image of the Father, neither in the Church, nor out of the Church. Secondly, I note the mind wherewith it was done, and it was out of a little too much zeal, his conscience was tender. This, if it had been guided well, would have been worthy of praise. I do not speak this to make as if men may take upon them to meddle in what belongeth not unto them; yet there is difference between a fault done of zeal, and the same thing done out of malice. Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Lord Chamberlain, he gave no Sentence at all. Earl of Arundel, Lord Marshal. I find fault with this gentleman for keeping close his Offence of Conscience, which he saith he had at this Window, by the space of 20 years together: He should in all this time have revealed his mind to the bishop, who had been able to direct him; but upon the matter, he goeth on his own authority to break down this window, This being long kept in his heart, breaketh out to deface the Image of God in a man. Besides, he leaveth the ordinary, who hath power, and goeth to the Vestry, who hath none; and in his fanatical humour he proceedeth, and breaketh the order of the Vestry. God gave had time enough to think of it since, and in all this time he never came to acknowledge bis of fence. I agree therefore with my lord Cottington. Next let us consider the authority whereby he did it; and herein especially Mr. Sherfield had no power. The Vestry had no power, neither could they give any to another; it was therefore an error in him to conceive, that because they used to meet and do things for re-him a warning; he fell upon the seat, and hath pair and ornament in the church, that therefore they might do this, being a piece of reformation; I say, it was his error to do it without the bishop of the place. I would not be mistaken, as if I speak or did any thing against the Earl of Manchester, Lord Privy Seal. In authority of the reverend prelates: for I take it, this cause, my lords, I shall propound two whensoever that authority goeth down or de- things to be considered, the fact itself, and cayeth, the monarchy dieth with it, I think they the circumstance of it: For the fact, the breakare inseparably joined together. But this was ing of the Window because of idolatry. If this an opinion of his, that it was their lay-fee; and had been in a man's lay-fee, then he had been if he repent him of his opinion, recant it, and bound to have pulled it down; but being in a depart from his justification, (though his An- parochial church, it is to be done by the Ordiswer be otherwise) I shall not take upon me to nary, or by his appointment. This therefore destroy a man for such an offence. Then in being done by Mr. Sherfield, upon some opinion what manner did he it? Privately and without that he had in the power of the Vestry, it was noise; and this I hold to be a diminution of an error to him, but pardonable. It doth not his fault, for secret evils are not so bad as when appear that this was done contrary to the Inthey are openly done; the same evils done inhibition of the bishop, Non notum est judici, chambers, are not so bad as if they were done in the market-place. And it cannot aggravate bis fault, that he is conformable: I say, in my opinion it was very necessary for him to prove himself a conformitant; and being charged in the information to be otherwise minded, he did well and wisely to clear himself by proof. I come to my Sentence. I shall not sentence him for three or four Papists, nor shall I forbear to sentence him for three or four Schismaticks; the reason why I shall not sentence him, is to avoid the tumults of the rude ignorant people in the countries where this gentleman dwelleth, where he hath been a good governor, as hath been testified, and is well known, and no doubt hath punished drunkenness and other disorders; and then such persons shall rejoice and triumph against him, and say, This you have for your severe government. This I think would be no good reward for his care. The reason why I shail sentence him, is because he hath erred in his manner of doing this thing, in going on his own head without the Ordinary, to a work of this nature; and this I shall hold to be an offence in this Defendant, or a misd meanour, but not a crime. I would not have him to lose his place therefore, nor to be hound to the good behaviour; I would notwithstanding have him make such Acknowledgment to the bishop of Sarum, and in such manner as he shall think fit: but I do not set any Fine upon him. 6 quod non notum est judicialiter,' he had not therefore notice of it: For my lord of London's aggravating circumstances, it is true, if the thing were done, as it is charged in the Informa tion, then those would be all against him; but we see there were causes it should be taken down; it is proved some did adore it. How long soever pictures and images have been in the churches, I hold it a very offensive thing to make such a picture, or representation of God. I will mention but one author, which was before all them who were named, the prophet Isaiah, • What likeness or similitude will you make of 'me, saith the Lord?' Yes; but idolatry lies in the worshipping of the image. Take a wise man's counsel, The painted picture inticeth the ignorant to idolatry. I profess it would offend my conscience to see it, I am of such a pure conscience. But there are three other things for which I shall censure him. 1. His pretending the Or der of the Vestry. 2. That he would neglect authority, which is near unto Contempt. S. His passion in doing it himself, and not by others.-This Cause and Sentence hath many judges, even so many as hear it are judges of it. All may take notice, that our votes are to maintain order and government, yet not to uphold superstition. I will be short, I will sentence the Defendant, but not fine him; to 'make Acknowledgement to the bishop,' not to disrecorder him: The fact deserves not a fine, Archbishop of York (Dr. Neale). May it please your lordships, this gentleman, Mr. Sherneld, is informed against by his majesty's Attorney-General, for entering with force into the church of St. Edmond's in the city of Salisbury, and there undertaking, without the Ordinary of the place, to be a reformer of idolatry, in breaking a Glass Window in the same church, which he did of his own authority. In his Answer upon the matter, he setteth forth a justification. First, he saith it was the lay-fee of the parishioners: but this will not help him, for it is a parochial church. Next, he had Warrant for what he did, as he pleadeth, That he did it by order of the Vestry: I wonder what is the Vestry, and what power and authority they have? It is a place where anciently the ornaments of the church were kept; since those things were gone, there were meetings by the parishioners to agree on matters of repair and assessments, and rates for the church, and the poor; and they did meet sometimes in the church, and sometimes in the Vestry, no man of the parish was excluded. Afterwards, to avoid tumults and multiplicity of voices, some bishops had appointed, by, special instruments under their episcopal seals, that such and such, to a set number, should be Vestry-men, and be so cailed, and shall order matters for the repair of the church, or bread and wine for the Communion, and such like things, as the charges about bells, &c. And here I shall make bold to remember a story to your lordships of what passed between my lord Burleigh, myself, and Dr. Bancroft, the then bishop of London, when I was vicar of Cheshunt. I was then a young man, and I had an opinion that there was somewhat in a Vestry; and had a purpose which I acquainted my lord and honourable patron withal, to have some authority deputed us in our Vestry, by the bishop of London our ordinary; I had my lord Burleigh's letter of commendations, and special request to the bishop for the same. His lordship's Answer which he gave me was thus: If you have oc'casion to repair the church or the bells, to make rates for the poor, and such like things, this you may do; but if you think otherwise, or aim at any other power, it shall not be allowed you, and you smell of the presbytery; therefore, I pray you, commend me to my ⚫ lord Burleigh, and tell his lordship I will not incur a pramunire, for I have somewhat to 'lose.' I conclude: The Vestry hath no power to make reformation, nor can the Defendant derive any power from them; Therefore, as for the matter of offence, the picture of God the Father, no man ever took upon him to paint the essence of the Deity. But the question is, whether it be lawful to express God the Father by any representation? I think it not unlawful m itself. The eternity of Alpha and Omega doth appear in Christ, and Christ is the Image of his Father. As for those divine Homilies of the church, set forth in king Edward's days, and that in special against Idolatry, we know the times did not bear them: nor are they to be taken or understood, as not to allow any manner of pictures or images (though it may seem so) of Christ upon the Cross; but it is like the forbearing of food for a time, as St. Paul saith he would, for fear of giving offence or scandal unto others, who are weak; I say that for the crucifix, there may be a very good use made of it. As for the purpose, he that shall look upon a crucifix not to adore it, or give any divine worship thereunto, he must needs think with himself, how can I but grieve and mourn for these sins of mine, which could not be expiated but by my Saviour's blood upon the cross? And then I cannot but think of the great love of our Lord Jesus Christ to mankind, that vouchsafed to die for my sins. And then, it serves to increase my confidence in him, by considering that he has given himself for me, and promised that I shall not want any thing that is good for me; and that he will not deny me my prayers in any thing which I ask agreeable to his will; so that this must needs work a deep impression on my heart. I thus think; but when it cometh to be superstitious, or that some make it a cause of idolatry, I must confess, I would then rather want the thing, and all the good uses of it, than incur the danger of propagating idolatry. That reverend Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, in his time had a commission, and he took down all idolatrous Windows in the churches, and set in place thereof clear glass; but he left alone this Window; and surely, if he had thought it to be idolatrous, he would have reformed it. And we have the Creed of Athanasius which hath these words, That Christ is of one substance with the Father;' therefore the Image of the Son is the Image of the Father, and therefore it cannot be idolatry simply to make it. But grant that it was a cause of idolatry, might Mr. Sherfield or the Vestry take it down? He saith in his Answer, That himself and four others of the Vestry are justices of the peace, and not altogether private men. I would ask him this question, Whether as justices of the peace, they are to meddle with Reformation in the Church? It is plain they are not; yet, as a private man, he hath undertaken to break this Window; whereas the agreement of the Vestry was to take it down: Neither was it meant that he should do it himself, but by the glazier, and set up new glass in the room of it; but he hath not followed this neither. My brother, that sitteth by me, hath very well and learnedly spoken of the authority by which these things ought to be done. I cannot add to what hath been said by him; I shall therefore, be cause much time hath been already spent, only insist on one thing in the Defendant's Answer, and so conclude my Sentence. He saith, the authority which the late queen had to reform and set forth those her Injunctions, were given to her by the parliament. This is not well spoken. The statute of 1 Eliz. is but an Act Declaratory, not to be taken as if without it the 6 queen had no power to meddle with those things of the church; for this authority was invested in the crown, and is still without the parliament. He that said per me reges regnant,' giveth this authority to the king. It is good to meet with growing evils, we know not how great a fire may be kindled with a small spark. I cannot therefore do otherwise, but agree to fine and censure him highly, having offended with so many circumstances of aggravation, as have been well opened by divers of your lordships before me; therefore my Sentence is, that I concur with my lord Cot'tington in all the parts of his Sentence.' Lord Coventry, Lord Keeper of the great seal of England. This Cause, iny lords, I doubt not will produce a good effect; for this great audience consisting of gentlemen from all parts of the kingdom, cannot but be satisfied that we think it not fit or lawful to represent the Deity by picture, and consequently we condemn Romish superstition; and on the other side, that we are resolutely bent to maintain the government by the reverend Fathers of the Church, the bishops. And all this I think fit to be carefully expressed in drawing up the Sentence. This I must premise, that when I speak my conscience I be not mistaken, I am no worshipper of graven images; nor on the other side, am I of that peevish turbulent humour with others. For the Charges in the Bill, if they had been proved, I should for my part have trebled the Fine set by any of your lordships. There was never cause worse prosecuted, yet we are to consider how much standeth proved against the Defendant. The Prosecutor causeth the Information to be exhibited against this Defendant and ten others; but those ten are not so much as pressed to answer. First, to speak to those things that are not proved, but only charged upon him. 1. Ile is charged with Inconformity, therefore it was nccessary for him to discharge himself of it by his Proof, which he hath done, and no doubt remaineth in me to the contrary; for the prose cutor, though apt enough to charge him with this, yet he exhibiteth not a witness or interrogatory to prove it. 2. That he did this in Contempt of the Ecclesiastical Power, and contrary to the lord bishop's Act of Inhibition; but it is not proved he had any notice of it before the act was done, and therefore the oath of the party is to be believed: nay, there was no endeavour to prove it, so far as I see. And I like not so well Mr. Chancellor's moving the bishop to make an act to continue this Window, if it were for any other cause than to preserve the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Mr. Chancellor should have done well to have declared this dislike and scandal to the Window to my lord bishop of Saruin, and he, no doubt, would have removed it. I do not say the bishop or ecclesiastical judge is bound to give notice of his judicial acts in their ordinary proceedings in course of the ecclesiastical laws, and their own jurisdictions: But if you will charge a 3. man upon a contempt in a criminal court, as here you must, then prove he hath notice of the Inhibition: for else it is but ignorantia juris, which in the ordinary way will not excuse; and yet if it were ignorantia juris, I do not see but in so high a course of prosecution as in this court, it might in some cases diminish a fault : but this is ignorantia facti in this case. That he did profanely demolish this Window, containing a representation of the Creation. This giveth occasion to look a little into the nature of these pictures; I conceive them to be unlawful and irreligious pictures of God the Father. Two of the Witnesses say they were idolatrous, and made to represent God the Father; that it is God the Son's picture, there is no proof. I think that opinion of making the Image of God according to that of Daniel, calling God the Antient of Days, in the form of an antient man, is, as my lord of London hath said, erroneously grounded; and also to bring God as he appeared unto Daniel to be presented in the Creation, which was long before, is somewhat improper. 4. Then that Mr. Sherfield boasted of it, it is not proved that he did, and it is evident that he doth not boast of it. Now for what is charged upon him, and sticketh, that under colour of the Vestry's Order, he did the same, and without the bishop of Sarum. And for an answer what Vestries are, I read not of a Vestry in our Book of Common-Law; I read much of church-wardens, and their doings. If it be a meeting of the minister, church-wardens and parishioners, it is a good meeting, and they may well deal in matters of reparation, not reformation; and this is not derogatory from the authority of the bishop, but subordinate to it. But it may be through the neglect of the prelates, the vestries do encroach upon their government; and will be more disorderly, if they be not regulated. My lord of London did, in the beginning of this cause, well declare, that the archdeacon is magnus oculus episcopi;' it were fit for these to do their duties, and so such things should not be left to be done unto these men of the parish, I mean to these Vestry-men. Now, in the Vestry they make an order that this Window may be taken down by Mr. Sherfield. I do not say nor believe they have power to reform; yet he proveth by way of prescription for 69 years they have made reparations and meetings. But howsoever he doth not pursue his order; and this indeed was not discretion. in him. But if he had taken down white glass, I do not see any reason why I should sentence him; this being not prosecuted in an ecclesiastical ordinary course. The council on both sides have carried themselves in the cause extremely well; and for their yielding it to be a parochial church, it is well done, and no fault is to be put on the party for his protestation; for I cannot think but when he made his Answer, he was of opinion it was a lay-fee, he sweareth it; and being he now confesseth it to be subject to the bishop, his fault is a great deal the less, in as much as it now appeareth, he doth not oppose the ecclesiastical authority, I am glad to hear what I have heard this day from my lords who have spoken, and from my lords the reverend bishops. I say, it appeareth that nothing hath fallen from them or any here present, to allow the picturing of the Deity, or the worshipping of images. I am much inclined to that opinion of Mr. Secretary Cooke, That he be sentenced by way of Reprehension and Admonition; I hold fit that 'he make his acknowledgment before my lord bishop, and repair this broken Window in de'cent manner.' I am loth he should be put to any heavy Fine, the rather because he hath not been prosecuted in an ecclesiastical course; therefore I give no Fine at all. and five did give their voices to set a Fine; four of them set 500 marks, and one of them, viz, my L. C. J. Richardson, set 500, which fine of 500l. was taken for the king, because according to the rules and orders of the court of Star-Chamber, when there is difference of fines in an odd, the king is to have the middle fine. Therefore the Sentence of the court was, and is thus entered: The Defendant being troubled in conscience, and grieved with the sight of the pictures which were in a Glass-Window in the 'church of St. Edmond in New Sarum, one of the said pictures, to his understanding, being made to iepresent God the Father; did procure an order to be made by the Vestry, 'whereof himself was a member, that the Window should be taken down; so as the Defendant did, at his own charge, glaze it again with white glass: and by colour of this order, the Defendant, without acquainting the bishop, or his chancellor therewith, got himself into the church, made the doors fast to him, and then, with his staff, brake divers holes in the said painted Window, wherein was de'scribed the Creation of the World; and for The Votes of the said lords and others of his majesty's privy-council, were thus disposed. Nine agreed to set 1,000. Fine upon Mr. Sherfield the Defendant, and he should be put out of his place of Recorder, be bound to the good behaviour, and make open acknowledgment of his fault in the church of St. Edmonds, where the offence was done, and likewise in the cathedral church of Sarum, before the bi-this offence committed, with neglect of episshop there, and the deans and prebends of that church. And nine others, my LordKeeper's voice being one, agreed that he should not be disrecorded, that he should make Acknowledgment in private to the bishop of Sarum of the said offence, and in such manner, and before such persons as the said bishop of Sarom should think fit. And for the king's Fine, these were again divided; four, whereof my Lord Keeper was one, gave no Fine at all, 6 copal authority, from whom the vestry derive their authority, and by colour of an order of vestry, who have no power to alter or reform any of the ornaments of the church, the De'fendant was committed to the Fleet, fined 500l. and ordered to repair to the lord bishop of his diocese, and there make an acknowledgment of his offence and contempt, before such persons as the bishop would call unto him.' 142. Proceedings against WM. PRYNN,* esq. in the Star-Chamber, for Writing and publishing a Book intitled, "Histrio-mastix, "or a Scourge for Stage-Players," &c.; and also against MICHAEL SPARKES, for printing, and against WILLIAM BUCKNER, for licensing the said Book: 9 CHARLES I. A. D. 1632-3. [1 Clarendon's Hist. 73, 158. 2 Rushw. Coll. 220.] THE 7th of February 1632-3, Mr. William Prynn, utter-barrister of Lincoln's-Ion, was brought to the Star-Chamber; together with Michael Sparkes, William Buckner, and four other Defendants, upon Mr. Attorney Noy's Information; which being opened by Mr. Hudson of Gray's-Inn, did set forth, That about 3 Car. Reg. Mr. Prynn compiled and put in print this Treatise against Plays was suspected to be levelled against the practice of the court, and the example of the queen; and it was supposed an Innuendo, that in the Table of the Book this reference was put, Women actors noto * Mr. William Prynn now published his 'Histrio-Mast x' or Book against Stage Plays, licensed by the chaplain of archbishop Abbot; wherein, with very profuse collections, he exposed the liberties of the stage, and condemned the very lawfulness of acting. In his way of rious whores.' The Attorney-General prosewriting he could not refrain from over-doing cuted Prynn for this Libel in the Star-Chamber, any subject and from many appearances of where he was sentenced to imprisoninent and railing. And because the Court became now other penalties. The misfortune was, that inore addicted to these ludicrous entertain-bishop Laud was the instrument and abettor of ments, and the queen herself was so fond of the amusement that she had bore the part of a pastoral in her own royal person; therefore VOL. 111. this process against the Book and the Author, by shewing the book to the king, and pointing at the offensive parts of it; and then by e 20 * a libellous volume, entitled by the name of "Histrio-mastix," against plays, masques, dancings, &c. And although he knew well, that his majesty's royal queen, lords of the counsel, &c. were in their public festivals and other times, present spectators of some masques and dances, and many recreations that were tolerable, and in themselves sinless, and so published to be, by a Book printed in the time of his majesty's royal father; yet Mr. Pryno, in his Book, hath railed, not only against stageplays, comedies, dancing, and all other exercises of the people, and against all such as behold them, but farther and particular against hunting, public festivals, Christmas-keeping, bonfires and maypoles; nay, against the dressing up of a house with green-ivy. And to manifest his evil and mischievous design in publishing of this Libel, he hath therein written divers incitements, to stir up the People to discontent, as if there were just cause to lay violent hands on their prince; and hath expressed in many speeches against his majesty, and his houshold, infamous terms unfit for so sacred a person. He hath cast an aspersion upon her majesty the queen, and railing and uncharitable censures against all christian people. He bath commended all those that are factious persons, that have vented any thing in any book against the state, as the factious Book of Dr. Leighton, Jo. Mariana a jesuit, to draw the people from his majesty's government, which is of most dangerous consequence to the realm and state. His Book is of above 1000 pages: and he dealt with one Michael Sparkes for the publishing, licensing, and printing thereof, who is a person that is a common publisher of unlawful and unlicensed books; and dealt also with Mr. Buck-printed publicly, and not secretly; and because ner, another De endant, for the allowing of it for the press; and with the other four Defendants to print part of it, and publish the same: and by this means this Volume was allowed and published, to the great scandal of the whole realin. And to have this punished acco ding to the demerit of the cause, is the end of Mr. Attorney's Information. Mr. Atkins of Lincoln's-Inn (afterwards a Judge in the court of Common-Pleas) opened Mr. Prynn's Answer; That be the said Mr. Prynn taking into his serious consideration the frequent resort of sundry sorts of people to common Stage-Plays about the city of London;; and having read divers councils, laws and statutes of this and other realins, aga nst the free. quenting of common stage-plays, and the judgment and opinion of several divines, and other antient authors, and divers English waiters. allowed by public authority, and his own judg ment running with those; not intending to reflect, or to have relation to the king, queen, state, or government, or your lordships, did. about seven years ago, compile this book entitled Histrio-mustix; which is no more but a, collection of divers arguments and authorities against common Stage-Plays. That about four years since, he did commit the same to Michael, Sparkes, one of the Defendants, to be comniended to such persons as then had authority. to license books for the press. Sparkes did, carry it to Mr. King, belonging to the late Archbishop of Canterbury; and before he had, perused this book, Mr. Buckner had authority, to allow of the books, to the press: Sparkes, brought this book to Mr. Buckner, who kept it by him three months, in which time he did; fully peruse it. In the interim, he gave part of the hook to Sparkes to print, and kept the rest. till he had perused i', and said, that he should have that also to the press. In October fol, |lowing, he carried this copy with the licence, and caused them to be entered into StationersHall, and did compound with those that had authority for the printing of this book. It was there was some of the copies close written, he. caused these to be brought again to peruse, to the ntent that he might not be deceived in them; and as he saw cause, corrected them accordingly. That in Easter-Term was twelvemonth, the Epistle, and the whole First Part of the Book was printed; and he had time to xamine it between Easter-Term and Trinity, and then he did make such alterations as he sw cause, viz. in p. 711, &c. And afterwards the Second Part, and two sheets of the index of the book was likewise prouted, and these were likewise brought to Mr. Buckner; so that the whole Book with the Index, was bound upabout Christmas following, which was Christmas was a twelve-mouth. Mr. Buckner sent for Mr. Prynn, and the stationer was desirous that the Book might be published, and that he. ploying Dr. Heylyn to pick out all the virulent passages, and give the severest turn to them; and lastly, by carrying those Notes to the Attorney-General for matter of Information, and urging him earnestly to proceed against the Author: which though a prelate might do with sincere intention to suppress libelling, and to assert a respect to 'crowned heads; yet it was looked upon, by some serious men, as a giving countenance to the licentiousness and profane-night send some volumes to him: but Mr. nes of the Stage, which ought rather to have been reproved and restrained by a christian bi-hon.' Kennet. * "The Queen had acted a part herself, in a pastoral at Somerset House: and this Book of Pan's was shewed her as levelled at her, there being a reference in it, Women Actors notorious Whores; though in truth the book was published six weeks before the queen's acting." Whitlock's Mem. P. 18. Buckner said, he could wish the word 'Pity,' in such a page might be left out; and I wish with Mr. Buckner, that Pity' might be added, to every page of the Book. So when Mr. Pryan saw all this from him, that had licence to allow printed Books, he conceived it a sufficient warrant for his proceedings. And for that which is alledged in the Information, of Mr. Prynn's commending Dr. Leighton, for. which the doctor received a Censure in this |