A04928:55
The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women
The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of womenThe first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women
Geneva: printed by J. Poullain and A. Rebul, 1558
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
1To the first, I answer, that particular examples do establish no common law. The causes were known to God alone, why he toke the spirit of wisdom and force from all men of those ages, and did so mightily assist women against nature, and against his ordinary course: that the one he made a deliverer to his afflicted people Israel: and to the other he gave not only perseverance in the true religion, when the most part of men had declined from the same, but also to her he gave the spirit of prophecy, ⟨p. 40⟩to assure king Josiah of the things which were to come. With these women, I say, did God work potently, and miraculously, yea to them he gave most singular grace and privilege. But who hath commanded, that a public, yea a tyrannical and most wicked law be established upon these examples? The2 men that object the same, are not altogether ignorant, that examples have no strength, when the question is of law. As if I should ask, what marriage is lawful? and it should be answered that lawful it is to man, not only to have many wives at ones, but also it is lawful to marry two sisters, and to enjoy them both living at ones, because that David, Jacob, and Solomon, servants of God did the same. I trust that no man would justify the vanity of this reason. Or if the question were demanded, if a Christian, with good conscience may defraud, steal or deceive: and answer were made that so he might by the exam ple of the Israelites, who at God's commandment, deceived the Egyptians, ⟨image 41⟩and spoiled them of their garments, gold and silver. I think likewise this reason should be mocked. And what greater force, I pray you, hath the former argument? Debora did rule in Israel, and Hulda spoke prophecy in Judah: Ergo it is lawful for women to reign above realms and nations, or to teach in the presence of men. The consequent is 3vain and of none effect. For of examples, as is before declared, we may establish no law, but we are always bound to the law written, and to the commandment expressed in the same. And the law written and pronounced by God, forbiddeth no less that any woman reign over man, then it forbiddeth man to take plurality of wives, to marry two sisters living at once, to steal, to rob, to murder or to lie. If any of these hath been transgressed, and yet God hath not imputed the same: