The Court of Star Chamber. must follow but insurrection? So that here is in this a great deal of disobedience, and that done in the singularity of his spirit in contempt of the church; he hath thereby touched upon the regal power, and en croached upon the hierarchy of the bishops, who have their authority from the King." Sir Robert Heath, whose former connec tion with the case as the prosecutor of Sherfield seems in no way to have preju diced his judgment, took a very different view. While agreeing that Sherfield's act was an dffense, he noted several circumstances in the defendant's favor which induced him to take a more merciful view of the appropriate penalty. " I dare not give encouragement for any private man to do any public thing in church or commonwealth of his own author ity. It is a very pernicious and dangerous thing. But yet I shall not sentence him for some things which in the first place I shall make mention of." He then proceeds to point out that though the bill of information charged Sherfield with having demolished the window pursuant to a conspiracy with others, and riotously, nothing of the sort had been proven. " I must confess," he said, " I was informed that the cause was much fouler than it is, and many others were suspected to have an hand in it; and this was the reason of the charge in the information." Further he thought Sherfield might have taken " just scandal at the superstitious window," and had he merely removed it at the vestry's direction his fault would not have been great. He called attention to the fact that there was no proof that Sherfield had known of the Bishop's inhibition, though, he said, " I verily think (as to my own private satisfaction) he could not but know" of it. Moreover it had been claimed that the defendant had acted " out of the spirit of contradiction and in opposition of the church government." "I condemn his rashness and heat of spirit," said Heath, " in doing it without the
427
Bishop; but I cannot perceive that it was done to oppose the Bishop or Ecclesiastical government." It had been claimed that Sherfield had proceeded " in a profane man ner and that it was a breach of piety toward God." " I must confess I think not so," said Heath, " but rather that the offense was fit to be removed; he was grieved and his con science offended at it; and I verily think, if the Bishop had been told of it in a decent manner he would have reformed it." It had also been claimed in aggravation of the of fense that the defendant boasted of what he had done. " This appeareth not," said Heath; "no man seeth this proved. Nay, in his an swer, opened by his counsel, on his oath he saith he accounteth it a great cross to him, and is very sorry for it." In conclusion Heath thus delivered himself: " There was cause ( I am satisfied ) that this window should be removed. It was made for the picture of God the Father, and so it was generally conceived to be: but though it was idolatrous, and their bowing to the same was conceived to be idolatry, they should therefore have told the Bishop of it which seeing neither Mr. Sherfield nor the vestry did do, he is not in this to be excused. I shall therefore agree to sentence him for this fault: but I shall forbear to put him from his place of Recorder in the said city. It is not an offense in him as Recorder, nor as Justice of Peace. I hold that every man who is sentenced, should (as near as may be) be sentenced co modo quo offendit, and therefore I think not fit that he be put from either of his places, for else we should for this one offense censure him as worthy to be cut off from his places, and so good for nothing. And I shall forbear to bind him to the good behavior, for he is a gentleman of reputation in the country where he dwelleth : and I have observed that a gentleman is not bound to the good behavior, but for very foul and enormous offenses. But I would have him to make acknowledgement of his fault unto my Lord Bishop of Salis
