1 Timothy 2:13

But you should not be surprised that she [the church] who is gathered out of the dispersion of the nations and prepared to be the bride of Christ has sometimes been guilty of these faults. Remember how the first woman was seduced and was in the transgression and could find her salvation, so the Scripture says, only in bearing children, which for our present purpose means those who continue in faith and love with sanctity. The apostle, therefore, declares what is written about Adam and Eve thus, “This is a great mystery in Christ and in the church.” Christ so loved her that he gave himself for her, while she was yet undutiful, even as he says, “When as yet we were ungodly according to the time, Christ died for us”; and again, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

It was said, moreover, that it was not good for man to be alone. Yet we know that Adam did not commit sin before woman was created. However, after creation, she was the first to disobey the divine command and even allured her husband to sin. If, therefore, the woman is responsible for the sin, how then can her coming be considered a good? But, if you consider that the universe is in the care of God, then you will discover this fact, namely, that the Lord must have gained more pleasure for himself in being responsible for all creation than condemnation from us for providing the basis for sin. Accordingly, the Lord declared that it was not good for man to be alone, because the human race could not have been propagated from man alone.… For the sake therefore of the successive generations of men it followed that woman had to be joined to man. Thus we must interpret the very words of God when he said that it was not good for the man to be alone. If the woman was to be the first one to sin, the fact that she was the one destined to bring forth redemption must not be excluded from the operations of divine Providence. Although “Adam was not deceived, the woman was deceived and was in sin.” Yet woman, we are told, “will be saved by childbearing,” in the course of which Christ became born of woman.

If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. "Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband?" This had not been said to her before.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.

For Adam was formed first. Since Adam was formed first, the woman should not have authority over the man, but should be in submission to him.

Adam was not deceived. As to the comparison with the deceit with which the woman was deceived, the behavior of Adam is neither deceit nor trickery. For it is much more reasonable to be deceived by the serpent than to accept the fruit from the woman and eat it. Therefore, in his defense, Paul says that he was not deceived, but that "The woman whom you gave to be my helper, she gave to me and I ate." (Gen. 3:12) Calmly showing that Adam did not even err after listening to his helper. "He was not deceived." Note that what precedes is to be understood as implied.

In another way also. How was Adam not deceived? Because neither does Scripture say this, but the woman indeed: "The serpent deceived me." (Gen. 3:13) But Adam does not say; "The woman deceived me," but, "She gave me." She gave to me: For it is not the same to be persuaded by a fellow and companion, and to be persuaded by a beast, slave, and one who is subordinated. Therefore, that was the deception. But neither did Adam see the tree that it was beautiful to eat, but the woman.

but the woman being deceived. And Paul brings this forward to prevent a woman from teaching. For once a woman has taught, Paul says, she overturns everything and makes the man subject to disobedience: for she was the author herself and advised him to eat. Therefore, he does not say: Eve was deceived; but the woman was deceived, indicating a nature that is easily deceived.

but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Not only Eve became accountable to transgression, but also the whole sisterhood of women. For as in Adam we all die, so in Eve all have sinned.

Since, he says, in the very creation the male sex was honored with primacy, and Eve was created second, then after this all wives must hold secondary places after their husbands and be subject to them. For the force of what was then done with regard to Adam and Eve extends to the entire male and female sex.

Then when he says, for Adam was formed first, he assigns the reason for what he had taught: first, from the order of creation; second, from the order of sin, at and Adam was not seduced.

In regard to the first it should be noted that in the order of things the perfect and the imperfect are differently ordained: because in one and the same individual the imperfect is prior in time, but the perfect is prior in nature, because nature proceeds from the imperfect to the perfect; but in diverse things the perfect is prior in time and in nature, because nature always starts with what is perfect. This is the order according to which we are now speaking, because man is the perfect specimen of human nature, whereas a woman is a man by happenstance. Hence Adam was formed first: the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth (Gen 2:7); then woman was formed as something imperfect originating from something perfect, namely, from a rib: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man (1 Cor 11:8). That is why man is not said to be formed for the woman, but to the likeness of God: let us make man to our own image and likeness (Gen 1:26). The woman, however, is for the sake of the man; therefore, the man should rule.

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.