authoritie. Of whiche premisses, I conclude (as before) that to promote a
woman heade ouer men, is repugnant to nature, and a thinge moste
contrarious to that ordre, whiche God hath approued in that common welth,
whiche he did institute and rule by his worde. But nowe to the last point,
to wit, that the empire of a woman is a thing repugnant to iustice, and
the destruction of euerie common welth, where it is receiued. In probation
whereof, because the mater is more then euident, I will vse fewe wordes.
First, I say, if iustice be a constant and perpetuall will to geue to
euerie person, their own right (as the moste learned in all ages haue
defined it to be) then to geue, or to will to geue to any person, that
whiche is not their right, must repugne to iustice. But to reigne aboue
man, can neuer be the right to woman[98]: because it is a thinge denied
vnto her by God, as is before declared. Therfore to promote her to that
estat or dignitie, can be no thing els but repugnancie to iustice. If I
shulde speake no more, this were sufficient. For except that ether they
can improue the definition of iustice, or els that they can intreate God
to reuoke and call backe his sentence pronounced against woman, they
shalbe compelled to admit my conclusion. If any finde faute with iustice,
as it is defined, he may well accuse others, but me he shall not hurt. For
I haue the shield, the weapon, and the warrant of him, who assuredlie will
defend this quarel, and he commandeth me to crie:

[Sidenote 99: The second argument.]
[Sidenote 100: Nature doth confesse that repugnancie to Goddes will
is iniustice.]
[Sidenote 101: the reprobat confesse Goddes will iust.]
[Sidenote 102: Genes. 4. Mat. 27.]
[Sidenote 103: womans authoritie bringeth forth monstres.]
[Sidenote 104: Tim. 2.]
[Sidenote 105: Apoca. 2.]