  In “A further Addition” to the main text, Fell extends her analysis to 1 Timothy 2:11, “Let Women learn in silence, with all subjection”. Her argument proceeds by way of simple modus tollens. If this injunction applied to all women, she says, then no woman would be permitted to speak. But the apostle does permit women to speak—he explicitly mentions the four virgin daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9), who were respected as prophets. “And was it not prophesied in Joel 2. that Hand maids should Propesie [sic]? And are not Hand-maids women?” (14). Therefore, some women must be permitted to speak. To explain the apostle’s command to silence, Fell suggests that “here you ought to make a distinction what sort of Women are forbidden to speak” (13). The reader ought to distinguish between those women who are mere “busie-bodies, and tatlers” (13) and those women who have the spirit of the Lord. We might also consider the idea that a woman’s “husband” in this passage is in fact Christ himself, and that if a woman learns from this Husband, then she ought to be permitted to speak (17).