The Reply.
pp. 17–1910 passages
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.
The Reply.
To which I reply, That this distinction of taking up Arms against ⟨p. 18⟩evil Counsellors and not against the King, is not to be admitted.
To which I reply, That this distinction of taking up Armes against ⟨p. 18⟩evill Counsellours and not against the King, is not to be admitted.
First, because it is a late new invented distinction, coined on purpose to shadow over the ugly face of rebellion; having no colour or ground either in the Scriptures or Fathers. Whereas truth is ancient, and the lip of truth shall be established for ever, Prov. 12. 19.
First, because it is a late new invented distinction, coyned on purpose to shadow over the ugly face of rebellion; having no colour or ground either in the Scriptures or Fathers. Whereas truth is ancient, and the lip of truth shall be established for ever, Prov. 12. 19.
Secondly, because it is a vain distinction. For to oppose and resist the Kings officers, especially his Counsellors, who are his chiefest and highest Officers, is to oppose and resist the King himself, because the power which they have is not from themselves but from the King, who imparts it unto them. And therefore David esteemed Nabals churlishness unto his servants and messengers as done unto himself, and had destroyed Nabal and his family, had not Abigail, Nabals wife, pacified him,