be vnequall, which he termeth\nin Latin _Parium_ et _disparium_, that is, of thinges equall or like,\nand thinges vnequall or vnlike. Of whiche two places and of the hole\ndisputation, which is conteined in his second boke de _ordine_, it is\neuident[66], that what soeuer is done ether whithout the assurance of\nGoddes will, or elles against his will manifestlie reueled in his word,\nis done against ordre. But suche is the empire and regiment of all\nwoman (as euidentlie before is declared) and therfore, I say; it is a\nthing plainlie repugnant to good ordre, yea it is the subuersion of the\nsame. If any list to reiect the definition of Augustin, as ether not\npropre to this purpose, or elles as insufficient to proue mine intent:\nlet the same man vnderstand, that in so doinge, he hath infirmed mine\nargument nothinge. For as I depend not vpon the determinations of men,\nso think I my cause no weaker, albeit their authoritie be denied vnto\nme. Prouided that god by his will reueled, and manifest worde, stand\nplain and euident on my side. That God hath subiected womankinde to man\nby the ordre of his creation, and by the curse that he hath pronounced\nagainst her is before declared. Besides these, he hath set before our\neyes, two other mirrors[67] and glasses, in whiche he will, that we\nshulde behold the ordre, which he hath apointed and established in\nnature: the one is, the naturall bodie of man: the other is the politik\nor ciuile body of that common welth, in which God by his own word hath\napointed an ordre. In the natural body of man God hath apointed an\nordre, that the head shail occupie the vppermost place. And the head\nhath he ioyned with the bodie, that frome it, doth life and motion\nflowe to the rest of the membres. In it hath he placed the eye to see,\nthe eare to hear, and the tonge to speake, which offices are apointed\nto none other membre of the bodie. The rest of the membres, haue euery\none their own place and office apointed: but none may haue nether the\nplace nor office of the heade. For who wolde not iudge that bodie to be\na monstre, where there was no head eminent aboue the rest, but that the\neyes were in the handes, the tonge and mouth beneth in the belie, and\nthe eares in the feet. Men, I say, shulde not onlie pronounce this\nbodie to be a monstre: but assuredlie they might conclude that such a\nbodie coulde not long indure. And no lesse monstruous is the bodie of\nthat common welth[68], where a woman beareth empire. For ether doth it\nlack a laufull heade (as in very dede it doth) or els there is an\nidol[69] exalted in the place of the true head. An idol I call that,\nwhich hath the forme and apparance, but lacketh the vertue and\nstrength, which the name and proportion do resemble and promise. As\nimages haue face, nose, eyes, mouth, handes and feet painted, but the\nvse of the same, can not the craft and art of man geue them: as the\nholy ghost by the mouth of Dauid teacheth vs, saying[70]: they haue\neyes, but they see not, mouth, but they speake not, nose, but they\nsmell not, handes and feet, but they nether touche nor haue power to\ngo. And suche, I say, is euerie realme and nation, where a woman\nbeareth dominion. For in despite of God (he of his iust iudgement, so\ngeuing them ouer in to a reprobat minde) may a realme, I confesse,\nexalt vp a woman to that monstriferous honor, to be estemed as\nhead[71]. But impossible it is to man and angel, to geue vnto her the\nproperties and perfect offices of a laufull heade. For the same God\nthat hath denied power to the hand to speake, to the bely to heare, and\nto the feet to see, hath denied to woman power to commande man, and\nhath taken away wisdome to consider, and prouidence to forsee the\nthinges, that, be profitable to the common welth: yea finallie he hath\ndenied to her in any case to be head to man: but plainly hath\npronounced that man is head to woman, euen as Christ is heade to all\nman[72]. If men in a blinde rage shulde assemble to gether, and apointe\nthem selues an other heade then Iesus Christ (as the papistes haue done\ntheir romishe Antichrist) shuld Christ therfore lose his owne dignitie,\nor shulde God geue that counterfet head power to geue life to the\nbodie, to see what soeuer might endamage or hurte it, to speake in\ndefense, and to heare the request of euerie subiect? It is certein that\nhe wold not. For that honor he hath apointed before all times to his\nonelie sonne: and the same will he geue to no creature besides: no more\nwill he admit, nor accept woman to be the lauful head ouer man[73],\nalthogh man, deuil, and angel will coniure in their fauor. For seing he\nhath subiected her to one (as before is saide) he will neuer permit her\nto reigne ouer manie. Seing he hath commanded her to heare, and obey\none, he will not suffre that she speake, and with vsurped authoritie\ncommand realmes and nations. Chrysostome explaning these wordes of the\napostle[74]: (the heade of woman is man) compareth God in his\nvniuersall regiment to a king sitting in his royall maiestie[75], to\nwhome all his subiectes commanded to geue homage and obedience, appeare\nbefore him, bearing euerie one suche a badge and cognisance of dignitie\nand honor, as he hath geuen to them: which if they despise and\ncontemne, then do they dishonor their king, Euen so saith he oght man\nand woman to appeare before God, bearing the ensignes of the condition,\nwhiche they haue receiued of him. Man hath receiued a certein glorie\nand dignitie aboue the, woman, and therfore oght he to appeare before\nhis high maiestie, bearing the signe of his honor, hauinge no couerture\nvpon his heade: to witnesse that in earth man hath no head, (beware\nChrysostome what thou saist, thou shalt be reputed a traytor if\nEnglishe men heare the[76]: for they must haue my souereine lady and\nmaistresse, and Scotland hath dronken also the enchantment and venom of\nCirces, let it be so to their owne shame and confusion, he procedeth in\nthese wordes) but woman oght to be couered, to witnesse, that in earth\nshe hath a head, that is man. Trewe it is (Chrysostome) woman is\ncouered in both the said realmes[77], but it is not with the signe of\nsubiection, but it is with the signe of superioritie, to witt, with the\nroyal crowne. To that he answereth in these wordes: what if man neglect\nhis honor? he his no lesse to be mocked (saith Chrysostome) then if a\nking shulde depose himself of his diademe or crowne and royal estat,\nand cloth him self in the habit of a sclaue. What, I pray you, shulde\nthis godlie father haue saide, if he had sene all the men of a realme\nor nation fall downe before a woman? If he had sene the crowne,\nsceptre, and sworde, whiche are ensignes of the royall dignitie, geuen\nto her, and a woman cursed of God, and made subiecte to man, placed in\nthe throne of iustice, to sit as Goddes lieutenant? What, I say, in\nthis behalfe, shuld any hart vnfeinedlie fearing, God haue iudged of\nsuche men? I am assured that not onlie shulde they haue bene iudged\nfoolishe but also enraged, and sclaues to Satan, manifestlie fighting\nagainst God and his apointed ordre. The more that I consider the\nsubuersion of Goddes ordre, which he hath placed generallie in all\nliuinge thinges, the more I do wondre at the blindnes of man, who doth\nnot consider him self in this case so degenerate, that the brute\nbeastes are to be preferred vnto him in this behalfe[78]. For nature\nhath in all beastes printed a certein marke of dominion in the male,\nand a certeine subiection in the female, whiclie they kepe inuiolate.\nFor no man euer sawe the lion make obedience, and stoupe before the\nlionesse, nether yet can it be proued, that the hinde taketh the\nconducting of the heard amongest the hartes. And yet (alas) man, who by\nthe mouth of God hath dominion apointed to him ouer woman, doth not\nonlie to his own shame, stoupe vnder the obedience of women, but also\nin despit of God and of his apointed ordre, reioyseth, and mainteineth\nthat monstruouse authoritie, as a thing lauful and iust, The insolent\nioy[79], the bonefiers, and banketing which were in london and els\nwhere in England, when that cursed Iesabell was proclaimed qwene, did\nwitnesse to my hart, that men were becomen more then enraged. For els\nhowe coulde they so haue reioysed at their owne confusion and certein\ndestruction? For what man was there of so base iudgement (supposing\nthat he had any light of God) who did not see the erecting of that\nmonstre, to be the ouerthrowe of true religion, and the assured\ndestruction of England, and of the auncient liberties therof? And yet\nneuer the lesse, all men so triumphed, as if God had deliuered them\nfrome all calamitie.\n\n[65]: De ciuit. Dei, lib. 19 cap. 13.\n\n[66]: what soener done withowt the appointment of Goddes will is done\nwithowt ordre.\n\n[67]: Two mirrors, in which we may beholde the ordre of nature.\n\n[68]: Common welthes under the rule of women, lacke a laufull heade\n\n[69]: Idol.\n\n[70]: Psal. 115.\n\n[71]: The empire of a woman is an idol.\n\n[72]: I. COY. II\n\n[73]: NOTE.\n\n[74]: I. COY. II.\n\n[75]: Marke the similitude of Chrysostome.\n\n[76]: NOTE.\n\n[77]: Howe women be couered in England and Scotland.\n\n[78]: Brute beastes to be preferred.\n\n[79]: Insoluent ioy bringeth sodein sorowe.\n\nBut iust and rightuouse, terrible and fearfull are thy iudgements, o\nLorde! For as some times thou diddest so punishe men for\nvnthankfulnes[80], that man ashamed not to commit villanie withe man;\nand that because, that knowinge the to be God, they glorified the not\nas God, euen so haste thou moste iustlie nowe punished the proude\nrebellion and horrible ingratitude of the realmes of England and\nScotland. For when thou diddest offre thy selfe moste mercifullie to\nthem both, offering the meanes by the whiche they might haue bene\nioyned to gether for euer in godly Concorde: then was the one proude\nand cruel, and the other vnconstant, and fikle of promise. But yet\n(alas) did miserable England further rebell against the. For albeit\nthou diddest not cease to heape benefit vpon benefit, during the reigne\nof an innocent and tendre king, yet no man did acknowledge thy potent\nhand and meruelouse working. The stoute courage of capitaines, the\nwitte and policie of counselors, the learning of bishoppes[81], did\nrobbe the of thy glorie and honor. For what then was heard, as\nconcerning religion, but the kinges procedinges, the kinges procedinges\nmust be obeyed? It is enacted by parliament: therefore it is treason to\nspeake in the contrarie. But this was not the end of this miserable\ntragedie. For thou diddest yet precede to offre thy fauors, sending thy\nprophetes and messagers, to call for reformation of life in all\nestates[82]: For euen frome the highest to the lowest, all were\ndeclined frome the (yea euen those that shuld haue bene the lanterns to\nothers) some I am assured did qwake and tremble, and frome the botome\nof their hartes thirsted amendment, and for the same purpose did\nearnestly call for discipline. But then brust forth the venome which\nbefore lurked; then might they not conteine their despiteful voices,\nbut with open mouthes did crie: we will not haue suche a one to reigne\nouer vs. Then, I say, was euerie man so stoute, that he wolde not be\nbroght in bondage[83]: no not to the, O Lord, but with disdein did the\nmultitude cast frome them the amiable yoke of Christ Iesus. No man\nwolde suffre his sinne to be rebuked, no man wolde haue his life called\nto triall. And thus did they refuse the, O Lorde, and thy sonne Christ\nIesus to be their pastor, protector and prince. And therfore hast thou\ngeuen them ouer in to a reprobat minde. Thou hast taken from them the\nspirit of boldnes, of wisdome and of rightuous iudgement. They see\ntheir owne destruction, and yet they haue no grace to auoide it. Yea\nthey are becomen so blinde, that knowing the pit, they headlong cast\nthem selues into the same[84]; as the nobilitie of England, do this\nday, fighting in the defense of their mortall ennemie the Spaniard.\nFinallie they are so destitute of vnderstanding and iudgement, that\nalthogh they knowe that there is a libertie and fredome, the whiche\ntheir predecessors haue inioyed; yet are they compelled to bowe their\nneckes vnder the yoke of Satan, and of his proude ministres, pestilent\npapistes and proude spaniardes. And yet can they not consider that\nwhere a woman reigneth and papistes beare authoritie, that there must\nnedes Satan be president of the counsel. Thus hast thou, O Lorde, in\nthy hote displeasure reuenged the contempt of thy graces offred. But, O\nLord, if thou shalt reteine wrath to the end, what Aeshe is able to\nsusteine? We haue sinned[85], O Lord, and are not worthy to be releued.\nBut worthy art thou, O Lord, to be a true God, and worthy is thy sonne\nChrist Iesus, to haue his Euangil and glorie aduanced: whiche both are\ntroden vnder foot in this cruell murther and persecution, whiche the\nbuilders of Babylon commit in their furie, haue raised against thy\nchildren, for the establishing of their kingdome. Let the sobbes\ntherfore of thy prisoners, O Lord, passe vp to thine eares, consider\ntheir affliction: and let the eyes of thy mercie looke downe vpon the\nblood of such as die for testimonie of thy eternal veritie: and let not\nthine ennemies mocke thy iudgement for euer. To the, O Lorde, I turne\nmy wretched and wicked hart: to the alone, I direct my complaint and\ngrones: for in that Ile to thy saintes there is left no comfort. Albeit\nI haue thus (talkinge with my God in the anguishe of my harte) some\nwhat digressed: yet haue I not vtterlie forgotten my former\nproposition, to witt, that it is a thing repugnant to the ordre of\nnature, that any woman be exalted to rule ouer men. For God hath denied\nvnto her the office of a heade. And in the intreating of this parte, I\nremembre that I haue made the nobilitie both of England and Scotland\ninferior to brute beastes, for that they do to women, which no male\namongest the common sorte of beastes can be proued to do their females:\nthat is, they reuerence them, and qwake at their presence, they obey\ntheir commandementes, and that against God. Wherfore I iudge them not\nonelie subiectes to women, but sclaues of Satan, and seruantes of\niniquitie. If any man thinke these my wordes sharpe or vehement, let\nhim consider that the offense is more haynous, than can be expressed by\nwordes. For where all thinges, be expressedly concluded against the\nglorie and honor of God, and where the blood of the saintes of God is\ncommanded to be shed, whome shall we iudge, God or the deuil, to be\npresident of that counsel?[86] Plain it is, that God ruleth not by his\nloue, mercie, nor grace in the assembly of the vngocllie. Then it\nresteth, that the deuii, the prince of this worlde, doth reigne ouer\nsuche tyrannes. whose seruantes, I pray you, shal then be iudged, such\nas obey, and execute, their tyrannie? God for his great mercies sake,\nilluminate the eyes of men, that they may perceiue in to what miserable\nbondage they be broght, by the monstriferous empire of women.\n\n[80]: Rom. I.\n\n[81]: what robbed God OF HIS HONOR in England in the time of the\nGospell.\n\n[82]: Goddes benefites shewed to England.\n\n[83]: Discipline refused in England.\n\n[84]: The nobilitie and the hole realme of England, caste themselues\nwillingly in to the pit.\n\n[85]: Confession.\n\n[86]: NOTE\n\nThe seconde glasse, whiche God hath set before the eyes of man[87],\nwherein he may beholde the ordre, whiche pleaseth his wisdome,\nconcerning authoritie and dominion, is that common welth, to the whiche\nit pleaseth his maiestie to apoint, and geue lawes, statutes, rites and\nceremonies not onelie concerninge religion, but also touching their\npolicie and regiment of the same. And against that ordre it doth\nmanifestly repugne, that any woman shall occupie the throne of God,\nthat is, the royall seate, whiche he by his worde hath apointed to man.\nAs in geuing the lawe to Israel, concerning the election of a king, is\neuident. For thus it is writen[88]: If thou shalt say, I will apoint a\nking aboue me, as the rest of the nations, whiche are aboute me: Thou\nshalt make the a kinge, whome the Lorde thy God shall chose, one frome\namongest the middest of thy bretheren, thou shalt apointe kinge aboue\nthe. Thou maist not make a strangier that is not thy brother. Here\nexpressedly is a man apointed to be chosen king, and a man natiue\namongest them selues, by whiche precept is all woman and all strangier\nsecluded. What may be obiected for the parte or election of a\nstrangier, shalbe, God willinge, answered in the blast of the second\ntrumpet. For this present, I say, that the erecting of a woman to that\nhonor, is not onely to inuert the ordre, which God hath established:\nbut also it is to defile, pollute and prophane (so farre as in man\nlieth) the throne and seat of God, whiche he hath sanctified and\napointed for man onely[89], in the course of this wretched life, to\noccupie and possesse as his ministre and lieutenant: secluding from the\nsame all woman, as before is expressed. If anythinke the fore writen\nlawe did bindethe Iewes onelie[90], let the same man consider, that the\nelection of a kinge, and apointing of iudges, did nether apperteine to\nthe ceremoniall lawe, nether yet was it mere iudiciall[91]: but that it\ndid flowe frome the morall lawe, as an ordinance, hauing respect to the\nconseruation of both the tables. For the office of the magistrate oght\nto haue the first and chief respect to the glorie of God, commanded and\nconteined in the former table, as is euident by that, whiche was\ninioyned to Iosue by God, what time he was accepted and admitted ruler\nand gouerner ouer his people, in these wordes[92]: Thou shalt diuide\nthe inheritance to this people, the whiche I haue sworne to their\nfathers, to geue vnto them: so that thou be valiant and strong, that\nthou maist kepe and do, according to that hole lawe, whiche my seruant\nMoses hath commanded the. Thou shalt not decline frome it, nether to\nthe right hande, nether to the left hand, that thou maist do prudentlie\nin all thinges, that thou takest in hand, let not the boke of this lawe\ndeparte from thy mouth, but meditate in it, day and night: that thou\nmaist kepe and do, according to euery thing, that is writen in it. For\nthen shall thy wayes prosper, and then shalt thou do prudently &c. And\nthe same precept geueth God by the mouth of Moses[93], to kinges, after\nthey be elected, in these wordes[94]: when he shal sit in the throne or\nseate of his kingdome, he shall write to him self a copie of this lawe\nin a boke, and that shalbe with him, that he may reade in it all the\ndayes of his life, that he may learne to feare the Lorde his God, and\nto kepe all the wordes of this lawe, and all these statutes, that he\nmay do them &c. Of these two places it is euident, that principallie it\napperteineth to the king or to the chief magistrate, to knowe the will\nof God, to be instructed in his lawe and statutes, and to promote his\nglorie with his hole hart and studie, which be the chief pointes of the\nfirst table. No man denieth, but that the sworde is committed to the\nmagistrate, to the end that he shulde punishe vice, and mainteine\nvertue. To punishe vice I say, not onelie that, whiche troubleth the\ntranquillitie and quiet estat of the common welth by adulterie, theft\nor murther committed[95], but also suche vices as openly impugne the\nglorie of God: as idolatrie, blasphemie, and manifest heresie, taught\nand obstinatly mainteined: as the histories and notable actes of\nEzechias, Iosaphat, and Iosias do plainlie teache vs. Whose study and\ncare was not onlie to glorifie God in their own life and conuersation,\nbut also they vnfeinedlie did trauel to bring subiectes to the true\nworshipping and honoring of God. And did destroye all monumentes of\nidolatrie, did punishe to deathe the teachers of it, and remoued frome\noffice and honors suche, as were mainteiners of those abominations.\nWherbie I suppose that it be euident, that the office of the king or\nsupreme magistrate, hath respect to the lawe morall, and to the\nconseruation of both the tables.\n\n[87]: NOTE.\n\n[88]: Deut. 17.\n\n[89]: God hath apointed man his ministre and lieutenant.\n\n[90]: Answer to an objection.\n\n[91]: The election of a king floweth frome the moral lawe.\n\n[92]: Iosue I.\n\n[93]: Rulers should take hede to this.\n\n[94]: Deut. 17\n\n[95]: what vices magistrates oght to punishe.\n\nNowe if the lawe morall, be the constant and vnchangeable will of God,\nto the which the gentil is no lesse bounde, then was the Iewe[96]; and\nif God will that amongest the gentiles, the ministres and executors of\nhis lawe be nowe apointed, as somtimes they were apointed amongest the\nIewes: further if the execution of iustice be no lesse requisite in the\npolicie of the gentiles, then euer it was amongest the Iewes: what man\ncan be foolishe to suppose or beleue, that God will nowe admit those\npersons, to sit in iudgement or to reigne ouer men in the common welth\nof the gentiles, whom he by his expressed word and ordinance, did\nbefore debarre and seclude from the same? And that women were secluded\nfrom the royall seate, the which oght to be the sanctuarie to all poore\nafflicted, and therfore is iustlie called the seat of god (besides the\nplace before recited of the election of a king, and besides the places\nof the newe testament, whiche be moste euident) the ordre and election\nwhich was kept in Iuda and Israel, doth manifestlie declare. For when\nthe males of the kinglie stocke failed[97], as oft as it chaunced in\nIsrael and sometimes in Iuda, it neuer entered in to the hartes of the\npeople to chose and promote to honors any of the kinges doughters, (had\nhe neuer so many) but knowing Goddes vengeance to be poured furth vpon\nthe father by the away taking of his sonnes, they had no further\nrespect to his stocke, but elected suche one man or other, as they\niudged most apt for that honor and authoritie. Of whiche premisses, I\nconclude (as before) that to promote a woman heade ouer men, is\nrepugnant to nature, and a thinge moste contrarious to that ordre,\nwhiche God hath approued in that common welth, whiche he did institute\nand rule by his worde. But nowe to the last point, to wit, that the\nempire of a woman is a thing repugnant to iustice, and the destruction\nof euerie common welth, where it is receiued. In probation whereof,\nbecause the mater is more then euident, I will vse fewe wordes. First,\nI say, if iustice be a constant and perpetuall will to geue to euerie\nperson, their own right (as the moste learned in all ages haue defined\nit to be) then to geue, or to will to geue to any person, that whiche\nis not their right, must repugne to iustice. But to reigne aboue man,\ncan neuer be the right to woman[98]: because it is a thinge denied vnto\nher by God, as is before declared. Therfore to promote her to that\nestat or dignitie, can be no thing els but repugnancie to iustice. If I\nshulde speake no more, this were sufficient. For except that ether they\ncan improue the definition of iustice, or els that they can intreate\nGod to reuoke and call backe his sentence pronounced against woman,\nthey shalbe compelled to admit my conclusion. If any finde faute with\niustice, as it is defined, he may well accuse others, but me he shall\nnot hurt. For I haue the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of him,\nwho assuredlie will defend this quarel, and he commandeth me to crie:\n\n[96]: NOTE. The gentil no lesse bounde to the lawe moral then the Jewe.\n\n[97]: NOTE.\n\n[98]: The first argument that the authoritie of women repungeth to\niustice.\n\nWhat soeuer repugneth to the will of god expressed in his most sacred\nworde, repugneth to iustice[99]: but that women haue authoritie ouer\nmen repugneth to the will of God expressed in his worde: and therfore\nmine author commandeth me to conclude without feare, that all suche\nauthoritie repugneth to iustice. The first parte of the argument I\ntrust dare nether Iewe nor gentile denie: for it is a principle not\nonelie vniuersallie confessed, but also so depelie printed in the hart\nof man, be his nature neuer so corrupted, that whether he will or no,\nhe is compelled at one time or other, to acknowledge and confesse[100],\nthat justice is violated, when thinges are done against the will of\nGod, expressed by his worde. And to this confession are no lesse the\nreprobate coacted and constrained, then be the chosen children of god,\nalbeit to a diuers end. The elect with displeasure of their facte,\nconfesse their offense, hauing accesse to grace and mercie, as did\nAdam, Dauid, Peter, and all other penitent offenders. But the\nreprobat[101], not withstanding they are compelled to acknowledge the\nwill of God to be iust the which they haue offended, yet are they neuer\ninwardlie displeased, with their iniquitie, but rage, complain and\nstorme against God, whose vengeance they can not escape[102]: as did\nCain, Iudas, Herode, Iulian called apostata, Yea Iesabel; and Athalia.\nFor Cain no doubte was conuict in conscience, that he had done against\niustice in murthering of his brother. Iudas did openlie, before the\nhigh priest confesse that he had sinned, in betraying innocent blood.\nHerode being stricken by the angel, did mocke those his flaterers,\nsaying vnto them: beholde your God (meaning of him selfe) can not nowe\npreserue him self frome corruption and wormes. Iulianus was compelled\nin the end to crie, O galilean (so alwayes in contempt did he name our\nsauiour Iesus Christ) thou hast nowe ouercomen. And who doubteth but\nIesabel, and Athalia, before their miserable end, were conuicted in\ntheir cankered consciences, to acknowledge that the murther, which they\nhad committed, and the empire whiche the one had six yeares usurped,\nwere repugnant to iustice: Euen so shall they I doubt not, whiche this\ndaye do possesse and mainteine that monstriferous authoritie of\nwomen[103], shortlie be compelled to acknowledge, that their studies\nand deuises, haue bene bent against God: and that all such as women\nhaue usurped, repugneth to iustice, because, as I haue saide, it\nrepugneth to the will of God expressed in his sacred worde. And if any\nman doubte herof, let him marke wel the wordes of the apostle,\nsaying[104]: I permit not a woman to teache, nether yet to vsurpe\nauthoritie aboue man. No man I trust will denie these wordes of the\napostle, to be the wil of God expressed in his worde: and he saith\nopenlie, I permit not &c. Which is asmuch as, I will not, that a woman\nhaue authority, charge or power ouer man, for so much importeth the\ngreke word [Greeek: anthentnin] in that place. Nowe let man and angell\nconspire against God, let them pronounce their lawes, and say, we will\nsuffre women to beare authoritie, who then can depose them? yet shall\nthis one worde of the eternal God spoken by the mouth of a weake man,\nthruste them euerie one in to hell. Iesabel may for a time slepe\nquietlie in the bed of her fornication and hoordome, she may teache and\ndeceiue for a season[105]: but nether shall she preserue her selfe,\nnether yet her adulterous children frome greate affliction, and frome\nthe sworde of Goddes vengeance, whiche shall shortlie apprehend suche\nworkes of iniquitie. The admonition I differe to the end.\n\n[99]: The second argument.\n\n[100]: Nature doth confesse that repugnancie to Goddes will is\niniustice.\n\n[101]: the reprobat confesse Goddes will iust.\n\n[102]: Genes. 4. Mat. 27.\n\n[103]: womans authoritie bringeth forth monstres.\n\n[104]: Tim. 2.\n\n[105]: Apoca. 2.\n\nHere might I bring in the oppression and iniustice, which is committed\nagainst realmes and nations, whiche some times liued free, and now are\nbroght in bondage of forein nations, by the reason of this\nmonstriferous authoritie and empire of women. But that I delay till\nbetter oportunitie. And now I think it expedient to answer such\nobiections, as carnal and worldlie men, yea men ignorant of God, vse to\nmake for maintenance of this tyrannic (authoritie it is not worthie to\nbe called) and most vniuste empire of woman.\n\nFirst they do obiect the examples of Debora[106], and of Hulda the\nprophetesse, of whom the one iudged Israel, and the other, by all\napparance, did teache and exhorte.\n\n[106]: Iudic.4 Parn.3. The defenses of the aduersaries\n\nSecondarily they do obiect the lawe[107] made by Moses for the\ndoughters of zalphead. Thirdlie the consent of the estates of such\nrealmes as haue approued the empire and regiment of women. And last the\nlongcustome, which hath receiued the regiment of women. Their valiant\nactes and prospesitie, together with some papistical lawes, which haue\nconfirmed the same.\n\n[107]: Num. 27\n\nTo the first, I answer, that particular examples do establishe no\ncommon lawe[108]. The causes were knowen to God alon, why he toke the\nspirite of wisdome and force frome all men of those ages, and did so\nmightely assist women against nature, and against his ordinarie course:\nthat the one he made a deliuerer to his afflicted people Israel: and to\nthe other he gaue not onlie perseuerance in the true religion, when the\nmoste parte of men had declined from the same, but also to her he gaue\nthe spirit of prophecie, to assure king Iosias of the thinges which\nwere to come. With these women, I say, did God worke potentlie, and\nmiraculouslie, yea to them he gaue moste singular grace and priuiledge.\nBut who hath commanded, that a publike, yea a tyrannicall and moste\nwicked lawe be established vpon these examples? The men that obiect the\nsame, are not altogether ignorant, that examples haue no strength, when\nthe question is of lawe[109]. As if I shuld aske, what mariage is\nlaufull? and it shulde be answered that laufull it is to man, not\nonelie to haue manie wiues at ones, but also it is laufull to marie two\nsisters, and to enioye them both liuing at ones, because that Dauid,\nIacob, and Salomon, seruantes of God did the same. I trust that no man\nwold iustifie the vanitie of this reason. Or if the question were\ndemanded, if a Christian, with good conscience may defraude, steale or\ndeceiue: and answer were made that so he might by the example of the\nIsraelites, who at Goddes commandement, deceiued the Egyptians, and\nspoiled them of their garmentes, golde and syluer. I thinke likewise\nthis reason shuld be mocked. And what greater force, I pray you, hath\nthe former argument? Debora did rule in Israel, and Hulda spoke\nprophecie in Iuda: Ergo it is laufull for women to reigne aboue realmes\nand nations, or to teache in the presence of men[110]. The consequent\nis vain and of none effect. For of examples, as is before declared, we\nmay establishe no lawe, but we are alwayes bounde to the lawe writen,\nand to the commandement expressed in the same. And the lawe writen and\npronounced by God, forbiddeth no lesse that any woman reigne ouer man,\nthen it forbiddeth man to take pluralitie of wiues, to mary two sisters\nliuing at ons, to steale, to robbe, to murther or to lie. If any of\nthese hath bene transgressed, and yet God hath not imputed the same: it\nmaketh not the like fact or dede lawfull vnto vs. For God being free,\nmay for suche causes as be approued by his inscrutable wisdome,\ndispense with the rigor of his lawe, and may vse his creatures at his\npleasure. But the same power is not permitted to man, whom he hath made\nsubiect to his lawe, and not to the examples of fathers. And this I\nthinke sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirites. But to\nrepresse the raging of womans madnes, I will descend somwhat deeper in\nto the mater, and not feare to affirme: that as we find a contrarie\nspirit in all these moste wicked women, that this day be exalted in to\nthis tyrannouse authoritie, to the spirite that was in those godly\nmatrons: so I feare not, I say, to affirme, that their condition is\nvnlike, and that their end shalbe diuers. In those matrones we finde\nthat the spirit of mercie, truthe, iustice and of humilitie did\nreigne[111]. Vnder them we finde that God did shewe mercie to his\npeople, deliuering them frome the tyrannie of strangiers, and from the\nvenom of idolatrie by the handes and counsel of those women: but in\nthese of our ages, we finde crueltie, falshed, pride, couetousnes,\ndeceit, and oppression. In them we also finde the spirit of Iesabel,\nand Athalia, vnder them we finde the simple people oppressed, the true\nreligion extinguished, and the blood of Christes membres most cruellie\nshed. And finallie by their practises and deceit, we finde auncient\nrealmes and nations geuen and betrayed in to the handes of strangiers,\nthe titles and liberties of them taken frome the iuste possessors.\nWhich one thinge is an euident testimonie, howe vnlike our mischeuous\nMaryes be vnto Debora, vnder whome were strangiers chased owt of\nIsrael, God so raising her vp to be a mother and deliuerer to his\noppressed people. But (alas) he hath raised vp these Iesabelles to be\nthe vttermoste of his plagues[112], the whiche mans vnthankfulnes hath\nlong deserued. But his secret and most iust iudgement, shal nether\nexcuse them, neither their mainteiners, because their counsels be\ndiuers. But to prosecute my purpose, let such as list to defend these\nmonstres in their tyrannie, prbue first, that their souereine\nmaistresses be like to Debora in godlines and pitie: and secondarilie,\nthat the same successe doth folowe their tyrannie, which did folowe the\nextraorelinarie regiment of that godlie matrone. Which things althogh\nthey were able to do[113] (as they neuer shalbe, let them blowe til\nthey brust) yet shall her example profet them nothing at all. For they\nare neuer able to proue that ether Debora, or any other godlie\nwoman[114] (hauing the commendation of the holie ghoste within the\nscriptures) hath vsurped authoritie aboue any realme or nation, by\nreason of their birth and blood. Nether yet did they claime it by right\nor inheritance: but God by his singular priuiledge, fauor, and grace,\nexempted Debora from the common malediction geuen to women in that\nbehalf: and against nature he made her prudent in counsel, strong in\ncourage, happie in regiment, and a blessed mother and deliuerer to his\npeople. The whiche he did partlie to aduance and notifie the power of\nhis maiestie as well to his ennemies, as to his owne people[115]: in\nthat that he declared himself able to geue saluation and deliuerance,\nby meanes of the moste weake vesselles: and partlie he did it to\nconfound and ashameall man of that age, because they had for the moste\npart declined frome his true obedience. And therfore was the spirit of\ncourage, regiment, and boldnes taken from them for a time to their\nconfusion and further humiliation. But what maketh this for Mary and\nher matche Phillippe? One thing I wold aske of suche as depend vpon the\nexample of Debora, whether she was widowe or wife, when she iudged\nIsrael, and when that God gaue that notable victorie to his people\nvnder her? If they answer she was widowe, I wold lay against them the\ntestimonie of the holie ghost, witnessinge that she was wife to\nLapidoth[116]. And if they will shift, and alledge, that so she might\nbe called, notwithstanding that her husband was dead, I vrge them\nfurther, that they are not able to, proue it to be any common phrase\nand maner of speache in the scriptures, that a woman shall be called\nthe wife of a dead man, except that there be some note added, wherbie\nit may be knowen that her husband is departed, as is witnessed of\nAnna[117]. But in this place of the iudges, there is no note added,\nthat her husband shuld be dead, but rather the expressed\ncontrarie[118]. For the text saith: In that time a woman named Debora a\nprophetesse, wife to Lapidoth iudged Israel, The holie ghost plainlie\nspeaketh, that what time she iudged Israel, she was wife to Lapidoth.\nIf she was wife, and if she ruled all alone in Israel[119], then I aske\nwhy did she not preferre her husband to that honor to be capitain, and\nto be leader to the host of the Lord. If any thinke that it was her\nhusbande, the text proueth the contrarie. For it affirmeth that Barak,\nof the tribe of Nephtalie was apointed to that office. If Barak had\nbene her husband: to what purpose shuld the holie ghost so diligentlie\nhaue noted the tribe, and an other name then was before expressed? Yea\nto what purpose shuld it be noted, that she send and called him?\nwhereof I doubt not, but that euerie reasonable man doth consider that\nthis Barak was not her husband, and therof likwise it is euident, that\nher iudgement or gouernement in Israel was no such vsurped power, as\nour quenes vniustlie possesse this day, but that it was the spirit of\nprophecie, which rested vpon her, what time the multitude of the people\nwroght wickedlie in the eyes of the Lord: by the whiche spirit, she did\nrebuke the idolatrie and iniquitie of the people, exhort them to\nrepentance, and in the end, did bring them this comfort, that God shuld\ndeliuer them from the bondage and thraldom of their ennemies. And this\nshe might do[120], not withstanding that an other did occupie the place\nof the supreme magistral, (if any was in those dayes in Israel) for, so\nI finde did Hulda the wife of Sallum in the dayes of Iosias king of\nIuda[121] speake prophecie and comfort the king: and yet he resigned to\nher nether the sceptre; nor the sword. That this our interpretacion,\nhow that Debora did iudge in Israel is the true meaning of the holie\nghost, the pondering and weying of the historic shall manifestlie\nproue. When she sendeth for Barak, I pray you, in whose name geueth she\nhim his charge?[122] Doth she speake to him as kinges and princes vse\nto speake to their subiectes in suche cases? No, but she speaketh, as\nshe that had a speciall reuelation frome God, whiche nether was knovren\nto Barak nor to the people, saying: hath not the Lord God of Israel\ncommanded the? This is her preface, by the whiche she wold stirre vp\nthe dull senses of Barak, and of the people, willing to persuade vnto\nthem, that the time was comen, when God wold shewe him selfe their\nprotector and deliuerer, in which preface she vsurpeth to her selfe,\nnether power nor authoritie. For she saith not, I being thy princes,\nthy maistresse, thy souereine ladie and quene, commatide the vpon thine\nallegeance, and vnder pain of treason to go, and gather an armie. No,\nshe spoileth her self of all power to commande, attributing that\nauthoritie to God, of whom she had her reuelation and certitude to\napoint Barak capitain, which after appeareth more plainlie. For when\nshe had declared to him the hole counsel of God, apointing vnto him\naswell the nombre of his souldiors, as the tribes, owt of which they\nshuld be gathered: and when she had apointed the place of the batel,\n(whiche she coulde not haue done, but by especiall reuelation of God)\nand had assured him of victorie in the name of God, and yet that he\nfainted and openlie refused, to entre in to that iourney except that\nthe prophetesse wold accompanie him, she did vse against him no\nexternal power, she did not threaten him with rebellion and death, but\nfor assurance of his faint hart and weake conscience, being content to\ngo with him, she pronounceth, that the glorie shulde not be his in that\niourney, but that the Lord shuld sell Sisera in to the hand of a woman.\nSuch as haue more pleasure in light then in darknes, may clearlie\nperceiue, that Debora did vsurpe no such power nor authoritie, as our\nquenes do this day claime. But that she was indued with the spirit of\nwisdome, of knowledge, and of the true feare of God: and by the same\nshe iudged the factes of the rest of the people. She rebuked their\ndefection and idolatry, yea and also did redresse to her power, the\niniuries, that were done by man to man. But all this, I say, she did by\nthe spirituall sworde, that is, by the worde of God, and not by any\ntemporall regiment or authoritie, whiche she did vsurpe ouer Israel. In\nwhich, I suppose, at that time there, was no laufull magistrate, by the\nreason of their greate affliction. For so witnesseth the historic,\nsaying: And Ehud being dead, the Lorde sold Israel in to the hand of\nIabin king of Canaan. And he by Sisera his capitain afflicted Israel\ngreatlie the space of twentie yeares. And Debora her self, in her song\nof thankes geuing, confesseth that before she did arise mother in\nIsrael, and in the dayes of Iael, there was nothing but confusion and\ntrouble. If any sticke to the terme, alledging that the holie ghost\nsaith, that she iudged Israel[123]: let them vnderstand, that nether\ndoth the Ebrue word, nether yet the Latin, alwayes signifie ciuile\niudgement, or the execution of the temporall sword, but most commonlie\nis taken in the sense, which we haue before expressed. For of Christ it\nis said: he shal iudge many nations. And that he shall pronounce\niudgement to the gentiles.[124] And yet it is euident, that he was no\nminister of the temporal sword. God commandeth Ierusalem and Iuda to\niudge betwixt him and his vineyarde, and yet he apointed not them all\nto be ciuil magistrates. To Ezechiel it is said[125]: shalt thou not\niudge them sonne of man? and after: thou sonne of man, shalt thou not\niudge? shalt thou not iudge, I say, the citie of blood? and also:\nbehold, I shall iudge betwixt beast and beast. And such places in great\nnombre, are to be founde thrughout the hole scriptures, and yet I\ntrust, no man wilbe so foolish, as to thinke that any of the Prophetes\nwere apointed by God to be politike iudges, or to punishe the sinnes of\nman, by corporal punishment. No the maner of their iudgement is\nexpressed in these wordes[126]: Declare to them all their abominations,\nand thou shalt say to them: Thus saith the Lorde God: a citie shedding\nblood in the middest of her, that her time may approche and which hath\nmade idoles against her selfe, that she might be polluted. Thou hast\ntransgressed in the blood which thou hast shed, and thou are polluted\nin the idoles, which thou hast made. Thus, I say, do the prophetes of\nGod iudge, pronouncing the sentence of God against malefactors. And so\nI doubt not but Debora iudged, what time Israel had declined from God:\nrebuking their defection, and exhorting them to repentance, without\nvsurpation of any ciuill authoritie. And if the people gaue vnto her\nfor a time any reuerence or honour, as her godlines and happie counsel\ndid well deserue, yet was it no such empire, as our monstres\nclaime[127]. For which of her sonnes or nerest kinsmen left she ruler\nand iudge in Israel after her. The holie ghost expresseth no such\nthing. Wherof it is euident, that by her example God offreth no\noccasion to establish any regiment of women aboue men, realmes, and\nnations.\n\n[108]: Answer to the first obiection.\n\n[109]: Examples against lawe haue no strength when the question is of\nlawe.\n\n[110]: NOTE.\n\n[111]: Antithesis betwixt the former matrones, and our Iesabelles.\n\n[112]: NOTE.\n\n[113]: NOTE.\n\n[114]: No godlie woman did euer claime authoritie ouer man by reason of\nher birth and blood.\n\n[115]: Why God sometimes worketh by extraordinarie meanes.\n\n[116]: Iudic. 4.\n\n[117]: Luc. 2\n\n[118]: Iudic. 4\n\n[119]: NOTE.\n\n[120]: NOTE.\n\n[121]: 2. Reg. 22.\n\n[122]: Debora commanded not as princes vse to commande.\n\n[123]: To iudge is not alway understand of the ciuil regiment.\n\n[124]: Isaie 2. Isaie 42. Mich. 4. Isaie. 5.\n\n[125]: Ezech. 20. Ezech. 22. Ezech. 34\n\n[126]: Ezech. 23\n\n[127]: NOTE.\n\nBut now to the second obiection[128]. In whiche women require (as to\nthem appeareth) nothing but equitie and iustice. Whilest they and their\npatrones for them, require dominion and empire aboue men. For this is\ntheir question: Is it not lauful, that women haue their right and\ninheritance, like as the doughters of Zalphead were commanded by the\nmouth of Moses to haue their portion of grounde in their tribe?\n\n[128]: An answer to the second obiection.\n\nI answer, it is not onlie laufull that women possesse their\ninheritance, but I affirme also that iustice and equitie require, that\nso they do. But therwith I adde that whiche gladlie they list not\nvnderstand[129]: that to beare rule or authoritie ouer man, can neuer\nbe right nor inheritance to woman. For that can neuer be iust\ninheritance to any person, whiche God by his word hath plainlie denied\nvnto them: but to all women hath God denied authoritie aboue man, as\nmoste manifestlie is before declared: Therfore to her it can neuer be\ninheritance. And thus must the aduocates of our ladies prouide some\nbetter example and strongar argument. For the lawe made in fauor of the\ndoughters of Zalphead, will serue them nothing. And assuredlie greate\nwonder it is, that in so greate light of Goddes truthe, men list to\ngrope and wander in darknes. For let them speak of conscience[130]: if\nthe petition of any of these fore named women was to reigne ouer any\none tribe, yea or yet ouer any one man within Israel. Plain it is, they\ndid not, but onelie required, that they might haue a portion of ground\namonge the men of their tribe, lest, that the name of their father\nshuld be abolished. And this was graunted vnto them without respect had\nto any ciuil regiment. And what maketh this, I pray you, for the\nestablishing of this monstruous empire of women? The question is not:\nif women may not succede to possession, substance patrimonie or\ninheritance, such as fathers may leaue to their children, for that I\nwillinglie grant[131]: But the question is: if women may succede to\ntheir fathers in offices, and chieflie to that office, the executor\nwherof doth occupie the place and throne of God. And that I absolutelie\ndenie: and feare not to say, that to place a woman in authoritie aboue\na realme, is to pollute and prophane the royall seate, the throne of\niustice, which oght to be the throne of God: and that to mainteine them\nin the same, is nothing els, but continuallie to rebell against God.\nOne thing there is yet to be noted and obserued in the lawe[132] made\nconcerning the inheritance of the doughters of Zalphead, to wit, that\nit was forbidden vnto them to marie without their owne tribe, lest that\nsuch portion as fell to their lotte, shuld be transferred frome one\ntribe to an other, and so shuld the tribe of Manasses be defrauded and\nspoiled of their iust inheritance by their occasion. For auoiding of\nwhich it was commanded by Moses, that they should marie in the familie\nor housholde of the tribe and kindred of their father. Wonder it is\nthat the aduocates and patrones of the right of our ladies did not\nconsider and ponder this lawe[133] before that they counseled the\nblinde princes and vnworthie nobles of their countries, to betray the\nliberties therof in to the handes of strangiers. England for satisfying\nof the inordinat appetites of that cruell monstre Marie (vnworthie by\nreason of her bloodie tyrannie, of the name of a woman) betrayed (alas)\nto the proude spaniarde: and Scotlande by the rashe madnes of foolish\ngouerners, and by the practises of a craftie dame resigned likewise,\nvnder title of mariage in to the power of France. Doth such translation\nof realmes and nations please the iustice of God, or is the possession\nby such means obteined, lauful in his sight? Assured I am that it is\nnot[134]. No other wise, I say, then is that possession, wherunto\ntheues, murtherers, tyrannes and oppressors do attein by theft,\nmurther, tyrannie, violence, deceit, and oppression, whiche God of his\nsecrete (but yet most iust) iudgement doth often permit for punishment,\nas wel of the sufferers, as of the violent oppressors, but doth neuer\napproue the same as laufull and godlie. For if he wold not permit that\nthe inheritance of the children of Israel shuld passe frome one tribe\nto an other by the mariage of any doughter, not withstanding[135] that\nthey were all one people, all spake one tonge, all were descended of\none father, and all did professe one God, and one religion: If yet, I\nsay, God wold not suffer that the commoditie and vsuall frute, which\nmight be gathered of the portion of grounde limited and assigned to one\ntribe shulde passe to an other: Will he suffer that the liberties,\nlawes, commodities and frutes of hole realmes and nations, be geuen in\nto the power and distribution of others, by the reason of mariage, and\nin the powers of suche, as besides, that they be of a strange tonge, of\nstrange maners and lawes, they are also ignorant of God, ennemies to\nhis truth, deniers of Christ Iesus, persecutors of his true membres,\nand haters of all vertue? As the odious nation of spaniardes doth\nmanifestlie declare: who for very despit, which they do beare against\nChriste Iesus, whome their forefathers did crucifie (for Iewes they\nare[136], as histories do witnesse, and they them selues confesse) do\nthis day make plaine warre against all true professors of his holie\ngospell. And howe blindlie and outragiouslie the frenche king, and his\npestilent prelates do, fight against the veritie of God, the flaming\nfiers, which lick vp the innocent blood of Christes membres, do\nwitnesse, and by his cruel edictes is notified and proclaimed[137]. And\nyet to these two cruell tyrannes (to France, and Spain I meane) is the\nright and possession of England and Scotland apointed. But iust or\nlaufull shall that possession neuer be, till God do chaunge the statute\nof his former lawe: whiche he will not do for the pleasure of man. For\nhe hath not created the earth to satisfie the ambition of two or three\ntyrannes, but for the vniuersall seed of Adam[138]: and hath apointed\nand defined the boundes of their habitation to diuerse nations,\nassigning diuers countries as he him selfe confesseth, speaking to\nIsrael in these wordes[139]: You shal passe by the boundes and limiter,\nof your bretheren the sonnes of Esau, who dwell in mount Seir. They\nshall feare you. But take diligent hede, that ye shewe not your selues\ncruell against them. For I will geue you no part of their land. No not\nthe bredth of a foote. For mount Seir I haue geuen to Esau to be\npossessed. And the same he doth witnesse of the sonnes of Lot[140], to\nwhom he had geuen Arre to be possessed. And Moses plainlie affirmeth,\nthat when the almightie did distribute, and diuide possessions to the\ngentiles, and when he did disperse, and scatter the sonnes of men, that\nthen he did apoint the limites and boundes of peoples, for the nomber\nof the sonnes of Israel. Wherof it is plain[141], that God hath not\nexposed the earth in pray to tyrannes, making all thing laufull, which\nby violence and murther they may possesse, but that he hath apointed to\neuery seuerall nation, a seuerall possession, willing them to stand\ncontent (as nature did teache an ethnik[142] to affirme) with that\nportion, which by lotte and iust meanes they had mioyed. For what\ncauses God permitteth this his distribution to be troubled, and the\nrealmes of auncient nations to be possessed of strangiers, I delay at\nthis time to intreate. Onlie this I haue recited to geue the worlde to\nvnderstand, that the reigne, empire, and authoritie of women[143], hath\nno grounde within Goddes scriptures. Yea that realmes or prouinces\npossessed by their mariage, is nothinge but vniust conquest. For so\nlitle doth the lawe made for the doughters of Zalphead helpe the cause\nof your quenes, that vtterlie it fighteth against them, both damning\ntheir authoritie and fact. But now to the thirde objection.\n\n[129]: what woman wold not gladly heare.\n\n[130]: the daughters of Zalphead desired to reigne ouer no man in\nIsrael.\n\n[131]: women may succede to inheritance but not to office.\n\n[132]: Num. 36\n\n[133]: Our patrones for women do not marke this caution.\n\n[134]: Realmes gotten by practises are no iuste posession.\n\n[135]: NOTE.\n\n[136]: The spaniardes are Iewes and they bragge that Marie of England\nis the roote of Iesse.\n\n[137]: Note the law which he hath proclaimed in France against such as\nhe termeth Lutherians.\n\n[138]: Act. 17.\n\n[139]: Deuter. 2.\n\n[140]: Deut.32.\n\n[141]: NOTE.\n\n[142]: Cicero offic. lib. I.\n\n[143]: Realmes gotten by mariage, is uniust conquest.\n\nThe consent, say they, of realmes and lawes pronounced and admitted in\nthis behalfe, long consuetude and custorne, together with felicitie of\nsome women in their empires haue established their authoritie[144]. To\nwhome, I answer, that nether may the tyrannie of princes, nether the\nfoolishnes of people, nether wicked lawes made against God, nether yet\nthe felicitie that in this earthe may herof insue, make that thing\nlaufull, whiche he by his word hath manifestlie condemned. For if the\napprobation of princes and people, lawes made by men, or the consent of\nrealmes, may establishe any thing against God and his word, then shuld\nidolatrie be preferred to the true religion. For mo realmes and\nnations, mo lawes and decrees published by Emperours with common\nconsent of their counsels, haue established the one, then haue approued\nthe other. And yet I thinke that no man of sounde iudgement, will\ntherfore iustifie and defend idolatrie. No more oght any man to\nmainteine this odious empire of women, althogh that it were approued of\nall men by their lawes. For the same God that in plain wordes\nforbiddeth idolatrie, doth also forbidde the authoritie of women ouer\nman. As the wordes of saint Paule before rehearsed do plainly teach vs.\nAnd therfore whether women be deposed from that vniust authoritie[145]\n(haue they neuer vsurped it so long) or if all such honor be denied\nvnto them, I feare not to affirme that they are nether defrauded of\nright, nor inheritance. For to women can that honor neuer be due nor\nlaufull (muche lesse inheritance) whiche God hath so manifestlie denied\nvnto them.\n\n[144]: Answer to the third obiection.\n\n[145]: women may and oght to be deposed from authoritie.\n\nI am not ignorant that the subtill wittes of carnall men (which can\nneuer be broght vnder obedience of Goddes simple preceptes to maintein\nthis monstruous empire) haue yet two vaine shiftes[146]. First they\nalledge, that albeit women may not absolutelie reigne by themselues,\nbecause they may nether sit in iudgement, nether pronounce sentence,\nnether execute any publike office: yet may they do all such thinges by\ntheir lieutenantes, deputies and iudges substitute. Secondarilie, say\nthey, a woman borne to rule ouer anyrealme, may chose her a husband,\nand to him she may transfer and geue her authoritie and right. To both\nI answer in fewe wordes. First that frome a corrupt and venomed\nfountein can spring no holsome water: Secondarilie that no person hath\npower to geue the thing, which doth not iustlie appertein to them\nselues[147]: But the authoritie of a woman is a corrupted fountein, and\ntherfore from her can neuer spring any lauful officer. She is not borne\nto rule ouer men: and therfore she can apointe none by her gift, nor by\nher power (which she hathn ot) to the place of a laufull magistrat. And\ntherfore who soeuer receiueth of a woman[148], office or authoritie,\nare adulterous and bastard officers before God. This may appeare\nstraunge at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent and\nequall in the cause of God, as that we can be in the cause of man, the\nreason shall sodeinlie appeare. The case suposed, that a tyranne by\nconspiracie vsurped the royall seat and dignitie of a king, and in the\nsame did so established him selfe, that he apointed officers, and did\nwhat him list for a time, and in this meane time, the natiue king made\nstreit inhibition to all his subiectes, that none shuld adhere to this\ntraitor, nether yet receiue any dignitie of him, yet neuer the lesse\nthey wold honor the same traitor as king, and becomme his officers in\nall affaires of the realme. If after, the natiue prince did recouer his\niust honor and possession, shuld he repute or esteme any man of the\ntraitors apointement for a laufull magistrate? or for his frende and\ntrue subiect? or shuld he not rather with one sentence condemne the\nhead with the membres? And if so he shuld do, who were able to accuse\nhim of rigor? much lesse to condemne his sentence of iniustice. And\ndare we denie the same power to God in the like case? For that woman\nreigneth aboue man, she hath obteined it by treason and conspiracie\ncommitted against God. Howe can it be then, that she being criminall\nand giltie of treason against God committed, can apointe any officer\npleasing in his sight? It is a thing impossible[149]. Wherefore let men\nthat receiue of women authoritie, honor or office, be most assuredly\npersuaded, that in so mainteining that vsurped power, they declare them\nselues ennemies to God. If any thinke, that because the realme and\nestates therof, haue geuen their consentes to a woman, and haue\nestablished her, and her authoritie: that therfore it is laufull and\nacceptable before God: let the same men remembre what I haue said\nbefore, to wit, that God can not approue the doing nor consent of any\nmultitude, concluding any thing against his worde and ordinance, and\ntherfore they must haue a more assured defense against the wrath of\nGod, then the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or elles\nthey shall not be able to stand in the presence of the consuming fier:\nthat is, they must acknowledge that the regiment of a woman is a thing\nmost odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her\nofficers[[150], because she is a traitoresse and rebell against God.\nAnd finallie they must studie to represse her inordinate pride and\ntyrannie to the vttermost of their power. The same is the dutie of the\nnobilitie and estates, by whose blindnes a woman is promoted. First in\nso farre, as they haue moste haynouslie offended against God, placing\nin authoritie suche as God by his worde hath remoued frome the same,\nvnfeinedly they oght to call for mercie, and being admonished of their\nerror and damnable fact, in signe and token of true repentance, with\ncommon consent they oght to retreate that, which vnaduisedlie and by\nignorance they haue pronounced, and oght without further delay to\nremoue from authority all such persones, as by vsurpation, violence, or\ntyrannie, do possesse the same. For so did Israel and Iuda after they\nhad reuolted from Dauid, and Iuda alone in the dayes of Athalia[151].\nFor after that she by murthering her sonnes children, had obteined the\nempire ouer the land, and had most vnhappelie reigned in Iuda six\nyears, Ichoiada the high priest called together the capitaines and\nchief rulers of the people[152], and shewing to them the kinges sonne\nIoas[h], did binde them by an othe to depose that wicked woman, and to\npromote the king to his royall seat, which they faithfullie did,\nkillinge at his commandement not onlie that cruell and mischeuous\nwoman, but also the people did destroie the temple of Baal, break his\naltars and images, and kill Mathan Baales high priest before his\naltars. The same is the dutie aswell of the estates, as of the people\nthat hath bene blinded. First they oght to remoue frome honor and\nauthoritie, that monstre in nature. (so call I a woman cled in the\nhabit of man, yea a woman against nature reigning aboue man).\nSecondarilie if any presume to defende that impietie, they oght not to\nfeare, first to pronounce, and then after to execute against them the\nsentence of deathe. If any man be affraid to violat the oth of\nobedience, which they haue made to suche monstres, let them be most\nassuredly persuaded, that as the beginning of their othes, preceding\nfrom ignorance was sinne, so is the obstinate purpose to kepe the same,\nnothinge but plaine rebellion against God. But of this mater in the\nsecond blast, God willing, we shall speake more at large.\n\n[146]: the fourth obiection.\n\n[147]: women can make no laufull officer.\n\n[148]: Let England and Scotland take hede.\n\n[149]: woman in authoritie is rebel against God.\n\n[150]: what the nobilite ough to do in this behalf.\n\n[151]: 2 Reg. II.\n\n[152]: Marke this fact, for it agreeth with Goddes lawe pronounced.\n\nAnd nowe to put an end to the first blast, seing that by the ordre of\nnature, by the malediction and curse pronounced against woman, by the\nmouth of S. Paule the intrepreter of Goddes sentence, by the example of\nthat common welth, in whiche God by his word planted ordre and policie,\nand finallie by the iudgement of the most godlie writers, God hath\ndeiected woman frome rule, dominion, empire, and authoritie aboue man.\nMoreouer, seing that nether the example of Debora, nether the lawe made\nfor the doughters of Zalphead, nether yet the foolishe consent of an\nignorant multitude, be able to iustifie that whiche God so plainlie\nhath condemned: let all men take hede what quarell and cause frome\nhence furthe they do defend[153]. If God raise vp any noble harte to\nvendicat the libertie of his countrie, and to suppresse the monstruous\nempire of women, let all suche as shal presume to defend them in the\nsame, moste certeinlie knowe, that in so doing, they lift their hand\nagainst God, and that one day they shall finde his power to fight\nagainst their foolishnes. Let not the faithfull, godlie, and valiant\nhartes of Christes souldiers be vtterlie discouraged, nether yet let\nthe tyrannes reioise, albeit for a time they triumphe against such\nasstudie to represse their tyrannie, and to remoue them from vniust\nauthoritie. For the causes alone, why he suffereth the souldiers to\nfail in batel, whome neuerthelesse he commandeth to fight as somtimes\ndid Israel fighting against Beniamin. The cause of the Israelites was\nmost iust: for it was to punishe that horrible abomination of those\nsonnes of Belial[154], abusing the leuites wife, whome the Beniamites\ndid defend. And they had Goddes precept to assure them of well doing.\nFor he did not onelie commande them to fight, but also apointed Iuda to\nbe their leader and capitain, and yet fell they twise in plain batel\nagainst those most wicked adulterers.\n\n[153]: An admonition.\n\n[154]: Iudic. 20.\n\nThe secret cause of this, I say, is knowen to God alone. Rut by his\neuident scriptures we may assuredly gather[155], that by such means\ndoth his wisdome somtimes, beat downe the pride of the flesh (for the\nIsraelites at the firste trusted in their multitude, power and\nstrength) and somtimes by such ouerthrowes, he will punish the offenses\nof his owne children, and bring them, to the vnfeined knowledge of the\nsame, before he will geue them victorie against the manifest\ncontemners, whom he hath apointed neuerthelesse to vttermost perdition:\nas the end of that batel did witnesse. For althogh with greate murther\nthe children of Israel did twise fall before the Beniamites, yet after\nthey had wept before the Lorde, after they had fasted and made\nsacrifice in signe of their vnfeined repentance, they so preuailed\nagainst that proude tribe of Beniamin[156], that after 25 thousande\nstrong men of warre were killed in batel, they destroyed man, woman,\nchilde and beaste, as well in the fieldes, as in the cities, whiche all\nwere burned with fier, so that onelie of that hole tribe remained six\nhundredth men, who fled to the wildernes, where they remained foure\nmonethes, and so were saued. The same God, who did execute this greuous\npunishment, euen by the handes of those[157], whom he suffred twise to\nbe ouercomen in batel, doth this day retein his power and justice.\nCursed Iesabel of England, with the pestilent and detestable generation\nof papistes, make no litle bragge and boast, that they haue triumphed\nnot only against Wyet, but also against all such as haue entreprised\nany thing against them or their procedinges. But let her and them\nconsider, that yet they haue not preuailed against god, his throne is\nmore high, then that the length of their hornes be able to reache. And\nlet them further consider, that in the beginning of their bloodie\nreigne, the haruest of their iniquitie was not comen to full maturitie\nand ripenes. No, it was so grene, so secret I meane, so couered, and so\nhid with hypocrisie, that some men (euen the seruantes of God) thoght\nit not impossible, but that wolues might be changed in to lambes, and\nalso that the vipere might remoue her natural venom. But God, who doth\nreuele in his time apointed the secretes of hartes, and that will haue\nhis iudgementes iustified euen by the verie wicked, hath now geuen open\ntestimonie of her and their beastlie crueltie. For man and woman,\nlearned and vnlearned, nobles and men of baser sorte, aged fathers and\ntendre damiselles, and finailie the bones of the dead, aswell women as\nmen haue tasted of their tyrannie, so that now not onlie the blood of\nfather Latimer, of the milde man of God the bishop of Cantorburie, of\nlearned and discrete Ridley, of innocent ladie Iane dudley, and many\ngodly and worthie preachers, that can not be forgotten, such as fier\nhath consumed, and the sworde of tyrannie moste vniustlie hath shed,\ndoth call for vengeance in the eares of the Lord God of hostes: but\nalso the sobbes and teares of the poore oppressed, the groninges of the\nangeles, the watch men of the Lord, yea and euerie earthlie creature\nabused by their tyrannie do continuallie crie and call for the hastie\nexecution of the same. I feare not to say, that the day of vengeance,\nwhiche shall apprehend that horrible monstre Iesabal of England, and\nsuche as maintein her monstruous crueltie, is alredie apointed in the\ncounsel of the Eternall; and I verelie beleue that it is so nigh, that\nshe shall not reigne so long in tyrannie, as hitherto she hath done,\nwhen God shall declare him selfe to be her ennemie, when he shall poure\nfurth contempt vpon her, according to her crueltie, and shal kindle the\nhartes of such, as somtimes did fauor her with deadly hatred against\nher, that they may execute his iudgementes. And therfore let such as\nassist her, take hede what they do. For assuredlie her empire and\nreigne is a wall without foundation[158]: I meane the same of the\nauthoritie of all women. It hath bene vnderpropped this blind time that\nis past, with the foolishnes of people; and with the wicked lawes of\nignorant and tyrannous princes. But the fier of Goddes worde is alredie\nlaide to those rotten proppes (I include the Popes lawe with the rest)\nand presentlie they burn, albeit we espie not the flame: when they are\nconsumed, (as shortlie they will be, for stuble and drie timbre can not\nlong indure the fier) that rotten wall, the vsurped and vniust empire\nof women, shall fall by it self in despit of all man, to the\ndestruction of so manie, as shall labor to vphold it. And therfore let\nall man be aduertised, for the trumpet hath ones blowen.\n\n[155]: Why God permitteth somtimes his owne souldiers to fail in batel.\n\n[156]: Iudic. 20\n\n[157]: NOTE.\n\n[158]: The authoritie of all women, is a wall without foundation.\n\nPraise God ye that feare him.\n\nThe following postscript occurs at p. 78 of JOHN KNOX\u2019S _Appellation\n&c._, which is dated \u201cFrom Geneua. The 14 of Iuly, 1558.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nIOHN KNOXE TO THE READER.\n\n\nBecause many are offended at the first blast of the trompett, in whiche\nI affirme, that to promote a woman to beare rule, or empire aboue any\nrealme, nation or citie, is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, and\na thing moste contrariouse to his reuealed and approued ordenance: and\nbecause also, that somme hath promised (as I vnderstand) a confutation\nof the same, I haue delayed the second blast, till such tyme as their\nreasons appere, by the which I either may be reformed in opinion, or\nels shall haue further occasion more simply and plainly to vtter my\niudgement. Yet in the meane tyme for the discharge of my conscience;\nand for auoyding suspition, whiche might be ingendred by reason of my\nsilence, I could not cease to notifie these subsequent propositions,\nwhich by Gods grace I purpose to entreate in the second blast promised.\n\n1 It is not birth onely nor propinquitie of blood, that maketh a kinge\nlawfully to reign aboue a people professing Christe Iesus, and his\neternall veritie, but in his election must the ordenance, which God\nhath established, in the election of inferiour iudges be obserued.\n\n2 No manifest idolater nor notoriouse transgressor of gods holie\npreceptes o[u]ght to be promoted to any publike regiment, honour or\ndignitie in any realme, prouince or citie, that hath subiected the[m]\nself to Christe lesus and to his blessed Euangil.\n\n3 Neither can othe nor promesse bynd any such people to obey and\nmaintein tyrantes against God and against his trueth knowen.\n\n4 But if either rashely they haue promoted any manifest wicked\npersonne, or yet ignorantly haue chosen suche a one, as after declareth\nhim self vnworthie of regiment abouc the people of God (and suche be\nall idolaters and cruel persecuters) moste iustely may the same men\ndepose and punishe him, that vnaduysedly before they did nominate,\nappoint and electe.\n\n_MATTH. VI_.\n\nIf the eye be single, the whole body shalbe clere.\n\n[Underlying these Propositions is the great truth that the Rulers exist\nfor the people, and not the people for the Rulers.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n_JOHN KNOX\u2019s apologetical Defence of his First Blast &c. to Queen\nELIZABETH_.\n\n\n12 JULY 1559. JOHN KNOX to Sir WILLIAM CECIL.\n\nThe spreit of wisdom heall your hart to the glorie of God and to the\ncomforte of his afflicted mind.\n\nOn[e] caus[e] of my present writing is ryght honorable humblie to\nrequyr you to Deliuer this other lettre enclosed to the quenes grace\nquilk conteaneht in few and sempill wordes my confession what I think\nof her authoritie, how far it is Just, and what may make it odious in\ngoddis presence.\n\nI hear there is a confutation sett furht in prent against _the first\nblast_. God graunt that the writar haue no more sought the fauours of\nthe world, no less the glory of God and the stable commoditie of his\ncountry then did him who interprised in that _blast_ to vt[t]er his\nConscience. When I shall haue tym[e] (which now Is Dear and straitt\nvnto me) to peruse that work I will communicat[e] my Judgement with you\nconcernying the sam[e]. The tym[e] Is now sir that all that eyther\nthrust Christ Jesus to r[e]ing in this yle, the liberties of the sam\n[e] to be keapt, to the inhabitantes therof, and theire hartis to be\njoyned together in love vnfeaned ought rather to study how the sam[e]\nmay be brought to pass then vainly to trauall for the maintenance of\nthat wharof allready we have seen the daunger, and felt the smart.\n\n_State Papers, Scotland, Vol_. Art. 57. in Public Record office,\nLondon.\n\n\n20 JULY 1559. JOHN KNOX\u2019S _Declaration_ to QUEEN ELIZABETH.\n\nTo the verteuus and godlie ELIZABEHT by the grace of GOD quen of\nEngland etc JOHN KNOX desireht the perpetuall Encrease of the Holie\nSpiritt. etc.\n\nAs your graces displeasur against me most Iniustlie conceaned, hath\nbe[en] and is to my wretched hart a burthen grevous and almost\nintollerabill, so is the testimonye of a clean conscience to me a stay\nand vphold that in desperation I sink not, how vehement that ever the\ntemptations appear, for in GODDis presence my conscience beareht me\nreacord that maliciouslie nor of purpose I inoffended your grace, nor\nyour realme. And therfor how so ever I be ludged by man, I am assured\nto be absolued by him who onlie knoweht the secreatis of hartes.\n\nI can not Deny the Writeing of a booke against the vsurped aucthoritie\nand Iniust regiment of wemen, neyther yet am I mynded to retract or to\ncall any principall point or proposition of the sam[e], till treuth and\nveritie do farther appear, but why that eyther your grace, eyther yit\nony such as vnfeanedlie favourthe libertie of England should be\noffended at the aucthor of such a work I can perceaue no iust occasion.\nFor first my booke tuchheht not your graces person in especiall,\nneyther yit is it preiudiciall till any libertie of the realme yf the\ntyme and my Writing be indifferently considered. How could I be enemy\nto your graces person? for deliuerance quhairof I did mor[e] study, and\ninterprise farther, than any of those that now accuse me. And as\nconcerning your regiment how could? or can I envy that? which most I\nhaue thrusted and for the which (as obliuion will suffer) I render\nthankis vnfeanedlie unto GOD that is, that it hath pleased Him of His\neternall goodnes to exalt your head (which tymes wes in Daunger) to the\nmanifestation of his glorie and extirpation of Idolatrie.\n\nAnd as for any offence whiche I haf committed against England eyther in\nwriteing that or of any other werk I will not refuse that moderate and\nindifferent men Iudge and decerne betwixt me and thost that accuse me.\nTo witt Whither of the partijs Do most hurt the libertie of England, I\nthat afferme that no woman may be exalted above any realme to mak[e]\nthe libertie of the sam[e] thrall to a straunge, proud, and euell\nnation, or thai that approve whatsoeuir pleaseth princes for the tyme.\n\nYf I were wer[e] asweall disposed till accuse, as som of them (till\nthair owne schame) haue declared thame selves I nothing dowbt but that\nin few wordis I should lett ressonabill men vnderstand that som that\nthis Day lowlie crouche to your grace, and lauboure to make me odious\nin your eyes, did in your aduersitie neyther shew thame selvis\nfaithfull frendis to your grace, neyther yit so loving and cairfull\nouer thair native cuntry as now thai wold be esteamed.\n\nBut omitting the accusation of others for my owne purgation and for\nyour graces satisfaction I say. That nothyng in my booke conceaued Is,\nor can be preiudiciall to your graces iust regiment prouided that ye be\nnot found vngrate unto GOD. Vngrate ye shalbe proued in presence of His\nthrone, (howsoeuir that flatterairs Iustifie your fact) yf ye transfer\nthe glory of that honour in which ye now stand to any other thing, then\nto the dispensation of His mercy which onelye mackethe that lauthfull\nto your grace Which nature and law Denyeth to all woman. Neyther wold I\nthat your grace should fear that this your humiliation befoir GOD\nshould in any case infirm or weaken your Iust and lauthfull authoritie\nbefoir men. Nay madam such vnfeaned confession of goddis benefittis\nreceaued shalbe the establishment of the sam[e] not onelye to your\nself, bot also to your sead and posteritie. Whane contrariwise a prowd\nconceat, and eleuation of your self shalbe the occasion that your reing\nshalbe vnstabill, trublesum and schort.\n\nGOD is witness that vnfeanedlie I both love and reverence your grace,\nyea I pray that your reing may be long, prosperous, and quyet. And that\nfor the quyetnes which CHRISTIS membris before persecuted haue receaued\nvnder yow but yit yf I should flatter your grace I were no freind, but\na deceavabill trater. And therfor of conscience I am compelled to say,\nthat neyther the consent of peopill, the proces of tyme, nor multitude\nof men, can establish a law which GOD shall approve, but whatsoeuer He\napproveht (by his eternall word) that shalbe approued, and whatsoeuer\nhe dampneth shalbe condampneth, though all men in earth wold hasard the\niustification of the sam[e]. And therfor[e] madam the onlie way to\nretean and to keap those benefittes of GOD haboundandlie powred now of\nlaitt Dayis vpon yow, and vpon your realme is vnfeanedlie to rendir\nvnto GOD, to His mercy and vndeserued grace the [w]holl glory of this\nyour exaltatioun, forget your byrth and all tytill which thervpon doth\nhing[e], and considder deaplie how for feir of your lyfe ye did declyne\nfrom GOD, and bow till Idolatrie. Lett it not appear a small offence in\nyour eyis, that ye haue declyned from CHRIST IESUS in the Day of his\nbattale, neyther yit wold I that ye should esteam that mercy to be\nvulgar and commone which ye haue receaued. To witt, that GOD hath\ncovered your formar offence, hath presented yow when ye were most\nunthankfull, and in the end hath exalted and raised yow vp not onlie\nfrom the Dust, but also from the portes [_gates_] of death to reull\nabove his people for the confort of his kirk. It aperteaneth to yow\nthairfor to ground the iustice of your aucthoritie not vpon that law\nwhich from year to year Doth change, but vpon the eternall prouidence\nof Hym who contrarfy to nature, and without your deserving hath thus\nexalted your head.\n\nYf thus in GODDis presence ye humill [_humble_] your self, as in my\nhart I glorifie GOD for that rest granted to His afflicted flock within\nEngland under yow a weak instrument, so will I with toung and pen\niustifie your aucthoritie and regiment as the HOLIE GHOST hath\niustified the same In DEBORA, that blessed mother in Israeli, but yf\nthese premisses (as GOD forbid) neglected, ye shall begyn to brag of\nyour birth, and to build your aucthoritie vpon your owne law, flatter\nyow who so list youre felicite shalbe schort. Interpret my rud[e]\nwordis in the best part as written by him who is no ennemye to your\ngrace.\n\nBy diuerse letters I haue required licence to vesitt your realme not to\nseik my self neyther yit my owen ease, or commodite. Whiche yf ye now\nrefuse and. deny I must remit my [?] to GOD, adding this for\nconclusioun, that commonlie it is sein that such as luf not the\ncounsall of the faithfull (appear it never so scharp) are compelled to\nfollow the Deceat of flatteraris to thair owen perdition. The mighty\nSpreit of the Lord IESUS move your hart to vnderstand what is said,\ngeve vnto yow the discretion of spirittes, and so reull yow in all your\nactlonis and interprisis that in yow GOD may be glorified, His church\nedified, and ye your self as a livelie member of the sam[e] may be an\nexempill and mirroure of vertew and of godlie Lief till others.\n\nSo be it. Off Edinburgh the 20. Day of Julij. 1559.\n\nBy your graces [w]holly to command in godlynes.\n\n_Endorsed_. JOHN KNOX.\n\nTo the ryght myghty ryght high and ryght excellent princesse ELZABETH\nquen of England, etc.\n\nBe these Deliuered _State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 1 Art. 65_.\n\n\n20 MARCH 1561. THOMAS RANDOLPH to Sir WILLIAM CECIL. [_From Berwick on\nTweed_.]\n\nMaster KNOX in certayne articles geuen vnto my Lord JAMES at this tyme\nhath mytigated some what the rigour of his booke, referringe myche vnto\nye tyme that the same was wrytten.\n\n_State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 6, Art. 37_.\n\n5 AUG. 1561. JOHN KNOX\u2019s second Defence to Queen ELIZABETH.\n\nGrace from GOD the Father throught our Lord JESUS with perpetuall\nEncrease of his holie spiritt.\n\nMay it please your maiestie that it is heir certainlie spoken that the\nQueen of Scotland [_MARY Queen of Scots_] travaleht earnestlie to have\na treatise intituled _the first blast of the trompett_ confuted by the\nanswere of the learned in Diuerse realmes, And farther that she\nlauboureht to inflambe the hartes of princes against the writar. And\nbecause that it may appear that your maiestie hath interest, that she\nmyndeht to trauall with your grace, your graces counsell, and learned\nmen for Judgement against such a common enemy to women and to thair\nregiment. It were but foolishnes to me to prescribe vnto your maiestie\nwhat is to be done in any thing but especialie in such thinges as men\nsuppose Do tuoch my self. But of on[e] thing I think my self assured\nand therefor I Dar[e] not conceall it. To witt that neyther Doht our\nsoueraine so greatlie fear her owen estate by reasson of that book,\nneyther yet Doth she so vnfeanedlie fauour the tranquilitie of your\nmaiesties reing and realme that she wo[u]lde tack so great and earnest\npaines onles that her crafty counsall in so Doing shot att a farther\nmarck.\n\nTwo yeres ago I wrote vnto your maiestie my full Declaration tuoching\nthat work, experience since hath schawen that I am not Desirous of\nInnovations [i.e. in _Government_], so that CHRIST JESUS be not in his\nmembers openlie troden vnder the feitt of the vngodlie. With furthie\npurgation I will not trouble your maiestie for the present. Besechinge\nthe Eternall so to assist your Highnes in all affaires, that in his\nsight you may be found acceptable, your regiment profitable to your\ncommon wealht, and your factes [deeds] to be such that Iustlie thei may\nbe praised of all godlie vnto the cuming of the lord JESUS to whose\nmighty protection I unfeanedlie committ your maiestie.\n\nFrom Edinburgh the 5 of August 1561\n\nYour maiesties suruand to command in godlines\n\n_Endorsed_ JOHN KNOX.\n\nTo the myghty and excellent princess ELIZABETH the Quenes maiestie of\nENGLAND be these deliuered.\n\n_State Papers, Scotland, Vol. 6, Art 55._\n\nDespite this triumphant appeal to his quiet citizenship under MARY\nSTUART, the following description of her mother shows that the great\nScotchman never altered his private opinion on this subject.\n\nThe peace as said is contracted. The Queene Dowager past by sea to\nF[r]aunce with gallies that for that purpose were prepared and tooke\nwith her diuerse of the nobilitie of Scotland. The Earles HUNTLY,\nGLENCAIRNE, MERSHELL, CASSILLES. The Lordes MAXWELL, flying, Sir GEORGE\nDOWGLASSE, together with all the kings sonnes, and diuerse Barrones,\nand gentlemen of Ecclesiasticall estate: the Bishop of GALLOWAY, and\nmanie others, with promise that they should be rechlie rewarded for\ntheir good seruice. What they receaued we can not tell, but few were\nmade rich at their returning. The Dowager had to practise somewhat with\nher brethren, the Duke of GWYSE and the Cardinal of LORA[I]NE. The\nweight wherof the gouernour after felt: for shortlie after his\nreturning, was the gouernour deposed of the gouernement (Iustlie by\nGOD, but most iniustlie by man) and she made regent, in the yere of our\nLord 1554. And a crowne put vpon her head, as seemelie a sight (if men\nhad eyes) as to put a saddle vpon the back of an vnruly cow. And so\nbeganne she to practise, practise vpon practise, how Fraunce might be\naduanced, hir friends made rich, and she brought to immortall glorie.\nFor that was her common talke, \u201cSo that I may procure the wealth and\nhonour of my friendes, and a good fame vnto my selfe, I regarde not\nwhat GOD doe after with me.\u201d And in verie deede in deepe dissimulation\nto bring her owne purpose to effect she passed the common sort of\nwomen, as we will after heare. But yet GOD to whose Gospell she\ndeclared her selfe enemie, in the end [did] frustrate her of her\ndeuises.\n\nThe Historic of the _Church of Scotland_, pp. 192-193. [Ed. 1584].","title":"The First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":28813}