1 Timothy 2:12

The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry, but they endeavor to thrust themselves into it; and since they can effect nothing of themselves, they do all through the agency of others; and they have become invested with so much power that they can appoint or eject priests at their will: things in fact are turned upside down, and the proverbial saying may be seen realized—"The ruled lead the rulers:" and would that it were men who do this instead of women, who have not received a commission to teach. Why do I say teach? for the blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak in the Church. But I have heard some one say that they have obtained such a large privilege of free speech, as even to rebuke the prelates of the Churches, and censure them more severely than masters do their own domestics.

For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man: since equality of honor causeth contention. And not for this cause only, but by reason also of the deceit which happened in the beginning. Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:" but of rule or subjection he no where made mention unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, "thy turning shall be to thy husband."

"But I suffer not a woman to teach." "I do not suffer," he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. "For Adam," says he, "was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Not only does he require women to be modest, but also silent and submissive; for through silence, they signify submission.

I do not permit a woman to teach. He removed every opportunity for a woman to speak. For since he commanded them to be silent, so that they would not speak under the grounds of a reasonable excuse for teaching, he says, "Nor let them teach," not only human things but also spiritual ones. And he forbade teaching in the assembly. For he did not entirely remove teaching from them; for he allows them to teach their own children for a time, as he says later on.

or to exercise authority over a man. For to teach is indeed to assume authority over a man.

The Apostle takes away from woman every occasion for speaking in church. For after he commanded them to be silent, so that they would not speak under the plausible pretext of teaching, he said: let them not teach; because this would give them authority and preeminence over the husband. Meanwhile, the wife is commanded to be in submission. "Your desire shall be for your husband," it is said (Gen. 3:16). Thus it is fitting for her to keep silence. Through silence she will best show her submission. Know, however, that the Apostle does not forbid women to teach in general, but only in church; outside the church this is not forbidden to her. Thus Priscilla instructed Apollos with sound teaching; thus a believing wife is not forbidden to instruct an unbelieving husband.

Likewise, he states what things are not permitted to women, saying nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

Consequently, he forbids them to teach. Against this, the vision wherewith his mother instructed him (Prov 31:1). I answer that some teaching is public, and this does not belong to woman, and thus he says in the church, some is private, and by this a mother teaches her son.

But we read that Deborah taught the people of Israel (Judg 5:7). The answer is that her learning came through the spirit of prophecy, and the grace of the Holy Spirit does not distinguish between man and woman; furthermore, she did not preach publicly, but gave advice under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Second, they are forbidden to use authority over the man: a woman, if she have superiority, is contrary to her husband (Sir 25:30). And the Philosopher says that the dominion of women is the death of a family, as tyrants of a commonwealth.

Accordingly, he forbids two things against the two things that are suitable to her, namely, to be in silence and to be subject to the man.

I heard that the Church of England was being advised to declare women capable of Priests' Orders. I am, indeed, informed that such a proposal is very unlikely to be seriously considered by the authorities. To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation. My concern with the proposal is of a more theoretical kind. The question involves something even deeper than a revolution in order...

To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us. Our very eyes teach us this in church. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East - he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? [...]

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity...

Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him...

We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all...

Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle... Unless "equal" means "interchangeable", equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women.