© 2025 Transcribed into contemporary English with commentary by Colin Melbourne
The image of the modern woman is a skilful re-creation from the death-masks and portraits of Mary Queen of Scots courtesy Becca Segovia
John Knox continues his First Blast Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women
I have therefore thought good to recite the minds of some ancient writers in the same matter, to the end that such as altogether be not blinded by the Devil, may consider and understand this my judgment to be no new interpretation of God’s scriptures, but to be the uniform consent of the most part of godly writers, since the time of the apostles.
Tertullian [38] in his book of women’s apparel, after that he has shown many reasons why gaudy apparel is abominable and odious in a woman, adds these words, speaking as it were to every woman by name: Dost thou not know (saith he) that thou art Heua? [Eve] the sentence of God liveth and is effectual against this kind, and in this world of necessity it is, that the punishment also live. Thou art the port and gate of the Devil. Thou art the first transgressor of God’s law. thou didst persuade and easily deceive him whom the Devil durst not assault [39]. For thy merit (that is for thy death) it behoved the Son of God to suffer the death, and doth it yet abide in thy mind to deck the above thy skin coats?
By these, and many other grave sentences, and quick interrogations, did this godly writer labour to bring every woman in contemplation of herself, to the end that every one deeply weighing, what sentence God had pronounced against the whole race and daughters of Heua [Eve], might not only learn daily to humble and subject themselves in the presence of God, but also that they should avoid and abhor whatsoever thing might exalt them or puff them up in pride, or that might be occasion, that they should forget the curse of God. And what, I pray you, is more able to cause woman to forget her own condition, than if she be lifted up in authority above man?
[Knox for support quotes the words of Tertullian condemning women for wearing gaudy clothes. Reminding women, in the sharpest rebuke, that they were the door through which the Devil deceived mankind, and thus brought God’s curse upon all flesh. Giving women rulership, he concludes, will inflate their pride, so they lose their rightful humility before God.]
It is a thing very difficult for a man, (be he ever so constant) promoted to honour, not to be tickled somewhat with pride (for the wind of vainglory does easily carry up the dry dust of the earth). But as for woman [40], it is no more possible, that she being set aloft in authority above man, shall resist the motions of pride, than it is able to the weak reed, or to the turning weathercock, not to bow or turn at the vehemence of the inconstant wind.
[Knox echoes Tertullian’s disdain of the general female character, judging them more prone to vanity and pride than men.]
And therefore the same writer expressly forbids all woman to intermeddle with the office of man. For thus he [Tertullian] writes in his book de virginibus velandis [41]: It is not permitted to a woman, to speak in the congregation, nether to teach, nether to baptise, nether to vindicate to her self any office of man.
The same he speaks yet more plainly in the preface of his sixth book written Against Marcion [42], where he recounting certain monstrous things, which were to be seen at the sea called Euxinum, amongst the rest, he recites this; as a great monster in nature, that women in those parts, were not tamed nor embarrassed by consideration of their own sex and kind: but that all shame laid apart, they bought weapons and learned the feats of war, having more pleasure to fight, than to marry and be subject to man.
Thus far of Tertullian, whose words be so plain, that they need no explanation. For he that taketh from her all office appertaining to man, will not allow her to reign above man: and he that judges it a monster in nature, that a woman shall use weapons, must judge it to be a monster of monsters, that a woman shall be exalted above a whole realm and nation.
Of the same mind is Origen, and divers others. Yea even util the days of Augustine, whose sentences I omit to avoid prolixity.
[36]: A strong argument.
[37]: NOTE.
[38]: Tertullian de habitu mulierum.
[39]: Let women hearken what Tertullian an olde Doctor saith.
[40]: NOTE
[41]: Tertull, lib 8. de virginilis verlandis.
[42]: In proæmio 6. lib. contra Marcionem.
Augustine in his 22nd. book written Against Faustus [43], proves that a woman ought to serve her husband as unto God: affirming that in nothing hath woman equal power with man, but that neither have power over their own bodies.
By which he would plainly conclude, that a woman ought never to pretend nor thirst for that power and authority which is due to man. For so he doth explain himself in an other place [44], affirming that woman ought to be repressed and bridled quickly, if she aspire to any dominion: alleging that dangerous and perilous it is to allow her to proceed, although it be in temporal and corporal things. And he adds these words: God seeth not for a time, nether is there any new thing in His sight and knowledge, meaning thereby, that what God has seen in one woman (as concerning dominion and bearing of authority) the same He seeth in all. And what he hath forbidden to one, the same He also forbids to all.
And this most evidently yet in an other place he writes, moving this question: how can woman be the image of God, seeing (saith he [45]) she is subject to man, and hath none authority, nether to teach, nether to be witness, nether to judge, much less to rule, or bear empire? These be the very words of Augustine, of which it is evident that this godly writer [46], does not only agree with Tertullian previously mentioned, but also with the former sentence of the law, which taketh from woman not only all authority amongst men, but also every office appertaining to man.
To the question how she can be the image of God, he answers as follows.
Woman (saith he) compared to other creatures is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them: but compared to man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears no rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him etc. And how that woman ought to obey man, he says yet more clearly in these words: the woman shall be subject to man as unto Christ. For woman (saith he [47]) hath not her example from the body and from the flesh, that so she shall be subject to man, as the flesh is unto the spirit. Because that the flesh in the weakness and mortality of this life, lusts and strives against the spirit, and therefore would not the Holy Ghost give example of subjection to the woman of any such thing etc.
This sentence of Augustine ought to be noted of all women, for in it he plainly affirms that woman ought to be subject to man, that she never ought, more to desire preeminence above him, than that she ought to desire above Christ Jesus.
With Augustine agrees in every point S. Ambrose, who writes in his Hexaemeron [48]: Adam was deceived by Heua [Eve], and not Heua [Eve] by Adam, and therefore just it is, that woman receive and acknowledge him for governor whom she called to sin, lest that again she slide and fall by womanly facility.
And writing upon the epistle to the Ephesians [49], he saith: let women be subject to their own husbands as unto the Lord: for the man is head to the woman, and Christ is head to the congregation, and He is the Saviour of the body: but the congregation is subject to Christ, even so ought women to be to their husbands in all things.
He continues saying: women are commanded to be subject to men by the law of nature, because that man is the author or beginner of the woman: for as Christ is the Head of the church, so is man of the woman. From Christ, the church took beginning, and therefore it is subject unto Him: even so did woman take beginning from man, that she should be subject.
Thus we hear the agreeing of these two writers to be such, that a man might judge the one to have stolen the words and sentences from the other. And yet plain it is, that during the time of their writing, the one was far distant from the other. But the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of cooperation and unity, did so illuminate their hearts, and direct their tongues, and pens, that as they did conceive and understand one truth, so did they pronounce and utter the same, leaving a testimony of their knowledge and agreement to us their posterity.
[Knox cites church fathers; Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and Ambroseas sharing his own view of the female character, and divine purpose in Christ.]
If any think that all these former sentences, be spoken only of the subjection of the married woman to her husband, as before I have proved the contrary, by the plain words and reasoning of St. Paul, so shall I briefly do the same, by other testimonies of the aforesaid writers.
The same Ambrose writing upon the second chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy [50], after he hath spoken much of the simple clothing of women : he adds these words: woman ought not only to have simple attire, but all authority is to be denied unto her: for she must be in subjection to man (of whom she hath taken her origin) as well in habit as in service.
And after a few words he says: because that death did enter in to the world by her, there is no boldness that ought to be permitted unto her, but she ought to be in humility.
Here it is plain, that from all woman, be she married or unmarried, is all authority taken to execute any office, that appertains to man. Yea plain it is that all women are commanded, to serve, to be in humility and subjection.
Which thing yet says the same writer [Ambrose], more plainly in these word [51]. It is not permitted to women to speak, but to be in silence, as the law saith [52]. What saith the law? Unto thy husband, shall thy submission be, and he shall bear dominion over the. This is a special law (says Ambrose) whose sentence, lest it should be violated, or made weak, women are commanded to be in silence.
Here he includes all women. And yet he proceeds further in the same place saying [53]: It is shame for them to presume to speak of the law in the house of the Lord, who hath commanded them to be subject to their men.
But most plainly speaks he writing upon the 16th. chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, upon these words [54a]: Salute Rufus and his mother. For this cause (saith Ambrose) did the apostle place Rufus before his mother, for the election of the administration of the grace of God, in the which a woman hath no place. For he was chosen and promoted by the Lord, to take care over His business, that is, over the church, to the which office could not his mother be appointed, albeit she was a woman so, holy, that the apostle called her his mother.
Here it is plain that the administration of the Grace of God, is denied to all woman.
By the administration of God’s grace, is understood not only the preaching of the word, and administration of the sacraments, by the which the Grace of God is presented and ordinarily distributed unto man, but also the administration of civil justice, by the which, virtue ought to be maintained, and vices punished. The execution whereof is no less denied to woman, than is the preaching of the Gospel, or administration of the sacraments, as hereafter shall most plainly appear.
[Knox cites the searing excoriation of women by ancient writers as the correct interpretation of scripture.]
[43]: August. lib. 22. contra Faustum, c.31. [44]: De Trinitat, lib. 12 chap. 7
[45]: In quaect. veteris Testamenti, quaest. 45. [46]: NOTE.
[47]: Lib. de Continentia chap. 4.
[48]: Ambros. in Hexaemero lib. 5. c. 7.
[49]: Chap. 5.
[50]: Ambros. super. 2. c. I epist. ad Timoth.
[51]: Ambros. in I. epist. ad Corin. chap. 14.
[52]: Genes 3.
[53]: whose house I pray you ought the parliament house to be, God’s or the Deil’s?
[54a]: Rufus is by St. Paul saluted before his mother.
Chrysostom amongst the Grecian writers of no small credit, speaking in rebuke of men, who in his days, were inferior to some women in wit and in godliness, says [54]: “…for this cause was woman put under the power of men (he speaks of men in general) and thou wast pronounced Lord over her, that she should obey thee, and that the head should not follow the feet. But often it is, that we see the contrary, that he who in his order ought to be the head, doth not keep the order of the feet (that is, does not rule the feet) and that she, that is in place of the foot, constitutes the head.”
He writes these words in ironic admiration [55], that man had become so brutish, that he did not consider it to be a thing most monstrous, that woman should be preferred to man in anything, whom God had subjected to man in all things.
He proceeds saying: “Nevertheless it is the part of the man, with diligent care to repel the woman, that giveth him wicked counsel: and woman, which gave that pestilent counsel to man, ought at all times to have the punishment, which was given to Heua [Eve], sounding in her ears.”
And in another place he induces God speaking to the woman in this sort [56]: “Because thou left him, of whose nature thou wast participant, and for whom thou wast formed, and hast had pleasure to have familiarity with that wicked beast, and would take his counsel: therefore I subject thee to man, and I appoint and affirm him to be thy Lord, that thou may acknowledge his dominion, and because thou couldest not bear rule, learn well to be ruled.”
Why they should not bear rule, Chrysostom declares, in other places, saying [57]: “Womankind is imprudent and soft, [or flexible] imprudent because she can not consider with wisdom and reason the things which she hears and sees: and flexible she is, because she is easily bowed.”
I know that Chrysostom uses these words [58] to declare the reason why false prophets do commonly deceive women: because they are easily persuaded to any opinion, especially if it be against God, and because they lack prudence and right reason to judge the things that be, spoken. But hereof may their nature be espied, and the vices of the same, which in no wise ought to be in, those, that are appointed to govern others: For they ought to be constant, stable, prudent and doing everything with discretion and reason, which virtues women can not have in equality with men. For that he doth witness in an other place, saying: women have in themselves a tickling and study of vainglory, and that, they may have in common with men: they are suddenly moved to anger, and that they have also common with some men. But virtues. in which they excel [59], they have not in common with man, and therefore hath the apostle removed them from the office of teaching, which is an evident proof that in virtue they fare differ from man.
Let the reasons of this writer be marked, for further he continues: after that he hath in many words lamented the effeminate manners of men, who were so far degenerate to the weakness of women, that some might have demanded: why may not women teach amongst such a sort of men, who in wisdom and godliness are become inferior unto women?
We finally conclude: that not withstanding that men be degenerate, yet may not women usurp any authority above them, and in the end, he adds these words: These things do not I speak to extol them (that is women) but to the confusion and shame of ourselves, and to admonish us to take again the dominion, that is proper and appropriate for us, not only that power which is according to the excellency of dignity: but that which is according to Providence, and according to help and virtue. For then is the body in best proportion [60], when it hath the best governor.
O that both man and woman should consider the profound counsel and admonition of this father!
He would not that man for appetite of any vainglory should desire preeminence above woman. For God hath not made man to be head for any such cause: but having respect to that weakness and imperfection which always prevents woman to govern.
He has ordained man to be superior, and that’s what Chrysostom is saying: then is the body in best proportion, when it has the best governor. But woman can never be the best governor, by reason that she, being spoiled of the spirit of rulership, can never attain to that degree, to be called or judged a good governor. Because in the nature of all woman, lurks such vices, as in good governors are not tolerable.
Which he writes in these words [61]: “Womankind (saith he) is rash and foolhardy, and their covetousness is like the gulf of Hell, that is, insatiable.” And therefore in an other place [62], he will that woman shall have nothing to do in judgment, in common affairs, or in the regiment [rule] of the commonwealth, because she is impatient of troubles, but that she shall live in tranquility; and quietness. And if she have occasion to go from the house, that yet she shall have no matter of trouble, neither to, follow her, nor be offered unto her, as commonly there must be to such as bear authority:
And with Chrysostom fully agrees Basilius Magnus in a sermon [63] which he makes upon some places of scripture, wherein he reproves divers vices and amongst the rest, he affirms woman to be a tender creature, flexible, soft and pitiful: which nature, God has given unto her, that she may be apt to nourish children. The which facility of the woman, did Satan abuse, and thereby brought her from the obedience of God. And therefore in divers other places doth he conclude, that she is not apt to bear rule, and that she is forbidden to teach.
Innumerable more testimonies, of all sorts of writers may be adduced for the same purpose, but with these I stand content: judging it sufficient to stop the mouth of such as accuse and condemn all doctrine, as heretical, which displeases them in any point that I have proved, by the determinations and laws of men illuminated only by the light of nature, by the order of God’s creation, by the curse pronounced against woman, by the mouth of Saint Paul, who is the interpreter of God’s sentence, and law, and finally by the minds of those writers, who in the church of God, have been always holden in greatest reverence: that it is a thing most repugnant to nature, to God’s will and appointed ordinance, (yea that it can not be without insolence committed against God) that a woman should be promoted to dominion or empire to reign over man, be it in realm, nation, province or city.
[Knox recites the views common amongst ancient theologians, to support his own thesis.]
Now rests it in few words, to be shown, that the same empire of women is the subversion of good order, equity and justice.
Augustine defined [64] order to be that thing, by the which God hath appointed and ordained all things. Note well reader, that Augustine will admit no order, where God’s appointment is absent and lacking. that order is a disposition, giving their own proper places to things that be unequal, which he terms in Latin Parium et disparium, that is, of things equal or like, and things unequal or unlike. Of which two places and of the whole dispute, which is contained in his second book de ordine, it is evident, that whatsoever is done ether without the assurance of God’s will, or else against his will manifestly revealed in his word, is done against order.
[54]: Chrysostom homil. 17. in genes.
[55]: NOTE
[56]: Homil. 15 in Genes.
[57]: God grant all women’s hearts to understand and follow this sentence.
[58]: In Mat. chap. 23. homil. 44.
[59]: woman can no have virtue in equality with man. Ad Ephe. cap. 4. sermon 13. NOTE
[60]: The body lacking the head, can not be well governed nether can commonwealth
lacking man.
[61]: In ch. 22. Joh. homil. 87.
[62]: In Joh. homil. 41.
[63]: Basilius Mag. in aliquot scripturae locos.
[64]: De ordine lib. I C. 10
[65] de ordine
Continue reading John Knox’s First Blast part 5…
© 2025 Transcribed into contemporary English with commentary by Colin Melbourne
The image of the modern woman is a skilful re-creation from the death-masks and portraits of Mary Queen of Scots courtesy Becca Segovia