{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Luke 18. 
THE unrighteous judge, OR An Answer to a Printed Paper, pretending a Letter to Mr Io. Goodwin, by Sir FRANCIS NETHERSOLE Knight. Wherein the rough things of the said pretended Letter, are made smooth, and the crooked things straight: and the predominant design of it fully evinced to be, either an unscholarlike oscitancy and mistake, or else somewhat much worse. By the said JO. GOODWIN.  False witnesses did rise up: they laid to my charge things that I know not. Psal. 35. 11. Quidam Christianae ac fraternae charitatis obliti, in tantum existimationem nostram quoquo modo student laedere, ut suam se evertere nocendi cupiditate non videant. Aug. ad. Artic. sibi falsò imposuos. 
LONDON, Printed by G. Dawson for Henry Cripps, and are to sold in Popes-head ally. 1649.   

AN Answer to a printed Paper, pretending a Letter to Mr. Io. Goodwin, by Sir Francis Nethersole Knight.  
Sect. 1 SIR, on the 11. of this instant, I received together with a Letter in writing, a packet of Papers and Books from you; for which I then apprehended myself bound to return you thanks, and it was really in my heart so to do. But two or three days after coming casually to the sight of a Printed paper of yours, which you call, A Letter to Mr. Jo. Goodwin, &c. I clearly found your Present to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a giftlesse Gift, by discovering your heart to be far from 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  me. Sir, though all undue comportment with the greatness of this World, be the first born of abominations to my soul, which as well my reason, as long experience, have taught me to be a temper very creative of enemies, and oppositions in the highest, from the world; yet, God assisting me, the method of my warfare against my enemies, as it hath been, so shall it still be, that of Heaven, which encountreth evil with good, and attempteth the reconcilement of enemies, by the pardoning of their sins. So that though your Pen be very provoking, and the attempt of it (at least in appearance) to cast me out of the patient and peaceable possession of my soul; yet you shall not need fear any reciprocation of incivilities from mine, nor that I will offer with your fire. Only I must desire you to bear that Christian freedom at my hand, which commandeth me to show men their errors in their true shapes, without the least palliation or partiality when I am called to it.  
Your address in the first word● of the Letter you sent me, is this: Sir, I send you here with a printed letter, with the books therein mentioned, whereof I have no doubt, but you will find yourself obliged to take notice in print. I candidly presume that it was only some oversight in you, that (with the Scribes and Pharisees) you said and did not, and do not look upon it as any breathing of that spirit in you, which wrought in them. But assuredly I received no printed Letter from you, whereof I find myself any ways obliged to take notice in print. And for that printed letter, subscribed with your name, which I understood you had published many days before I came to a sight of it; and of which I might very possibly never have so much as heard, (many papers of that quality, rising and falling in the world, without my cognizance of either) upon my first perusal of the contents of it, conceiving it to be purum putum, quanta quanta est, convi●ium, I was in suspense, whether I should return any other answer unto it, then that of Hezekiah's servants unto Rabshakeh, which was by silence; or at most, then that of Michael to his Antagonist. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Lord rebuke thee. But upon further thoughts, considering how apt men of weak understandings, and strong affections unto evil, are, to bless themselves with a thing of nought in order to their encouragement in their evil ways: I rather inclined to draw up somewhat a more particular answer unto it; chiefly to wipe off the undue aspersion of that iniquity (Falsely so called) variableness of judgement, and withal to correct the malignity of some other ingredients therein.  
Sect. 3 But Sir, I beseech you first an ingenious and Christian account, how you can call that, A letter to Mr Jo. Goodwin, which you never sent to him, nor took any probable course that he should ever come to the sight of it. If you had considered the nature of the writing, and upon what terms you published it, might you not rather have styled it, A defamation of Mr. Jo Goodwin? I confess I find a few lines in it, of some affinity with part of a letter, which about ten or eleven days since was brought to me by an unknown Messenger, from a (then) unknown author, and who at that time judged it a point of wisdom to veil his name (though presently after it seems he condemned himself of iniquity, and variableness in judgement, by proclaiming his name upon the house top) but such a Synecdoche as this unless charity in her more than human exaltation be the interpreter, will not save the credit of such a title from the disparagement of an untruth. Concerning this Letter, you tell me (pag. 5. of your printed paper) that God did not give me the grace to entertain the friendly purpose of him that sent it, (therein expressed) with suitable friendliness, but suffered me to reject it with this slighting, if not scornful answer, that I would make no answer to the letter of an unknown Person. But Sir, upon this account I must crave leave to tell you (I know not how you and your messenger will agree in dividing the shame between you) that I rejected not any friendly purpose of yours, nor any other man's, with any slighting, or scornful return. My answer to your Messenger was to this effect, that if the Gentleman, who sent the letter, would please at any time to repair unto me, I was ready to give him the best satisfaction I could▪ but that it was contrary both to my mind and practice, to return answers in writing to the letters of unknown persons, refusing to trust me with their names. I know no delinquency in this answer against any principle of civility (much less of Religion) if you shall please to show me any, you shall find me very pliable to the impression.  
Sect. 4 But Sir, that (in the passage mentioned) is of the worst resentment, that you take the name of God in vain, in telling me, that God did not give me Grace to entertain, but suffered me to reject such a motion, as you are pleased to call, a friendly purpose: whereas you might much more reasonably, and with less sin; have said, that God gave me grace to reject it, and suffered me not to entertain it. All the friendliness of purpose that I was able to discern in that Letter, was to draw from me my judgement particularly, and that under my hand in writing, touching all the proceedings of the Army, how far I go along with them, and where I leave them; an intention or demand, as in itself captious and ensnaring, and requiring much more time to answer, than the writing of a few lines of plain English, or then I could through the pressingness of much business upon me, spare; So proceeding from an unknown Person, especially from one, who refused to be known so much as by his Name, much more suspicious, and theatning. Besides, I had so much the more reason to be jealous of this importune and sudden demand of my judgement, in matters of such high import (for the account was demanded by the return of the messenger) because I had distinctly, and in plain English, declared myself, how far my intent was to justify the army in their late and present proceedings, in my Right and Might, towards the end of the second Section; viz. in all such actions, which were of like tenor and import, with that of their late garbling, or sifting of the Parliament, i. (if English yet more plain can be spoken) in all such actions; the equity or justness whereof is not impeachable upon any other terms or ground, than that.  
Sect. 5 And truly Sir, though I love not to look over narrowly for men's intentions at their left hands, yet when intimations this way are pregnant, and look me in the face, I dare not say, I see them not. I really wish that you could reconcile those passages in your printed Letter, with such a friendliness of purpose towards me, as you profess, which my understanding, though assisted with much charity, knoweth not how to break, or tune into such an harmony. For I had much rather believe, though upon weaker and less convincing grounds, the friendliness of any man towards me, than the falseness of his heart, upon the clearest demonstrations. But to deal plainly with you, I must borrow the saith of that generation of men, who (as Solomon saith) will believe every thing, to believe, that so many reproachful terms as your pen mustreth up against me, as Pope, New Light, self-condemned heretic, and so many groundless suggestions, as that soldiers and Officers of all degrees have been seduced by me, that the Members of the House of Commons now sitting, have been led out of the road of their loyalty by me, that I greatly appear in the Face and Body of my late Discourse, entitled, Right and Might, &c. to teach things contrary to what I assert in my anticavalierism; and moreover, that so many instigations of persons of several Interests and capacities, Independents, soldiers, Parliament men, &c. to fall foul upon me, in case I shall refuse to do that, which is most unreasonable, senseless, and impious for me to do; I must (I say) borrow the Faith of fools, to believe that such symptoms as these, are consistent with a sound mind, or Friendly purpose towards me, in him, on whom they are found.  
Sect. 6 Whereas you very unworthily insinuate against me, that all Independents in the Army, as well soldiers as Officers of all degrees, may reasonably be judged to have been seduced by me, as likewise that the Parliament now sitting, (though you are not wise enough to call them a Parliament, nor to determine in what capacity they fit) may have been led out of the road of their loyalty by the observation of my irregular motion, &c. the God on high, who must shortly judge both you & me, knows, & these worthy persons themselves, both Parliament men & soldiers know, that I never was the man from whose tongue or pen the least word, or syllable, tending to the forming, fashioning, or directing of any their proceedings, ever came. Only when I clearly discerned, that through better teachings then mine, they were engaged in ways of Conscience and Honour, such as were (through the blessing of God) like to bless the nation, wherein notwithstanding, in stead of thanks and encouragements deserved, they met with contradictions and hard sayings from many, and were (with their Lord and Master) numbered amongst transgressors, I conceived myself obliged in duty, to being forth the righteousness of their cause into the clearest light I could, and to stop the mouths of gainsayers with my pen. And therefore whereas you desire, that the Members of the Honourable House of Commons now sitting (though in what capacity you are not wise enough, you say; not willing enough, I fear, to determine) would change their game, and give over hunting of Lions and wild boars, I mean the grand disturbers and destroyers of the Nation, and pursue after dead Dogs and Fleas, or hunt Partridges on the mountains, harmless, weak, and contemptible men, do you not at once declare yourself an enemy to the peace and safety of the kingdom, and to all those that are righteous and innocent in it, and a Friend to Thieves and murderers. Whether you do declare yourself, or no, upon such terms as these, I am not wise enough to determine: but I beseech you do yourself judge.  
Sect. 7 But the high prize, which in your printed Letter you run so shenuously to obtain, is to disparage me as a man of a variable and inconsistent judgement, yea to Article against me as a self-condemned heretic▪ unless I shall presently with the turning of an hand, or in the twinkling of an eye, remove mountains, ●. (in your Dialect) give you such reasons for the change of my judgement [since the writing of my anticavalierism] which may satisfy you, that they are of sufficient importance to make such an alteration in me. Good Sir, at this point I must deal plainly with you, and tell you▪ that here you speak so irrationally, that you leave me very little hope of finding much strength of reason in those other writings of yours, the perusal whereof you commend unto me, and so have much obstructed my way to the reading of them. For first, must be needs be an heretic (much more a self-condemned heretic) who changeth his judgement, without giving an account unto the world of his change? Change of judgement even upon such terms as these, may as well be a reduction unto orthodoxism, as a deviation unto heresy, Secondly, every opinion, whether retained in judgement, or deserted, doth not make an heretic, whether in the one case, or the other. Thirdly, as to the particular opinion, a recess from which you presume in me, but prove not at all, and conclude to be heresy; I desire to learn from you, when, where, or by what author it was ever adjudged heresy, to hold, that whosoever sheddeth man● blood, be he never so high, or never so low, his blood lawfully may be shed by man in a judiciary way. Fourthly, It is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, an importune and very unreasonable demand, that a man should presently, and (as it were) with a wet finger, especially at all times, and under any circumstances whatsoever, give an account of the change of his judgement, though in the greatest and weightiest matters. Fifthly, It is yet much more unreasonable, to stigmatize a man with heresy, unless upon the change of his judgement, he shall account to men of opposite judgement, for his change, in such arguments and grounds, which shall be satisfactory unto them, that such an alteration in him is justifiable. Do not yourself say (in the postscript of your printed letter) that for a man to confess himself convinced of an error he hath made public, especially if his judgement hath not been swayed by weight of reason, but overballa●●ed by private Interest, is one of the hardest points of self-denial? So that▪ according to your principles, he is an heretic, nay a self condemned heretic, who cannot justify or maintain those opinions which he holds, by such arguments, which will make men of contrary judgement, deniers of themselves, yea and this in one of the hardest points of self denial. If this be your touchstone to try heretics, and self condemned heretics by; I fear that neither you, nor any of your party will stand before the touch. But Sixtly (and lastly, for this) that which (in this quarter of your discourse) is at deepest and most desperate defiance with all principles of reason, and common sense itself, is, that you pronounce him a self condemned heretic, who shall not give such an account, as hath been described, and evicted for most unreasonable, unto you, and others, of the alteration, of his judgement. For (I beseech you) is it not possible for a man, to have grounds and reasons satisfactory to himself, and to his own judgement and conscience, for what he holds, unless he publisheth them in print? Or is a man self condemned, who verily, and in the simplicity of his heart believeth, that he hath sufficient ground, for what he holdeth, or professeth, unless he maketh public profession of his grounds also? Were you a self condemned heretic, until the other day, when (as you say) you took off your mask, and declared for the King, against both Parliament, and army, and their proceedings? For doubtless till of late, you gave neither me, nor the world, any reason at all, much less any that did satisfy either me, or others (as neither yet have you done) that you were not, I will not say, in an heresy; but, in an error, or failer in judgement, whilst you stood by the Cause of Prerogative, and Will, turning your back upon the Cause of equity, and of the just interest of the kingdom; which, being interpreted, is none other, but the cause of God. Were you therefore a man condemned in yourself, because you did not justify yourself before others? Or if you were a man justified in yourself, though condemned by others, whilst you kept your reasons and grounds to yourself, of that opinion, for which others condemned you, why may not I be admitted to take part with you in the privilege, upon the same terms?  
Sect. 8 And whereas you essay to bruise the heel of my Right and Might well met, that so the credit of it may halt in the apprehension of men, by going about the bush to represent the Author of it, as a man of a desultory, and variable judgement, and hereby condemning himself of iniquity; I perceive hereby, that you deal more in colours, than in substances. For whatsoever my judgement was in the point you wot of, whether Negative, or Affirmative; when I wrote my Anticavalierism, certain I am, and certain also might you have been, if you had looked a little better, before you had leaped, that there is nothing, either in the passage which you transcribe, or in any other part of the discourse, of any import for your turn, I mean, which asserteth, or presenteth it, as a thing unlawful, to touch the lives of Tyrants, or (in your dialect) of Kings (for day and night, it seems, to you are but this same) in a due process or course of Justice. Again, whatsoever my judgement is now about the same question, or point, whether I judge it lawful, or unlawful, to smite the lives of Tyrants, or King Tyrants, with the sword of Justice upon sufficient evidence of crimes deserving death: certain I am, that in my late discourse, entitled Right and Might, &c. I affirm nothing positively, on the one hand, or the other. Suppose that in the one discourse some things were expressed not with so much steadiness or circumspectness of terms, (though I am conscious of no such defect here, as I shall account presently) but that a weak understanding might infer, and possibly think that my judgement stood against the lawfulness of all judiciary proceeding, against Kings, in matters of life and death; and upon a like failing in my other discourse, (though to my best understanding I am as blameless here, as in the other) that I seem to hold a lawfulness of such proceedings; Must I upon the account of other men's weakness, or incogitancy in reading, be condemned for variableness in judgement, or as one, who have condemned myself of iniquity? These (Questionless) are Prerogative dealings, and have no communion with principles of equity, Reason, or Religion.  
Sect. 9 But because you seem rather to insult, then say; that the passage by you transcribed from p. 7. of my anticavalerism, stareth the Composer of my late Pamphet in the face with a wide oden mouth, whereby (if your rhetoric transcendeth not my Grammar) you mean, that it manifestly contradictetth what I affirm herein, suffer me in a few words to show you how vain your rejoicing is in this behalf: For,  
First, that I speak nothing in the passage, concerning, much less against, any judiciary trial of, or legal proceedings against Kings, is clear; first, because in the very first words of the passage, which lead the sense of the whole, I use the expression of offering violence to the Person of a King, or attempting to take a way his Life [viz. by violence] Now the taking away of the life a malefactor, by the hand of Justice, in a due and regular process of law, was never (I believe) by any man, termed the offering of violence to his Person. Secondly, that unlawfulness of offering violence to the Person of a King, which I here insinuate, I oppose to the known Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits. Now the manner and methord of offering violence to the Persons, or of taking away the lives of Kings which the Jesuites both teach and practise, is known to be, not by bringing them to a judicial trial, or upon evidence of matter of fact against them, deserving death, but by ways of assassination, poisoning, and such extrajudicial and murderous practices. Thirdly, for the proof of the unlawnes which I here plead, of taking away the lives of Kings, I mention David's conscience smiting him, when he came but so near the life of a King, as the cutting off the lap of his garment. This also plainly shows, that the unlawfulness of taking away the lives of Kings, which I here maintain, only respects the fact as perpetrated, or to be perpetrated, by private men, or out of a course of public Justice. For David, when his Conscience smote him upon the occasion specified, was a private man. Now for me to argue thus; a private man and without due process of law, aught to make conscience of taking away the life of a Malefactor, how worthy so ever to die; therefore a Magistrate upon evidence of the fact in a legal way, aught to make conscience of it also, were to beat the air, or to give water instead of wine. Fourthly, by the tenor of the objection, whereunto the passage under contest is reponed by way of Answer (in part) the relation and proportion between which, is soon seen in the discourse itself (though it would be somewhat long here to argue it) it evidently appears that the said passage looketh not towards any trial of Kings for their lives by lawful Magistrates, but only impleads all violence offered, or to be offered, to them, by private men.  
Sect. 10 Nor doth the simile in the passage, wherein the ●ives of Kings are resembled to consecrated Corn, meet to be reaped or gathered by the hand of God himself, necessarily import any such thing as you would worm, and work out of it, as viz. that it should be sinful, or unlawful, for any man, or men whatsoever, in what case soever, to take away the lives of Kings. Because, whatsoever is done in a way of justice, and according to the Will, Word, or commandment of God, is frequently in Scripture, and may in sufficient propriety of speech, be said to be done by God himself. This rule, though perhaps you cannot find in the Homilies of the Church of England, yet may you find it more than once in the writings of Reformed Divines. It is frequent in the Scriptures (saith Mr. Ainsworth) to make one the doer of a thing, which he commandeth to be done. 
* In Numb. 193.  Thus Joshua saith unto Achan: Insomuch as thou hast troubled us, THE LORD SHALL trouble thee this day. Immediately it follows: And all Israel threw stones at him, and burned them with fire, &c. 
* Ioh. 7. 25.  The Lord himself is said to have troubled Achan, because what Joshua and the People did to him in this kind, was according to his will and appointment. Thus God himself said unto Moses, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters 
* Exo. 7. 17. : whereas the sequel plainly showeth that it was Aaron, and not God himself, otherwise then by his command, that smote therewith upon the water. See also Matth. 19 6. 2 Cor. 12. 21. upon the former of which places, Zanchie (I well remember) delivereth the same rule, for substance, with that mentioned from M. Ainsworth. So then, God having commanded, that who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; 
* Gen. 9 6.  whose blood soever is shed in a regular obedience to this command, may be said to be shed by by God himself.  
Sect. 11 Nor will those words in the passage, wherewith you make your capital flourish, IN what CASE SOEVER, any whit more countenance your forged cavillation, if you mind the words immediately following. The entire clause is this: we conceive it to be the just Prerogative of Kings, in what case so●●●●, to be secure from the violence of men. You by making majorites of those words, IN what CASE SOEVER, and minorites, of those which follow, would (as it should seem) fain imply, that those words, which you make great, comprehend more, and extend farther, than their fellows following them, which you make little as viz. not only to secure Kings from the violence of men (whereunto they are expressly limited) but from the justice of God also administered by men. Take heed what y●● do (Saith the good King Jehosaphat to the Judges which he appointed in the land) for ye execute not the judgements of men, but of the Lord, and he will be with you in the cause and judgement, Take heed and do it: for there is no iniq●itie with the Lord our God, neither respect of persons. 
* 2 Chro. 19 6, 7.  Besides, if I should have intended to say, without all limitation and exception whatsoever, that it were the privilege of Kings, not to have their lives taken from them by men, without sin, in what case soever, I must have supposed, that the Philistines sinned in flaying Saul in battle; that Eliud sinned in killing Eglon, Joshua in putting so many Kings to the sword, as he did, Samuel in having Agag to pieces &c. which certainly never came within the verge of my thoughts nor (I think) of any other man, who knew his right-hand from his left in matters of Religion.  
Sect. 12 Nor is it of any value for the crediting of your deduction from the passage in hand, to pretend and say, that if I intended no other security therein unto Kings, then only from the violence of men in an extrajudicial way, I made them herein but equal unto private and ordinariemen; it being the privilege, of the meanest of men, that their lives cannot be taken from them without sin, otherwise then by the sword of the Magistrate, and that in a due process of law For to this the answer is easy; that there is no inconvenience or absurdity in it at all, to assert that in an emphatical and peculiar way unto Kings, which in a general consideration belongs unto other men also. The Scripture itself doth this frequently. The Apostle Peter, chargeth Christians to honour the King: and yet in the same verse, and in the same term, he commandeth them also to Honour all men. 
* {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. 1 Pet. 2. 17.  In like manner, it is written (saith the Apostle Paul) thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people: 
* Act. 23. 5.  and yet the same Apostle asserts the same privilege (I mean, of not having evil spoken of them) unto all men; charging Christians (and in them, all others) to speak evil of no man. Yet again, he exhorts that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made 
* Tit. 3. 2.  for all men; and immediately adds, For Kings, &c. So that it 
* Tim. 2. 12.  is no solecism at all in reason, or discourse, either to say, or imply that common privileges, having an accent put upon them, are presents for Kings. More might be added upon this account: but I desire not to be tedious unto you▪  
Sect. 13 Thus than you see Sir, or cannot lightly but see, how strangely you were mistaken in construing that passage of mine, which you cite in your printed letter. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: your treasure, prove but coals. I beseech you take the advantage of the present occasion, and consider with yourself so much the more narrowly, whether in many other cases, as well as this, the shadows of the mountains do not seem men unto you. And yet I confess that C. B. hath justified P. D. in his un-cleark-like and frothy mistake. For he being a D. D. standing in Christ's stead, and speaking in Christ's Name, unto men, abused at once his great Lord and Master, his auditory, his calling, his brother, and himself in a most desperate and shameful manner teaching for Doctrine the empty traditions of your pen, and making part of his Audience glad, and part sad, with that Lie, which the sight of your paper (it seems) had put into his unhallowed mouth.  
Before I leave the business in hand, because I would secure you against all mistakes, (if it be possible) I beseech you once again that you will please tounderstand, that in all that I have said to vindicate the innocency of my misunderstood passage, from the offence, which either you take at it, or would fasten upon it, I have said nothing, either by way of affirmation, or negation concerning the state of my judgement, about the question of the lawfulness, and unlawfulness, of judicial proceedings against Kings, at the time when I composed my Anticavalierism. All that I have said or done, upon this account, amounts to no more, then only to a clear probation, that there is nothing at all in the passage so oft mentioned, that can reasonably, or with any tolerable construction of the words, be drawn to a comportance with their judgement, who judge it absolutely unlawful to subject Kings to that righteous Law of God, which saith, that Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his bolod be shed.  
Sect. 14 But good Sir, suppose it should be granted you, that in the passage you transcribe, Icleerly show myself to have been of your judgement, touching the unlawfulness of all judiciary proceedings against the lives of Kings, what earnings can you make of it? or upon what ground of reason, or with what face of ingenuity, can you upon such a supposition, prejudge me a Self-condemned heretic, unless I shall either strengthen your hand by a public avouchment of my standing in the same judgement still, or weaken it, by giving such an account of the alteration of my judgement, which may satisfy you? If you shall pretend, that the reason why you would tie me to this sour appletree, is, because I speak doubtfully upon the point in my Right and Might, my clear answer is, that in this discourse I interpose nothing at all concerning it, unless (haply) it be, by holding forth and asserting such grounds, in order to the clearing of another Question, wherein (possibly) you, and others of your judgement may conceive, that the negative of what (according to the supposition mentioned) I formerly held touching the universal exemption of Kings from trial, is concluded also. But Sir, give me leave to say, that if those grounds and principles of Reason and Religion, which I assertin my discourse, and upon which the whole fabric of it is built, be first in themselves solid and clear: and secondly do with alike solidity and cleereness, contradict and overthrow that judgement of yours, which you suppose to have been sometimes mine with you; then I have already performed that hard task, which upon your supposal of the alteration of my judgemennt, you impose upon me; and have given you and others, such reasons, which may, and aught to satisfy all reasonable men touching such an alteration of judgement in me.  
If the said grounds, be not solid and clear in your apprehension, and withal seem to you to oppose that judgement of yours, which (as you will needs suppose) was sometimes mine, the confutation of them lieth upon you, not upon me, who judge them inconfutable. And howsoever it is a thing ridiculously ●●reasonable, for a man, when his judgement is opposed in a discourse, to impose upon the Author a confucation of his own discourse. Or if this be the task you would enjoin me, to declare whether these principles and grounds. I assert, do contradict and overthrow that judgement of yours (supposedly mine quondam) this is (in a manner) as unreasonable, as the former. For it is a labour of much difficulty, and requiring long study, and in some cases not far from an impossibility, for a man to beat out all the particular consectaries, consequences, and conclusions, which are virtually contained in all such principles, which he hath occasion to deliver and assert. If you shall yet pretend and say, that what you desire of me to vindicate myself, is obvious, and easy to be done, being no more but this, that I would declare, whether I conceive, or apprehend, that supposed former judgement of mine concerning the untouchableness of the lives of Kings, to be consistent with those grounds and principles, which I build upon in my late discourse: I must again answer, that such a thing as this is indeed easy to be done, but no ways honourable or comely, for me in this, nor for any man else to do in the like case. He that shall (especially in public) deliver his judgement, in matters of great weight, presently, yea without a proportionable retirement of himself for the exact 
Ad poenitentiam properat, qui citò judicat.  casting up of all particular accounts relating to such an undertaking, apparently runs a double hazard; the one, of misleading others; the other, of dishonour to himself.  
Sect. 15 And thus Sir you see, how every ways unreasonable, uncivil, and importune that imposition is, which you lay upon me; I must be, by your award, a self condemned heretic, unless to gratify your prerogative humour, I shall acquit myself from that, which is no crime, by an act of self condemnation.  
Sect. 16 Whereas you say, that for ought you know, I am the first, and only Minister of any Reformed Church, that ever was of this, by myself styled jesuitical, opinion; but are not able to bring the least proof that I am of any such opinion, which I so stile, I should sin against the law of charity, which forbids me to suffer sin to rest upon my Brother, if I should not reprove you for it, as a saying of as much unworthiness, as could lightly fall from the pen of a sober man. For, I beseech you, where are your evidences, where are your proofs, nay where are your presumptions, where are your shadows of conjecture, that I am of any such opinion, which is by myself styled, jesuitical? For aught I know, you are the first and the only man professing Christianity, who ever aspersed me with the blot, or blood rather, of such an opinion. But if a Declaration of myself▪ against this Opinion▪ will satisfy you, I here profess, with an heart enlarged, and mouth wide opened, in the presence of Heaven and Earth, of God, Angels, and Men, that I seriously detest and abhor that Opinion, which is by me styled, josuiticall. But if you suppose that Opinion, to be by me styled jesuitical, which maintaineth a lawfulness of judiciary proceedings, as well against Kings as other men; supposing withal that I am of this opinion (though I am as yet sensible of no obligation upon me to tell you whether I be of this opinion, or no) yet I must inform you of this, that in case I be of the opinion, I neither am the first, nor the only Minister (by many) of the reformed Church, who so judge: yea, and were not my inclination strong, to hope the best, until I know the worst, I could hardly allow you the sanctuary of those words, for aught I know, as clean, for your refuge. It is very hard to believe, but that you know that many Ministers of the Reformed Church have been of that opinion before, and besides me, if I should be of it. Or if you do not (indeed) yet know it, Mr. Prynn's large Tract, entitled the sovereign Power of Parliaments, and kingdoms, published in the year 1643. if your please to peruse it, will abundantly satisfy you in this behalf. In the very front and title page of this Book he rejoiceth over it, as being such a piece, wherein the superiority of our own, and most other foreign Parliaments, States, kingdoms, Magistrates, collectively considered, over and above their lawful Emperors, Kings, and Princes, is abundantly evinced, confirmed by pregnant reasons, Resolutions, Precedents, Histories, Anthorities of ALL Sorts, &c. Pag. 199. of his Discourse, he citys a large passage from Zuinglus, which begins thus: When Princes shall act perfidiously and besides the rule of Christ, they may, [cu● Deo] with God's leave, or approbation, be deposed, by the consent and suffrage, either of all, or of the better part of the people. Afterwards, in the same passage, the author imputes it to the defact of public justice, that the wickednesses of Tyrants escape without punishment, as they do. And (saith he) there wants not ways or means, for the taking away of Tyrants, but there is a mant of public justice (with much more of like import.) In the same page there is a passage likewise of Calvin, which makes it dissimulation joined with nefarious perfidiousness, and a fraudulent betraying of the liberty of the People, in Magistrates, if they connive at Kings outrageously encroaching upon, and insulting over the inferior common people, and shall not withstand their raging licentiousness, &c. But there is a book entitled, Lex, Rex, Printed here at London, anno 1644. Composed (as is said, and as the stile, and worth of it importeth, though the stile of it, I confess, is the least part of its worth) by a Minister, a man of the greatest eminency for parts of learning and judgement in the whole kingdom of Scotland, and (if fame be not a flatteress) inferior to none in piety; this book I would gladly recommend to your serious perusal, if you have not already met with it. To relate what this Author says of his own, and citeth of other men's, in full comport with the opinion now inquired after, would far exceed the bounds of my intended answer. Take a first fruits of the harvest. If a King (saith this author, pag. 234.) turn a Parricide, a lion, a waster, and a destroyer of the People, as a man he is subject to the coactive power of the Laws of the land. If any law should hinder that a tyrant should not be punished by law, it must be, because he hath not a superior, but God: for Roiallists build all upon this? But this ground is false: for the Estates of the Kingdom, who gave him the Crown, are above him, and they may take away, what they gave him, as the law of Nature and God saith. The substance of this passage he proveth by several substantial arguments following. Pag. 404. he saith thus: we hold that the Law saith with us, That VASSALS LOSE THEIR farm, IF THEY PAY NOT WHAT IS due. Now what are Kings, b●● Vas●als to the State, who, if they turn Tyrants, fall from their right? again p. 1. 3. If then any cast off the nature of a King, and become habitually a Tyrant, in so far he is not from God, nor any ordinance which God doth own. A while after, thus; There is a Court of necessity, no loss than a Court of Justice▪ and the fundamental laws must then speak; and it is with the Peopl● in this extremity, as if they had no Ruler. Many other passages there are in this piece relating to the cause in hand, which I respite to your perusal of it.  
Sect. 17 To draw to a con●lusion; you tell me towards the close of your Paper, that by a perusal of the Books and Papers which you sent unto me, I may peradventure find more cause to retract the main scope of my whole Anticavalierism, than the above mentioned passage thereof. Truly Sir, if upon the peruseall which you recommend unto me, I shall find no more cause to retract the main scope of my discourse, than I have yet found to reverse the passage you speak of, I shall find none at all. Howsoever, if you have acquitted yourself in these writings, like a work man that need not to be ashamed, you could not have recommended their perusal to a man more proselyteable, then I. balance my reasons and grounds, and I shall demur; over poise them, and I am yours. One of my chief employments is, quotidiè de erroribus meis demere: and I shall be really and heartily thankful unto you, or any man, that will help me in my work. I have not the least expectance that any error should ever bless me▪ lest of all those, which I have published to the danger of others. Make me to see in the one, what I apprehend in the other, and my Anticavalierism shall be no more to me, than your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The grounds I build upon in the discourse, as I remember are but few, the number of them, but five: Their names those, First, That Kings have no power, but what is given unto them, either by God, or men. Secondly, That God gives power or authority unto no man to do unrighteously. Thirdly, That if men give any such power, it is a mere nullity. Fourthly, That to resist any power, which God hath not given, is not to resist any ordinance of God, nor sinful. Fifthly, That self defence incase of lawless opposition, or assault, is a clear dictate of the law of nature. Whether there he any more of this kind, or no, in that discourse, I do not at present perfectly remember. Do but either shake these foundations, or discover to me, that I have built besides them, you and I shall agree in two words about the retractation of the main scope of my Anticavalierism. I thought to have drawn forth after the same manner, the principles upon which my Right and Might, stands: but these being many more in number, I shall not tempt your patience with the muster of them. Only I freely make the same offer concernning these, which I did about the other; either present me with such other principles and grounds, which will serve these, as Aaron's rod did the rod of the enchanters, devour them; or show me, where my building stands awry, or off from my foundations; and the same hand which built it, shall soon pull it down.  
Not to be further troublesome unto you at present, if you please to strike talies, and take satisfaction for my boldness from the consideration of your own, I shall take it as a pledge of Christian ingenuity from your hand. Howsoever, you may aslure your upon sufficient ground, that, any thing in these papers notwithstanding, I am, Sir  
Your very loving friend, JOHN Goodwin. Colemanstreet Jan. 18. 1648.  
Postscript.  
I acknowledge that since the printing of the former part of this Answer, I received a printed copy of that Letter from you, which towards the beginning hereof I deny to have received.   

Errata  
Page 1. line 10. for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, read {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 6 l. 1. for shenuously read strenuously. p. 7. l. 2●. for ground, r. ground●▪ p. 8. l. 15. for the, r. the. p. 9 l. ●5. for methord, r. method. p. 11. l. 8. for limited, r. limited. p. 13. l. 5. for bolod, r. blood. l. 27. after, in r. this.