teach vs. And therfore whether women be deposed from that vniust
authoritie[145] (haue they neuer vsurped it so long) or if all such honor
be denied vnto them, I feare not to affirme that they are nether defrauded
of right, nor inheritance. For to women can that honor neuer be due nor
laufull (muche lesse inheritance) whiche God hath so manifestlie denied
vnto them.

[Sidenote 146: the fourth obiection.]
[Sidenote 147: women can make no laufull officer.]
[Sidenote 148: Let England and Scotland take hede.]
[Sidenote 149: woman in authoritie is rebel against God.]
[Sidenote 150: what the nobilite ough to do in this behalf.]
[Sidenote 151: 2 Reg. II.]
[Sidenote 152: Marke this fact, for it agreeth with Goddes lawe
pronounced.]

I am not ignorant that the subtill wittes of carnall men (which can neuer
be broght vnder obedience of Goddes simple preceptes to maintein this
monstruous empire) haue yet two vaine shiftes[146]. First they alledge,
that albeit women may not absolutelie reigne by themselues, because they
may nether sit in iudgement, nether pronounce sentence, nether execute any
publike office: yet may they do all such thinges by their lieutenantes,
deputies and iudges substitute. Secondarilie, say they, a woman borne to
rule ouer anyrealme, may chose her a husband, and to him she may transfer
and geue her authoritie and right. To both I answer in fewe wordes. First
that frome a corrupt and venomed fountein can spring no holsome water:
Secondarilie that no person hath power to geue the thing, which doth not
iustlie appertein to them selues[147]: But the authoritie of a woman is a
corrupted fountein, and therfore from her can neuer spring any lauful
officer. She is not borne to rule ouer men: and therfore she can apointe