O primeiro soar da trombeta: contra o monstruoso regimento de mulheres

by John Knox, Rodrigo Varoni (Translator), João Knox

A collection of works critiquing some of the most powerful women in 16th century Europe. The principle contributor being John Knox, the protestant Scottish religious reformer.

Genres: History, Theology, Classics, Nonfiction, Gender, Christian, Philosophy

90 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1558

About the author

John Knox (c. 1514 – 24 November 1572) was a Scottish clergyman and a leader of the Protestant Reformation who brought reformation to the church in Scotland. He was educated at the University of St Andrews and was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1536. Influenced by early church reformers such as George Wishart, he joined the movement to reform the Scottish church. He was caught up in the ecclesiastical and political events that involved the murder of Cardinal Beaton in 1546 and the intervention of the regent of Scotland, Mary of Guise. He was taken prisoner by French forces the following year and exiled to England on his release in 1549.

While in exile, Knox was licensed to work in the Church of England, where he quickly rose in the ranks to serve King Edward VI of England as a royal chaplain. In this position, he exerted a reforming influence on the text of the Book of Common Prayer. In England he met and married his first wife, Marjorie. When Mary Tudor ascended the throne and re-established Roman Catholicism, Knox was forced to resign his position and leave the country.

Knox first moved to Geneva and then to Frankfurt. In Geneva, he met John Calvin, from whom he gained experience and knowledge of Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity. He created a new order of service, which was eventually adopted by the reformed church in Scotland. He left Geneva to head the English refugee church in Frankfurt but he was forced to leave over differences concerning the liturgy, thus ending his association with the Church of England.

On his return to Scotland, he led the Protestant Reformation in Scotland, in partnership with the Scottish Protestant nobility. The movement may be seen as a revolution, since it led to the ousting of Mary of Guise, who governed the country in the name of her young daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots. Knox helped write the new confession of faith and the ecclesiastical order for the newly created reformed church, the Kirk. He continued to serve as the religious leader of the Protestants throughout Mary's reign. In several interviews with the queen, Knox admonished her for supporting Catholic practices. Eventually, when she was imprisoned for her alleged role in the murder of her husband, Lord Darnley, and James VI enthroned in her stead, he openly called for her execution. He continued to preach until his final days.

Reviews

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's Knox; need I say more?

[Micah Natal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Knox’s First Blast is zealous, brave, and theologically overreaching. In opposing tyranny, Knox wrongly rooted the problem in the sex of the ruler rather than the abuse of office. The Reformed tradition quickly corrected him. Theodore Beza made it plain: “The authority of the magistrate depends not upon the person of the ruler, but upon the office to which he is lawfully called.” Richard Hooker also sought to correct him: “To argue from the sex of the ruler that the law itself is overthrown is to mistake the substance of government for an accident thereof.” Calvin himself, tried to distance himself from Knox’s claims. He said this, “By reason of the thoughtless arrogance of one individual, the wretched crowd of exiles would have been driven away, not only from this city [of Geneva] but even from almost the whole world.” Though he was mistaken in how he handled the wicked reign of Mary; Knox was bold and faithful. So many things that can be gleaned.

[Michael Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent edition of the most recognized and irrefutable of John Knox's fifteen known publications. Although directed at the illegitimate bastard rule of Mary Tudor 1 in England against the order of succession by King Edward VI, there was a general application of principle involved with his force of argument for other similar situations. For example, when summoned by her highness to Hollyrood for preaching something not liked by the Scots royal council, Knox instead admonished the Queen's lover Bothwell on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder, rape, and adultery implicating both him and Mary Queen of Scots in a series of utterly heinous crimes - a situation which eventually led to her execution.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty bad, actually.

[Lo Inga]

dra mig baklänges på en kälke

[Morgana Mendonça dos Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma leitura agridoce.

[Caleb Harris · Rating 1 out of 5]

Having never read anything by Knox, I decided to give this book a try and was thoroughly unimpressed.

For one thing, Knox's central argument--that it is not only unnatural but positively sinful for women to exercise political authority over men--rests on a faulty reading of Scripture. The passages which Knox most frequently cites in support of his argument are 1 Tim. 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man") and 1 Cor. 14:34 ("the women should keep silent in the churches"). What Knox refuses to acknowledge, however, is that these passages refer to women exercising authority over men in an ecclesiastical setting, not a political one. Therefore, while I agree with Knox this it is indeed unnatural for women to exercise political authority over men (see Isa. 3:12), I do not think that we can declare that it is positively sinful for them to do so, in the same way we could declare it sinful for women to exercise ecclesiastical authority (or familial authority, for that matter; see Eph. 5:22) over men.

(Also, lest this objection seem to rest upon a division of church and state which Knox would not have recognized, and therefore seem anachronistic, it should be remembered that the threefold distinction between church, state, and family governments has roots back to medieval times. To distinguish between state and church authorities and their governing principles, therefore, should not be a novel idea to Knox.)

For another thing, even were Knox's arguments sound, his tone comes off as more embittered and--dare I say it--misogynistic than reasoned and respectful. Typical of Knox's book, for instance, is his assertion that women are inherently more vicious than men, less capable of rational thought, and responsible for the entrance of sin into the world through Eve's deception of Adam (despite Scripture's plain teaching that sin entered the world through Adam [Rom. 5:12], who was not deceived by Eve [1 Tim. 2:14]). Even were I convinced of Knox's argument that it is sinful for women to exercise political authority over men, I would want to advance this argument in a way that honors woman as the weaker vessel, not in a way that derides and villainizes them.

Lastly, and related to the previous two points, Knox's method betrays a lack of learning which, in turn, undercuts his ethos. For example, Knox argues that 1 Tim. 2:12 applies to women in general and not just to wives in particular, since Paul says that he does not permit "women" to exercise authority over "men," not "wives" over "husbands." Now, while I think that the context makes it clear that this passage indeed applies to all women, and not just wives, in a church setting, the only way I could make this judgment is through context, not lexicography. This is because Greek does not have specific words for "husband" or "wife," but rather recycles the words for "man" and "woman," respectively. Knox's argument therefore betrays an ignorance of Greek.

I also find it interesting that Knox cites the Vulgate translation of Gen. 3:16 ("thy will shall be subject to thy man; and he shall bear dominion over thee"), which seems to be based on a faulty reading from the Septuagint. All other translations, however, read something to the effect of, "your desire shall be for him, and he shall rule over you." Not only does Knox's subsequent commentary on this verse rely on the faulty Vulgate reading, but Knox does not even acknowledge that he's citing from this source--which, needless to say, had grown quite controversial among the Reformers by this point. Knox's argument therefore betrays an ignorance of current linguistic issues relating to the Bible.

All in all, while I am thankful for the good that God accomplished through Knox, and while I would read something else by Knox in the future, I was extremely disappointed in this book.

[Ethan Duell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Knox was dealing with 16th century feminism. However, Knox points out that this struggle for female power began with her curse back in Genesis 3 - her desire to rule over men. Most “complementarian” pastors do not realize how influenced they are by feminism and would do well to read this book. To summarize, It is nothing less than pathetic to think that woman can have authority over man in any way. The idea that it is permissible for a woman to rule over a man can be lumped in with the perversions of Romans 1 because to think so is perverted and against nature. That is essentially what I got from this book and I found myself heartily agreeing. Knox touches on many passages of Scripture to support his thesis that it is never right for a woman to rule over a man, especially politically. He also presents sound arguments from nature. Although his arguments and responses to common objections (“oh ya? What about Deborah??”) are strong, they are not the best part of this book. The best aspect of this little book was the lack of nuance and the boldness to call out evil. This righteously zealous man pulled no punches and we need to follow his example and take up the charge against the wicked men (and women) of our day.

[William Shep · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a misogynist diatribe of classic proportions made by an exiled Scotish churchman, John Knox, who later returned triumphantly to his homeland as a principal founder of the Scottish Reformation. When he wrote this book in 1558, he was furious with several powerful women, among these being(Bloody) Mary the Queen of England, Mary Stuart the Queen of Scots, and Catherine de Medici the Queen of France, all of whom he saw inhibiting the development of the Reformation and corrupting their nations against the laws of God and man. His use of the term 'regiment' signifys 'rule' and not some twisted military formation of Amazons, though he might well have imagined such. The irony is that one of the greatest friends of the Protestant Reformation in both England and Scotland was Bloody Mary's half sister and successor, Queen Elizabeth, who also became a patron of Knox. Of course, nowadays editions of this book have great shock value when sitting on a work desk or library shelf and, not surprisingly, the title has been appropriated by anti-abortion activists in use against leftist feminists.

[Bethany · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was tough to rate because I know the writer must have been feeling the terrible strain of being under a murderous lunatic queen (I gave him an extra star for that), but...

"I am assured that God hath reveled to some in this our age, that it is more then a monstre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and have empire above man. (sic)"

For proof of this being "revealed by God," he brings out the dependable Pauline passages about church and family structure and then calls on a list of church fathers to back him up. Like Tertullian, the guy who also said "Woman is a temple built over a sewer," one of my personal favorite Tertullian quotes. He mentions Augustine, Ambrose, a few others like that, before discussing the examples of female leadership in the Bible (Debra, Hulda, and a few more). He talks about how against nature Debra was, and then goes back to repeating how awful female politicians are.
Knox is angry, it's obvious, he's probably also living in a perpetual state of fear and grief with his circumstances, but his logic, nonetheless, is just wrong.

[Hater Shepard]

If anyone has this, please lend it to me.
Meanwhile, if you are neglecting any Banner of Truth paperbacks that are sittin on your shelf, get to it now. Start with Letters of John Newton. Also Sam Rutherford and "Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience"!

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some people sky dive, others bungee jump, and then some of us pick up this book at the local leftist used book store and check out in the line with the lady with purple hair and the rainbow muscle shirt.

[booklady]

Can be found on-line here.

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Two stars because what he lacked in consistent logic, biblical knowledge, and actual points, he made up for with provocative diction.

[Austin Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

Knox was relentless. If for nothing else, you have to applaud him for his courage.

He writes this “First Blast” as a political tract against the rule of Queens, arguing that is not natural for women to have civil rule over men. As a political tract, I’m sure it was quite effective. It was impassioned and unsparing in a way reminiscent of Paine’s “Common Sense” (although Knox was certainly more fiery than Paine).

Knox argues from Scripture, Church fathers, and by way of natural law.

The fault I find is that Knox moves too quickly from “unnatural” to “unreal.” By that I mean he argues that the Queen has no political authority (and that the nation is without a civil head) because she doesn’t meet the qualifications for civil rule. I’m not entirely sure this logic follows. For a believing woman to find a lawful spouse, the suitor must meet the qualification of being a believer himself. If she sinfully marries an unbeliever, however, he would still be her husband and her head (although he became her head through sin). So, I think Knox takes the argument too far. Insofar as I understand them, this is where Knox differs from Calvin and Bullinger.

However, I think it was a provocative read in that it challenges a common complimentarian attitude which seems to divorce nature from function or role. In Paul’s thinking, a woman cannot teach or exercise authority over men because of the created order (1 Timothy 2:13). In other words, there’s something unnatural about it. It would have been unnatural and wrong for a woman to teach and exercise authority over men even if Paul had never written 1 Timothy. Most complimentarians, however, have such a truncated view of men and women that they would have never arrived at Paul’s injunction (1 Timothy 2:11-12) if he hadn’t explicitly stated it. Similarly, a complimentarian might heed Paul’s command for women to remain silent in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:34), but they also might have a hard time calling it “shameful” as Paul does (v. 35). To state it succinctly, Paul isn’t giving an arbitrary command, but one which flows naturally from the created natures of men and women—their respective purposes and teleology.

Knox touches on two other areas of theological interest for me, the propriety of civil government enforcing the first table and women wearing cloth coverings (1 Cor 11). He affirms both.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Knox is very much a man of his time, considering women to be somehow lesser creatures in every respect, not just in their fitness for the throne. As I read this book, I was constantly forced to wonder how much of Knox's vitriol was directed at Mary, Queen of Scots, because she was a woman on the throne and how much was directed at the Catholic monarch of Scotland.

Knox's thesis was that 1 Timothy, 2:12, which states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)" indicates that women should not be in a leadership position period. My opinion is that Knox is taking a verse out of context that is directive to the assembly of the church and the order within the church as a blanket statement. Interestingly when considering the example of Deborah, Knox glosses over Deborah as being made exempt from the alleged prohibition that God had made against women being in civil authority, and continues to rail about Jezebel and Athaliah, and of course Knox’s own monarch, Mary.

Knox also appeals to the church fathers to buttress his case, but he appears to actually be undermining it as most of the writings from the fathers he appeals to appear to perceive women as lesser creatures. As a case in point, he quotes Augustine, who says, "A woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God for she holds dominion over them. But, compared to a man she cannot be called the image of God for she does not rule over man, but should obey him." Augustine is stating that Imago Dei is relative, and that is what Knox is holding as his standard.

Knox’s place in history is undisputed. He was pivotal in the Protestant movement and as a leader of the church on Great Britain. Mary, the queen of Scotland, is alleged to have said, “I fear John Knox's prayers more than all the assembled armies of Europe” because Knox was a godly man. However, in this case, I feel that the prejudices of his time negatively influenced Knox’s theology.

[Steven]

This book is one of those things in many ways picked up to be in my library rather than read. I find, sinking into it (and abandoning it for anything more than skimming) that I just don't have the strength for this kind of thing anymore. The history of the author is interesting. To some degree there are parallels to people like Martin Luther -- with his insistence that monarchy can be forcibly resisted when it goes against the will of God. It's just in his case, of course, the will of God means all sorts of things about the fallacies of women, how they should never be leaders, not to mention some occasional shots at Jews, etc. I suppose there's something fascinating in the way that some people who support the idea of following what they think of as divine truth can turn into well-reasoned critical thinkers (Luther, etc.) and yet some can turn into essentially hate-filled unmovable lunatics. There but for the grace of God go I, eh?

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is one of those works, where it is possible to write more about it than the length of the book itself.

This book is problematic for a few reasons, but that doesn’t mean Knox is entire wrong either. However, Knox’s tone is overly polemic in a way that comes off as being uncharitable.
Perhaps one who understands more of the historical context than I do could defend some of Knox’s statements, but I would still find it difficult to defend some parts. For example, he states that nature proves that women are foolish. As consistent with reformed thought- are not all men foolish by their own sinful nature? Furthermore, some exegetical insights are weak.

This isn’t to say I disagree with everything Knox is saying in this short read.
Some of the points, scripture citations, and insights are thought provoking.

[Gianna Lazzaro]

It's very important to me that everyone knows where and why Knox wrote this. He was coming back to England, having been banned for his status as a Protestant reformer under the incredibly Catholic Queen Mary I. He had a meeting with the queen to petition for the restoration of his status as a citizen of Scotland (I believe, and will caveat here to say that I am going entirely off of memory with this little tale). The day of his meeting with the queen, he arrived on England's shores and was told that his meeting had been postponed; and so, mature man that he was, John Knox sat down on the dock and wrote this. He got cancelled on, and his response was to scream that womEN SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!! THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED IN POWER!!! BOYS RULE AND GIRLS DROOL!!!!

It's just very important to me that everyone knows that.

[John Yelverton · Rating 2 out of 5]

My issue with this book is the complete lack of a coherent argument. Knox takes one Scripture passage and uses it as a trump card over every other Scripture passage that supports the contrary view as if any further discussion of the matter was closed and continuing to discuss it further was moot. This is a very controversial issue, and has been for hundreds of years and probably will be for hundreds more, and therefore deserves to be discussed in a much better and less hamfisted manner than is presented here.

[Johnson Percy D]

This book erupts from the very beginning with such volcanic effusions of enmity against women that the dissentient words screech proudly (an irony considering the religious soul of the writer) with what was termed in the past (in Latin) "Horror Feminae", or better known today, although a scarcely used word: "gynephobia."
Despite the venomous spittle spraying out of the pages, the book *reads* beautifully, as so much writing of those times do.
I would advise any progressive reader cleanse the palate with some lighter-spirited work from the 19th century.

[Christian Salazar · Rating 5 out of 5]

A power polemic against female rulers, arguing from scripture, tradition, and reason. Knox is actually pretty thorough in tackling possible objections and using syllogisms to prove his conclusions, demonstrating his capableness. His respect to Queen Elizabeth included in the appendixes, though may be interpreted as at odds with his tract, illustrates the monstrosity of bloody Mary’s reign and the general historical context.

[Emma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rated 3 stars because it’s a useful source and an interesting insight into the thoughts of John Knox, and how he has shaped views on female rulers, in particular Mary Tudor. However, it’s a sexist treatise, which exaggerates and gives false information. Most of it is a rant against why women shouldn’t rule.

[Joshua Pegram · Rating 2 out of 5]

Highly engaging read, due to the extremity and strength of Knox’s views. However, his argumentation is sloppy & emotional, even by Sixteenth Century standards. The harsh diatribe is even more striking today.

[Seth Kasten · Rating 3 out of 5]

Knox makes some fair arguments and some less than fair arguments. There's a bit of ranting and sometimes more than a bit. I would have liked more expansion on Deborah and more passages that pertain to the matter at hand directly.

[Door · Rating 3 out of 5]

quite a quick read

[Jay · Rating 1 out of 5]

John Knox did not like women and took too many words to say so.

[Rahul Jangid · Rating 5 out of 5]

This controversial work argued that women should not rule over men and this especially attacked on to female Catholic rulers... mary first and Mary of guise...

[Joshua Lister · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great and terrible but Mary Stuart had it coming.

[Xenophon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is Knox's most well-known pamphlet. "The Flight 93 Election" of 1558.

The Kindle edition includes a decent biography of Knox at the end.