I do NOT think it has anything to do with religion per se, but that even in the "Dark Ages" women had OPTIONS under Catholicism to reject a force marriage (i.e. join a convent and if rich take her money with her). The leaders of the Protestants tend to come from the then raising upper middle class and hated this option, they wanted to control the money and thus that option stood in their way.
Mary Tutor, Queen of France, and sister to Henry VIII, committed treason when she married against her brother's orders but got off with paying a huge fine. Her Sister, Queen Margaret of Scotland, was almost as bad, she ruled Scotland after the death of her husband while her son was an infant (her son was crowned King of Scotland at age 17 months, later would marry and Mary of Scotland is his daughter).
Please note, another Mary, was Queen of Scotland when Mary Tutor's son Charles V of Scotland died and left Mary of Scotland Queen of Scotland at the age of six days of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Guise
As to Knox's paper here is the actual text:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Knox not only quotes the Bible, but also Aristole:
And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office. For thus writes Aristotle, in the second of his Politics. What difference shall we put, says he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives, be appointed to be magistrates? For what ensues the one, must needs follow the other: to wit, injustice, confusion, and disorder. The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedemonians (who other ways amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accounted amongst the number of commonwealths that were well governed, because the magistrates and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I pray you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in Parliament amongst the midst of men?
He then turns to Roman Law citing the Digest of Justinian and De regulis juris.
He then go into the Old Testament, but ignores Deborah (Except at the end see below) a "judge" of Israel during the time of "Judges" which predates the founding of the Kingdom of Israel.
He then sites St Paul's statement not to leave women speak in church, while ignoring St Paul letter telling another church to listen to a female follower as if he was speaking (St Paul's letter as to women NOT speaking in church was to prevent women breaking up the mass and asking what was happening for they wanted to know. it was a reflection of the Greek Tradition of teaching men and women separately thus the women did not know what was happening because they had never been told and spoke up in mass to ask why. St Paul's letter is NOT to shut these women up, but that the mass should NOT be interrupted by such question, those questions should be answered AFTER the mass, i.e. it was a comment that the Speaking by women was at the WRONG time and place NOT that woman should NOT speak).
A Protestant minister once made the comment that if St Paul knew how his letters would be later used, he would have been more careful what he wrote. Thus in one letter he said "Women are not to speak during mass" and in another said, listen to this woman when she speaks during mass. St Paul saw no conflict in those two positions for they addressed two different problems, but Knox in his attack on women rulers is using St Paul for his purposes and ignoring what St Paul wrote that undermine that position.
Knox then turns to Tertullian 160-220 AD, an early Christian philosopher who later embraced what the later church called heresy to attack women (one of the reason Tertullian was rejected by the Catholic Church was his attack on Women).
He then turns to St Augustine who like most people of his time period reflected Roman and Greek law that said women should "obey" their husbands. He goes on and on ignoring statements of good women rulers and citing cases of bad woman rulers. It is an attack on women in general.
As you get to the end, Knox finally mentions Deborah. Knox goes on and on about Deborah and that she did NOT speak as a RULER but as a person acting as an agent of God. i.e. she was NOT doing what she did on her own, but only as an agent of God and then only to pass God's messages to those people who needed to know what God wanted. Knox makes out that Deborah was submissive to the men around her, but she is listed as married and her husband other then being named is NOT mentioned in the Book of Deborah. As to the person she named to command the Army, he is listed and she tells him what he has to do, but Knox says she tells him but does NOT order him. If your boss says "Will you please do X" is that a request you can ignore or an order you must obey? Knox says it was a request not an Order, you make your own judgment (I would take it as an Order, but I accept women can order me about when they are in charge).
That this our interpretation, how that Deborah did judge in Israel, is the true meaning of the Holy Ghost, the pondering and weighing of the history shall manifestly prove. When she sends for Barak, I pray you, in whose name gives she him his charge? Does she speak to him as kings and princes use 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 usurps to herself neither power nor authority. For she says not, "I, being your princess, your mistress, your sovereign lady and queen, command you upon your 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 appears more plainly after. For when she had declared to him the whole counsel of God, appointing unto him as well the number of soldiers, as the tribes out of which they should be gathered; and when she had appointed the place of battle (which she could not have done but by special revelation from God), and had assured him of victory in the name of God; and yet that he fainted, and openly refused to enter in to 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 pronounces, that the glory should not be his in that journey, but that the Lord should sell Siserah into the hand of a woman.
Such as have more pleasure in light than in darkness may clearly perceive that Deborah did usurp no such power nor authority as our queens do this day claim; 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, yea, and also did redress to her power their 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 regiment 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 into the hand of Jabin, king of Canaan;" and he by Siserah his captain afflicted Israel greatly the space of twenty years. And Deborah herself, in her song of thanksgiving, 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," let them understand that neither does the Hebrew word, neither yet the Latin, always signify civil judgment, or the execution of the temporal sword; but most commonly [it] is taken in the sense which we have before expressed. For of Christ it is said, "He shall judge many nations," and that, "He shall pronounce judgment to the Gentiles" (Isa. 2:4; 42:1; Micah 4:2-3) and yet it is evident that he was no minister of the temporal sword. God commanded Jerusalem and Judah to judge betwixt him and his vineyard (Isa. 5:3), and yet he appointed not them all to be civil magistrates.
/
= new reply since forum marked as read
:
I'm curious.
to Tanuki:
