© 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
Repugnant to Justice
Now to the last point, to wit, that the empire of a woman is a thing repugnant to justice, and the destruction of every commonwealth, where it is received. In proof thereof, because the matter is more than evident, I will use few words.
First, I say, if justice be a constant and perpetual desire to give to every person their own right, (as the most learned in all ages have defined it to be) then to give, or to desire to give, to any person, that which is not their right, must be repugnant to justice.
But to reign above man, can never be the right to woman [98]: Because it is a thing denied her by God, as is before declared.
Therefore to promote her to that estate or dignity, can be nothing else but repugnant to justice.
[Knox cites God’s stated order as sufficient to prove that anything conflicting with that order is unjust.]
If I should speak no more, this were sufficient.
For except that either they can improve the definition of justice, or else they can ask God to revoke His sentence pronounced against woman, they shall be compelled to admit my conclusion.
If any find fault with justice, as it is defined, he may well accuse others, but me he shall not hurt. For I have the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of Him, who assuredly will defend this quarrel, and He commands me to declare:
[96]: NOTE. The Gentile is no less bound to the law moral than the Jew.
[97]: NOTE.
[98]: The first argument that the authority of women is repugnant to justice. Whatsoever is repugnant to the will of God expressed in His most sacred word, is repugnant to justice
[99]: but that women have authority over men is repugnant to the will of God expressed in His word: and therefore my Author [ie God. Ed.] commands me to conclude without fear, that all such authority is repugnant to Justice.
The first part of the argument I trust dare neither Jew nor Gentile deny: for it is a principle not only universally confessed, but also so deeply printed in the heart of man, be his nature even though corrupted, that he is compelled at eventually, to acknowledge and confess [100], that justice is violated, when things are done against the will of God, expressed by His word. And to this confession are no less the reprobate constrained, than be the chosen children of God, albeit to a different end. The elect with displeasure of their fact, confess their offence, having access to grace and mercy, as did Adam, David, Peter, and all other penitent offenders.
[Ed. I’m curious if Knox guessed that Adam repented, I see no proof in scripture. If you know of any please contact me.]
But the reprobate [101], notwithstanding they are compelled to acknowledge the will of God to be just, which they have offended, yet they are never inwardly displeased, by their iniquity, but rather they rage, complain and storm against God, whose vengeance they cannot escape [102]: as did Cain, Judas, Herod, Julian the Apostate, Indeed, Jezebel; and Athalia. For Cain no doubt was convicted in conscience, that he had done against justice in murdering of his brother.
Judas did openly, before the high priest confess that he had sinned, in betraying innocent blood. Herod being stricken by the angel, did mock those his flatterers, saying unto them: behold your God (meaning of himself) can not now preserve himself from corruption and worms.
Julian [Roman Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus (331 – 363) Ed.] was compelled in the end to cry, O Galilean (so always in contempt did he name our Saviour Jesus Christ) thou hast now overcome.
And who doubts but Jezebel, and Athalia, before their miserable end, were convicted in their cankered consciences, to acknowledge that the murder, which they had committed, and the empire which the one had six years usurped, were repugnant to justice: Even so shall they I doubt not, which this day do possess and maintain that monstrous authority of women [103], shortly be compelled to acknowledge, that their studies and devices, have been bent against God: and that all such as women have usurped, fight justice, because, as I have said, it is repugnant to the will of God expressed in His sacred word.
And if any man doubt this, let him take note of the words of the apostle, saying [104]: I permit not a woman to teach, nether yet to usurp authority above man. No man I trust will deny these words of the apostle, to be the will of God expressed in His word: and he says openly, I permit not etc. Which is as much as, I will not, that a woman have authority, charge or power over man, for so much means the Greek word [Greek: anthentnin] in that place.
[Knox re-affirms his conviction that nature, history and scripture support his thesis.]
Now let man and angel conspire against God, let them pronounce their laws, and say, we will suffer women to bear authority, who then can depose them? yet shall this one word of the eternal God spoken by the mouth of a weak man, thrust them everyone into Hell.
Jezebel [Meaning Queen Mary. Ed.] may for a time sleep quietly in the bed of her fornication and whoredom, she may teach and deceive for a season [105]: but neither shall she preserve herself, neither yet her adulterous children from great affliction, and from the sword of God’s vengeance, which shall shortly apprehend such works of iniquity. The admonition I defer to the end.
[Knox’s prophetic rebuke was rapidly fulfilled. Queen Mary died childless four months later, aged 42 in the year of publication 1558.]
[99]: The second argument.
[100]: Nature does confess that repugnance to God’s will is injustice.
[101]: the reprobate confess God’s will just.
[102]: Genesis. 4. Matt. 27.
[103]: woman’s authority brings forth monsters.
[104]: Tim. 2.
[105]: Apoca. 2.
Here might I bring in the oppression and injustice, which is committed against realms and nations, which had lived free, and now are brought in bondage of foreign nations, by the reason of this monstrous authority and empire of women. But that I delay until better opportunity.
Knox Replies to Objections
And now I think it expedient to answer such objections, as carnal and worldly men, men ignorant of God, use to make for maintenance of this tyrannic (authority it is not worthy to be called) and most unjust empire of women.
First, they raise the examples of Deborah [106], and of Huldah the prophetess [2 Chron. 34:22], of whom the one judged Israel, and the other, by all appearance, did teach and exhort. [106]: Judic.4 Parn.3. The defences of the adversaries.
Second, they do object the law [107] made by Moses for the daughters of Zalphead. [ Zelophehad ]
Third, the consent of the estates of such realms as have approved the empire and rule of women.
And last, the long custom [ie. tradition Ed.], which had received the rule of women. Their valiant acts and prospesity, together with some papistical laws, which have confirmed the same.[107] Num. 27
To the first, I answer, that particular examples do not establish common law [108]. The reasons were known to God alone, why He took the spirit of wisdom and force from all men of those ages, and did so mightily assist women against nature, and against His ordinary course: that the one He made a deliverer to His afflicted people Israel: and to the other He gave not only perseverance in the true faith, when men had declined from the same, but also to her He gave the Spirit of prophecy, to assure king Josiah of the things which were to come.
With these women, God worked potently, and miraculously, indeed to them He gave most singular grace and privilege. But who has commanded, that a public, indeed a tyrannical and most wicked law be established upon these examples?
[Knox admits God sometimes made divine exceptions, but that does not make them a common rule.]
The men that object to this, are not altogether ignorant, that examples have no strength, when the question is of law [109].
As if I should ask, what marriage is lawful? and it should be answered that lawful it is to man, not only to have many wives at once, but also it is lawful to marry two sisters, and to enjoy them both living at once, because that David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God did the same.
I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reasoning.
Or if the question were demanded, if a Christian, with good conscience may defraud, steal or deceive: And answer were made that so He might, by the example of the Israelites, who at God’s commandment, deceived the Egyptians, and spoiled them of their garments, gold and silver.
I think likewise this reason should be mocked.
And what greater force, I ask you, has the former argument?
Deborah did rule in Israel, and Huldah spoke prophecy in Judah: Ergo it is lawful for women to reign above realms and nations, or to teach in the presence of men [110].
The result is vain and of no effect. From examples, as I wrote before, we may establish no law, but we are always bound to the law written, and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God, forbids no less that any woman reign over man, then it forbids man to take plural wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder or to lie. If any of these has been transgressed, and yet God has not imputed the same: it doesn’t make it lawful for us. For God being free, may for such causes as be approved by His inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigour of His Law, and may use His creatures at His pleasure.
But the same power is not permitted to man, whom He has made subject to His law, and not to the examples of Fathers.
And this I think sufficient to the reasonable and moderate spirits.
But to supress the raging of woman’s madness, I will descend somewhat deeper into the matter, and not fear to affirm; that as we find a contrary spirit in all these most wicked women, that this day be exalted into this tyrannous authority, to the spirit that was in those godly matrons: so I fear not, I say, to affirm, that their condition is unlike, and that their end shall be different.
In those matrons we find that the spirit of mercy, truth, justice and of humility did reign [111]. Under them we find that God did show mercy to His people, delivering them from the tyranny of strangers, and from the venom of idolatry by the hands and counsel of those women: But in our days, we find cruelty, falsehood, pride, covetousness, deceit, and oppression. In them we also find the spirit of Jezebel, and Athalia, under them we find the simple people oppressed, the true faith extinguished, and the blood of Christ’s members most cruelly shed.
And finally by their practises and deceit, we find ancient realms and nations given and betrayed into the hands of strangers, the titles and liberties of them taken from the just possessors. Which one thing is an evident testimony, how unlike our mischievous Marys be unto Deborah, under whom were strangers chased out of Israel, God so raising her up to be a mother and deliverer to His oppressed people.
But (alas) He has raised up these Jezebels to be the uttermost of His plagues [112], the which man’s unthankfulness has long deserved. But His secret and most just judgment, shall not excuse them, neither their maintainers, because their counsels be different.
But to prosecute my purpose, let such as wish to defend these monsters in their tyranny, prove first, that their sovereign mistresses be like to Deborah in godliness and compassion: and secondarily, that the same success follows their tyranny, which followed the extraordinary rule of that godly matron. Which things although they were able to do [113] (as they never shall be, let them blow until they burst) yet shall her example profit them nothing at all. For they are never able to prove that ether Deborah, or any other godly woman [114] (having the commendation of the Holy Ghost within the scriptures) usurped authority above any realm or nation, by reason of their birth and blood.
Neither yet did they claim it by right or inheritance: But God by His singular privilege, favour, and grace, exempted Deborah from the common curse given to women in that position: and against nature He made her prudent in counsel, strong in courage, happy in rule, and a blessed mother and deliverer to his people.
The which He did partly to advance and notify the power of His majesty as well to His enemies, as to His own people [115]: in that that He declared Himself able to give salutation and deliverance, by means of the most weak vessels: and partly He did it to confound and shame all men of that age, because they had for the most part declined from His true obedience. And therefore was the spirit of courage, regiment, and boldness taken from them for a time to their confusion and further humiliation.
Deborah’s Husband
But what does this mean for Mary and her match Phillip? One thing I would ask of such as depend upon the example of Deborah, whether she was widow or wife, when she judged Israel, and when that God gave that notable victory to His people under her?
If they answer she was widow, I would lay against them the testimony of the Holy Ghost, witnessing that she was wife to Lapidoth [116].
And if they then alledge, that so she might be called, notwithstanding that her husband was dead, I urge them further, that they are not able to, prove it to be any common phrase and manner of speech in the scriptures, that a woman shall be called the wife of a dead man, except that there be some note added, whereby it may be known that her husband is departed, as is witnessed of Anna [117]. But in this place of the judges, there is no note added, that her husband should be dead, but rather the expressed contrary [118]. For the text says: In that time a woman named Deborah a prophetess, wife to Lapidoth judged Israel, The Holie Ghost plainly says, that what time she judged Israel, she was wife to Lapidoth.
If she was wife, and if she ruled alone in Israel [119], then I ask why did she not prefer her husband to that honour to be Captain, and to be leader to the Host of the Lord.
[Knox asks, if she was yet married why not appoint Lapidoth as leader of the army of Israel?]
If any think that it was her husband, the text proves the contrary. For it affirms that Barak, of the tribe of Nephtali was appointed to that office. If Barak had been her husband: to what purpose should the Holy Ghost so diligently have noted the tribe, and another name than was previously expressed? Indeed, to what purpose should it be noted, that she sent for him? whereof I doubt not, but that every reasonable man doth consider that this Barak was not her husband, and thereof likewise it is evident, that her judgment or government in Israel was no such usurped power, as our queens unjustly possess this day, but that it was the Spirit of prophecy, which rested upon her, what time the multitude of the people wrought wickedly in the eyes of the Lord: by the which Spirit, she did rebuke the idolatry and iniquity of the people, exhort them to repentance, and in the end, did bring them this comfort, that God should deliver them from the bondage and thraldom of their enemies. And this she might do [120], not withstanding that another did occupy the place of the supreme magistral, (if any was in those days in Israel) for, so I find did Huldah the wife of Shallum in the days of Josiah king of Judah [121] speak prophecy and comfort the king: and yet he resigned to her neither the sceptre; nor the sword.
That this our interpretation, how that Deborah did judge in Israel is the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, the pondering of the history shall manifestly prove. When she sent for Barak, I ask you, in whose name did she give him charge? [122]
Does she speak to him as kings and princes used to speak to their subjects in such cases? No, but she speaks, as she that had a special revelation from God, which neither was known to Barak nor to the people, saying: hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded thee?
This is her preface, by the which she would stir up the dull senses of Barak, and of the people, willing to persuade unto them, that the time was come, when God would show Himself their protector and deliverer, in which preface she usurp to herself, neither power nor authority. For she did not say, I being thy princes, thy mistress, thy sovereign lady and queen, put thee upon thine allegiance, and under pain of treason to go, and gather an army.
No, she spoils herself of all power to command, attributing that authority to God, of whom she had her revelation and certitude to appoint Barak Captain, which later appears more plainly. For when she had declared to him the whole counsel of God, appointing unto him as well the number of his soldiers, as the tribes, out of which they should be gathered: and when she had appointed the place of the battle, (which she could not have done, but by special revelation of God) and had assured him of victory in the Name of God, and yet that he fainted and openly refused, to enter into that journey except that the prophetess would accompany him, she did use against him no external power, she did not threaten him with rebellion and death, but for assurance of his faint heart and weak conscience, being content to go with him, she pronounced, that the glory should not be his in that journey, but that the Lord should give Sisera into the hand of a woman.
Such as have more pleasure in light then in darkness, may clearly perceive, that Deborah did usurp no such power nor authority, as our queens do this day. But that she was endued with the Spirit of wisdom, of knowledge, and of the true fear of God: and by the same she judged the facts of the rest of the people. She rebuked their defection and idolatry, indeed, and also did redress the injuries, that were done by man to man.
But all this, I say, she did by the spiritual sword, that is, by the word of God, and not by any temporal rule or authority, which she did usurp over Israel. In which, I suppose, at that time there, was no lawful magistrate, by the reason of their great affliction. For so witnesses the history, saying: And Ehud being dead, the Lord sold Israel in to the hand of Jabin king of Canaan. And he by Sisera his captain afflicted Israel greatly the space of twenty years.
And Debora herself, in her song of thanks giving, confesses that before she did arise mother in Israel, and in the days of Jael, there was nothing but confusion and trouble. If any stick to the term, alleging that the Holy Ghost says, that she judged Israel [123]: let them understand, that nether doth the Hebrew word, nether yet the Latin, always signify civil judgment, or the execution of the temporal sword, but most commonly is taken in the sense, which we have previously expressed. For of Christ it is said: he shall judge many nations. And that he shall pronounce judgment on the Gentiles. [124] And yet it is evident, that He was no minister of the temporal sword.
God commands Jerusalem and Judah to judge between Him and His vineyard, and yet He appointed not them all to be civil magistrates.
To Ezekiel it is said [125]: shalt thou not judge them son of man? and after: thou son of man, shalt thou not judge? shalt thou not judge, I say, the city of blood? and also: behold, I shall judge between beast and beast.
And such places in great number, are to be found throughout the whole scriptures, and yet I trust, no man will be so foolish, as to think that any of the Prophets were appointed by God to be judges, or to punish the sins of man, by corporal punishment.
No, the manner of their judgment is expressed in these words [126]: Declare to them all their abominations, and thou shalt say to them: Thus saith the Lord God: a city shedding blood in the midst of her, that her time may approach and which hath made idols against herself, that she might be polluted. Thou hast transgressed in the blood which thou hast shed, and thou are polluted in the idols, which thou hast made.
Thus, I say, do the prophets of God judge, pronouncing the sentence of God against malefactors.
And so I doubt not but Deborah judged, when Israel had fallen from God: rebuking their defection, and exhorting them to repentance, without usurpation of any civil authority. And if the people gave to her for a time any reverence or honour, as her godliness and happy counsel did well deserve, yet was it no such empire, as our monsters claim [127]. For which of her sons or nearest kinsmen left she ruler and judge in Israel after her. The Holy Ghost expresses no such thing. Whereof it is evident, that by her example God offers no occasion to establish any ruler of women above man, realms, and nations.
[108]: Answer to the first objection.
[109]: Examples against law have no strength when the question is of law.
[110]: NOTE.
[111]: Antithesis between the former matrons, and our Jezebels.
[112]: NOTE.
[113]: NOTE.
[114]: No godly woman did ever claim authority over man by reason of her birth and blood.
[115]: Why God sometimes works by extraordinary means. [116]: Judic. 4.
[117]: Luc. 2
[118]: Judic. 4
[119]: NOTE.
[120]: NOTE.
[121]: 2. Reg. 22.
[122]: Deborah commanded not as princes use to command.
[123]: To judge is not always understood of the civil rulership.
[124]: Isaiah 2. Isaiah 42. Mich. 4. Isaiah. 5.
[125]: Ezek. 20. Ezek. 22. Ezek. 34 [126]: Ezek. 23
[127]: NOTE.
But now to the second objection [128]. In which women require (as to them appears) nothing but equity and justice. Whilst they and their patrons for them, require dominion and empire above men. For this is their question: Is it not lawful, that women have their right and inheritance, like as the daughters of Zalphead [ Zelophehad ] were commanded by the mouth of Moses to have their portion of ground in their tribe?
[128]: An answer to the second objection.
I answer, it is not only lawful that women possess their inheritance, but I affirm also that justice and equity require, that so they do. But therewith I add that which gladly they desire not to understand [129]: that to bear rule or authority over man, can never be right, nor inheritance to woman. For that can never be just inheritance to any person, which God by His word has plainly denied unto them: but to all women has God denied authority above man, as manifestly is before declared: Therefore to her it can never be inheritance. And thus must the advocates of our ladies provide some better example and stronger argument. For the law made in favour of the daughters of Zalphead [ Zelophehad ], will serve them nothing. And assuredly great wonder it is, that in so great light of God’s truth, men wish to grope and wander in darkness. For let them speak of conscience [130]: if the petition of any of these aforenamed women was to reign over any one tribe, or yet over any one man, within Israel.
Plain it is, they did not, but only required, that they might have a portion of ground among the men of their tribe, lest, that the name of their father should be abolished. And this was granted unto them without respect to any civil rule. And what makes this, I ask you, for the establishing of this monstrous empire of women?
The question is not: if women may not succeed to possession, substance, patrimony, or inheritance, such as fathers may leave to their children, for that I willingly grant [131]: But the question is: if women may succeed to their fathers in offices, and chiefly to that office, the executor whereof doth occupy the place and throne of God. And that I absolutely deny: and fear not to say, that to place a woman in authority above a realm, is to pollute and profane the royal seat, the throne of justice, which ought to be the throne of God: and that to maintain them in the same, is nothing else, but continually to rebel against God.
One thing there is yet to be noted and observed in the law [132] made concerning the inheritance of the daughters of Zalphead [ Zelophehad ], is that it was forbidden for them to marry outside their own tribe, lest that such portion as fell to their lot, should be transferred from one tribe to an other, and so should the tribe of Manasseh be defrauded and spoiled of their just inheritance by their occasion.
To avoid that it was commanded by Moses, that they should marry in the family or household of the tribe and kindred of their father. Wonder it is that the advocates and patrons of the right of our ladies did not consider and ponder this law [133] before they counselled the blind princes and unworthy nobles of their countries, to betray the liberties thereof into the hands of strangers. England for satisfying of the inordinate appetites of that cruel monster Mary (unworthy by reason of her bloody tyranny, of the name of a woman) betrayed (alas) to the proud Spaniard [Philip of Spain]: and Scotland by the rash madness of foolish governors, and by the acts of a crafty dame [Mary Queen of Scots] resigned likewise, under title of marriage into the power of France.
Does such translation of realms and nations please the justice of God, or is the possession by such means obtained, lawful in His sight?
Assured I am that it is not [134]. No other wise, I say, than is that possession, which thieves, murderers, tyrants and oppressors obtain by theft, murther, tyranny, violence, deceit, and oppression, which God of His secret (but yet most just) judgment does often permit for punishment, as well of the sufferers, as of the violent oppressors, but does never approve the same as lawful and godly. For if He would not permit that the inheritance of the children of Israel should pass from one tribe to an other by the marriage of any daughter, not withstanding [135] that they were all one people, all spoke one tongue, all were descended of one father, and all did profess one God, and one religion: If yet, I say, God would not permit that the commodity and usual fruit, which might be gathered of the portion of ground limited and assigned to one tribe should pass to an other: Will He allow that the liberties, laws, commodities and fruits of whole realms and nations, be given to the power and distribution of others, by the reason of marriage, and to the powers of such, as besides, that they be of a foreign tongue, manners and laws, they are also ignorant of God, enemies to His truth, deniers of Christ Jesus, persecutors of his true members, and haters of all virtue? As the odious nation of Spaniards manifestly declares: who from spite, which they bear against Christ Jesus, whom their forefathers did crucify (for Jews they are [136], as history shows, and they themselves confess) do this day make plain war against all true professors of His Holy Gospel. And how blindly and outrageously the French king, and his pestilent prelates do, fight against the verity of God, the flaming fires, which lick up the innocent blood of Christ’s members, do witness, and by his cruel edicts is notified and proclaimed [137].
And yet to these two cruel tyrants (to France, and Spain I mean) is the right and possession of England and Scotland claimed. But just or lawful that possession shall never be, until God changes the statute of His former law: which He will not do for the pleasure of man. For He has not created the earth to satisfy the ambition of two or three tyrants, but for the universal seed of Adam [138]: and has appointed and defined the bounds of their habitation to diverse nations, assigning divers countries as He Himself says, speaking to Israel in these words [139]: You shall pass by the bounds and limits, of your brethren the sons of Esau, who dwell in mount Seir. They shall fear you. But take diligent head, that ye show not yourselves cruel against them. For I will give you no part of their land. No not the breadth of a foot. For mount Seir I have given to Esau to be possessed. And the same He says of the sons of Lot [140], to whom he had given Ar [Deut. 2:9 Ed.] to be possessed. And Moses plainly affirms, that when the Almighty did distribute, and divide possessions to the Gentiles, and when He did disperse, and scatter the sons of men, that then He did appoint the limits and bounds of peoples, for the number of the sons of Israel. By which it is plain [141], that God has not exposed the earth as prey to tyrants, making all things lawful, which by violence and murder they may possess, but that He hash appointed to each nation, a particular possession, willing them to stand content (as nature did teach an ethnic [142] to affirm) with that portion, which by lot and just means they had enjoyed. For what causes God permits this His distribution to be troubled, and the realms of ancient nations to be possessed of strangers, I delay at this time to ask. Only this I have recited to give the world to understand, that the reign, empire, and authority of women [143], has no ground within God’s scriptures. Indeed, that realms or provinces possessed by their marriage, is nothing but unjust conquest. For so little does the law made for the daughters of Zalphead [ Zelophehad ] help the cause of your queens, that fights against them, both damning their authority and fact. But now to the third objection.
[129]: what woman would not gladly hear.
[130]: the daughters of Zalphead [ Zelophehad ] desired to reign over no man in Israel.
[131]: women may succeed to inheritance, but not to office.
[132]: Num. 36
[133]: Our patrons for women do not observe this caution.
[134]: Realms taken by practises are no juste possession.
[135]: NOTE.
[136]: The Spaniards are Jews and they brag that Mary of England is the root of Jesse.
[137]: Note the law which he hath proclaimed in France against such as he calls Lutherians.
[138]: Act. 17.
[139]: Deut. 2.
[140]: Deut.32.
[141]: NOTE.
[142]: Cicero offic. lib. I.
[143]: A realm obtained by marriage, is unjust conquest.
The consent, say they, of realms and laws pronounced and admitted in this behalf, long legal custom, together with felicity of some women in their empires have established their authority [144]. To whom, I answer, that neither may the tyranny of princes, neither the foolishness of people, neither wicked laws made against God, neither yet the felicity that in this earth may follow, make that thing lawful, which He by His word has manifestly condemned.
For if the approbation of princes and people, laws made by men, or the consent of realms, may establish anything against God and His word, then should idolatry be preferred to the true faith. For more realms and nations, more laws and decrees published by Emperors with common consent of their counsels, have established the one, then have approved the other. And yet I think that no man of sound judgment, will justify and defend idolatry. No more ought any man maintain this odious empire of women, even if it were approved of all men by their laws. For the same God that in plain words forbids idolatry, also forbids the authority of women over man. As the words of saint Paul do plainly teach us. And therefore whether women be deposed from that unjust authority [145] (have they never usurped it so long) or if all such honour be denied unto them, I fear not to affirm that they are neither defrauded of right, nor inheritance. For to women can that honour never be due nor lawful (much less inheritance) which God has so manifestly denied unto them.
[144]: Answer to the third objection.
[145]: women may, and ought to, be deposed from authority.
I am not ignorant that the subtle wits of carnal men (which can never be brought under obedience of God’s simple precepts to maintain this monstrous empire) have yet two vain shifts [146]. First they
alledge, that though women may not absolutely reign by themselves, because they may neither sit in judgment, neither pronounce sentence, neither execute any public office: Yet they ,ay do all such things by their lieutenants, deputies, and judges, substitute. Secondly, say they, a woman born to rule over any realm, may chose her a husband, and to him she may transfer and give her authority and right.
To both I answer in few words.
First that from a corrupt and venomed fountain can spring no wholesome water: Secondarily, that no person has power to give the thing, which does not justly appertain to themselves [147]: But the authority of a woman is a corrupted fountain, and therefore from her can never spring any lawful officer. She is not born to rule over men: and therefore she can appoint none by her gift, nor by her power (which she has) to the place of a lawful magistrate. And therefore whosoever receives of a woman [148], office or authority, are adulterous and bastard officers before God.
This may appear strange at the first affirmation, but if we will be as indifferent and equal in the cause of God, as that we can be in the cause of man, the reason shall suddenly appear. The case supposed, that a tyranny by conspiracy usurped the royal seat and dignity of a king, and in the same did so established himself, that he appointed officers, and did what he wanted for a time, and in the meantime, the native king made strict prohibition to all his subjects, that none should adhere to this traitor, neither yet receive any honour from him, yet nevertheless they would honour the same traitor as king, and become his officers in all affairs of the realm. If after, the native prince did recover his just honour and possession, should he repute or esteem any of the traitors appointment for a lawful magistrate? or for his friend and true subject? or should he not rather with one sentence condemn the head with the members? And if so he should do, who were able to accuse him of rigour? much less to condemn his sentence of injustice. And dare we deny the same power to God in the like case? For that woman reigns above man, she hath obtained it by treason and conspiracy committed against God. How can it be then, that she being criminal and guilty of treason against God committed, can appoint any officer pleasing in His sight? It is a thing impossible [149]. Wherefore let men that receive from women authority, honour or office, be most assuredly persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God.
If any think, that because the realm and estates thereof, have given their consents to a woman, and have established her, and her authority: that therefore it is lawful and acceptable before God: let the same men remember what I have said before, to wit, that God can neither approve nor consent of any multitude, concluding anything against His word and ordinance, and therefore they must have a more assured defence against the wrath of God, then the approbation and consent of a blinded multitude, or else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of the consuming fire: that is, they must acknowledge that the rulership of a woman is a thing most odious in the presence of God. They must refuse to be her officers [150], because she is a traitress and rebel against God. And finally they must study to repress her inordinate pride and tyranny to the uttermost of their power. The same is the duty of the nobility and estates, by whose blindness a woman is promoted. First in so far, as they have most heinously offended against God, placing in authority such as God by His word has removed from the same, they ought to truly call for mercy, and being admonished of their error and damnable fact, show a token of true repentance, with common consent they ought to retract that, which unadvisedly, and by ignorance, they have pronounced, and ought without further delay to remove from authority all such persons, as by usurpation, violence, or tyranny, do possess the same. For so did Israel and Judah after they had revolted from David, and Judah alone in the days of Athalia [151].
For after she murdered her son’s children, and had obtained rule over the land, and had most unhappily reigned in Judah six years, Jehoiada the high priest called together the captains and chief rulers of the people [152], and showing them the kings son Jehoash, did bind them by an oath to depose that wicked woman, and to promote the king to his royal seat, which they faithfully did, killing at his commandment not only that cruel and mischievous woman, but also the people did destroy the temple of Baal, break his altars and images, and kill Mathan, Baale’s high priest before his altars.
The same is the duty as well of the estates, as of the people that have been blinded.
First they ought to remove from honour and authority, that monster in nature. (so call I a woman clothed in the garment of man, a woman against nature reigning above man). Secondly, if any presume to defend that impiety, they ought not to fear, first to pronounce, and then after to execute against them the sentence of death.
If any man be afraid to violate the oath of obedience, which they have made to such monsters, let them be most assuredly persuaded, that preceding from ignorance was sin, so is the obstinate purpose to keep the same, nothing but plain rebellion against God. But of this mater in the second blast, God willing, we shall speak more at large.
[146]: the fourth objection.
[147]: women can make no lawful officer.
[148]: Let England and Scotland take heed.
[149]: woman in authority is rebellion against God.
[150]: what the nobility ought to do in this behalf.
[151]: 2 Kings II.
[152]: Mark this fact, for it agrees with God’s stated law.
And now to put an end to the First Blast, seeing that by the order of nature, by the curse pronounced against woman, by the mouth of St. Paul the intrepreter of God’s sentence, by the example of that commonwealth, in which God by His word planted order and policy, and finaly by the judgment of the most godly writers, God has ejected woman from rule, dominion, empire, and authority above man.
Moreouer, seeing that neither the example of Deborah, neither the law made for the daughters of Zalphead [ Zelophehad ], neither yet the foolish consent of an ignorant multitude, be able to justify that which God so plainly has condemned: Let all men take heed what argument and reason from now on, they defend [153].
If God raise up any noble heart to vindicate the liberty of His country, and to suppress the monstruous empire of women, let all such as shall presume to defend them [defend women Ed.] in the same, most certainly know, that in so doing, they lift their hand against God, and that one day they shall find His power to fight against their foolishnes.
Let not the faithful, godly, and valiant hearts of Christ’s soldiers be utterly discouraged, neither yet let the tyrannts rejoice, though for a time they triumph against such as study to repress their tyranny, and to remove them from unjust authority. For the reason alone, why He permits the soldiers to fail in battle, whom He commanded to fight, as somtimes Israel did fighting against Benjamin. The cause of the Israelites was most just: for it was to punish that horrible abomination of those sons of Belial [154], abusing the Levites wife, whom the Benjamites did defend. And they had God’s precept to assure them of dong right. For He did not only command them to fight, but also appointed Juda to be their leader and capitain, and yet they fell twice in plain battle against those most wicked adulterers.
[153]: An admonition.
[154]: Judic. 20.
The secret cause of this, I say, is known to God alone. Rut by His evident scriptures we may assuredly gather [155], that by such means doth His wisdom somtimes, beat down the pride of the flesh (for the Israelites at the firste trusted in their multitude, power and strength) and somtimes by such overthrows, He will punish the offences of His own children, and bring them, to the genuine knowledge of the same, before He will give them victory against the despicable, whom He has apointed nevertheless to uttermost perdition; as the end of that battle did witness.
For althogh with great murder the children of Israel did twice fall before the Benjamites, yet after they had wept before the Lord, after they had fasted and made sacrifice as a sign of their true repentance, they so prevailed against that proud tribe of Benjamin [156], that after 25 thousand strong men of war were killed in battle, they destroyed man, woman, child and beast, as well in the fields, as in the cities, which all were burned with fire, so that only of that whole tribe remained six hundred men, who fled to the wilderness, where they remained four months, and so were saved.
The same God, who did execute this grievous punishment, even by the hands of those [157], whom He allowed twice to be victorious in battle, does this day retain His power and justice.
Cursed Jezebel of England [Queen Mary. Ed], with the pestilent and detestable generation of papists, make no little brag and boast, that they have triumphed not only against Wyatt [Wyatt’s rebellion. Ed.], but also against all such as have stood against against them or their procedinges. But let her, and them, consider, that yet they have not prevailed against God, His throne is more high, than that the length of their horns be able to reach.
And let them further consider, that in the beginning of their bloody reign, the harvest of their iniquity was not come to full maturity and ripeness. No, it was so green, so secret I mean, so covered, and so hid with hypocrisy, that some men (even the servantes of God) thought it not impossible, but that wolves might be changed in to lambs, and also that the viper might remove her natural venom.
But God, who reveals in His apointed time the secretes of hearts, and that will have His judgments justified even by the very wicked, has now given clear testimony of her, and their bestial cruelty.
For man and woman, learned and unlearned, nobles and men of sordid sort, aged fathers and tender damsels, and finally the bones of the dead, as women as well as men have tasted of their tyranny, so that now not only the blood of Father Latimer, of the mild man of God the bishop of Canterbury, of learned and discrete Ridley, of innocent Ladie Jane Dudley [Lady Jane Grey Ed.], and many godly and worthy preachers, that can not be forgotten, such as fire has consumed, and the sword of tyranny most uniustly has shed, does call for vengeance in the ears of the Lord God of Hosts: but also the sobs and tears of the poor oppressed, the groanings of the angels, the watch men of the Lord, indeed every earthly creature abused by their tyranny do continually cry and call for the hasty execution of the same.
I fear not to say, that the day of vengeance, which shall apprehend that horrible monster Jezebel of England, and such as maintain her monstruous cruelty, is already apointed in the counsel of the Eternal; and I truly believe that it is so near, that she shall not reign so long in tyranny, as so far she has done, when God shall declare himself to be her enemy, when He shall pour forth contempt upon her, according to her cruelty, and shall kindle the hearts of such, as did favour her with deadly hatred against her, that they may execute His judgments. And therfore let such as assist her, take heed what they do. For assuredly her empire and reign is a wall without foundation [158]: I mean the same of the authority of all women.
It has been supported this dark time that is past, by the foolishnes of people; and by the wicked laws of ignorant and tyrannous princes. But the fire of God’s word is already laid to those rotten props (I include the Pope’s law with the rest) and presently they burn, though we see no flame: when they are consumed, (as shortly they will be, for stubble and dry timber can not long endure the fire) that rotten wall, the usurped and unjust empire of women, shall fall by itself despite of all man, to the destruction of so many, as shall labor to uphold it. And therfore let all man be warned, for the trumpet has now blown.
[155]: Why God permits somtimes His own soldiers to fail in battle.
[156]: Iudic. 20
[157]: NOTE.
[158]: The authority of all women, is a wall without foundation.
Praise God ye that fear Him.
The following postscript occurs at p. 78 of John Knox’s Appellation [tract Ed.] which is dated “From Geneva. The 14 of July, 1558.”
END
© 2025 Transcribed into contemporary English with commentary by Colin Melbourne