Mr William Prynn His Defence of stageplays, OR A Retractation of a former Book of his called Histriomastix.  
London, printed in the Year 1649.   

Mr William Prynn his Defence of STAGEPLAYS.  
Or a Retractation of a former book of his called Histriomastix.  
WHereas this Tyrannical, abominable, lewd, schismatical, haeretical Army, are bend in a wilful and forcible way to destroy all Lawful Government; and to compass those ends, have lately infringed the Privileges of Parliament, being a thing contrary to all Customs, Laws, Statutes, Examples, Pecedents and precepts, as I have at large discoursed in my last book, and brought a whole Army of proofs against them; (Origen, Philo jud. Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose, Gregory, Augustine, Cyprian, Hieronimus, Basilius, Nazianzen, Athanasius, Chrysostomus, Barnard, Tho. Aquinas, Hook Eccl. Calvin,) for it is easy to be proved by the Fathers, and all Christian Writers, That Authority Lawful is to be obeyed; I cannot yet be silent in a thing of so great moment; but must make known to the People of England, and to all the world, to all sorts of men, nay, to men and Angels, those exorbitant courses in which they persist still: It is not long ago, and therefore too lately to be so soon forgotten, how Colonel Pride and divers others of the the Army did stop the Members of Parliament from doing of their duty in a most forcible, unlawful, seditious, mutinous, unexampled, and unparraleld way; among that multitude of faithful Patriots and Parliament men, they seized also upon me, carried me away by force, and restrained me of my liberty, for no offence, but only endeavouring to discharge my conscience, which is a thing I shall always do, without fearing any man, any arm of flesh, any Potentacie, Prelacy, superintendency, or power terrestrial or internal; and have done, witness my often sufferings from the Court, from the Lords, and from the Prelates, when I durst maintain the truth without fear of either King, Lords, Prelates, Presbyterians, or Independents. But I let this pass, having already at large written about that injury; but now there is another fresh occasion, which hath incited my just indignation against this wicked and Tyrannical Army, they did lately in a most inhuman, cruel, rough, and barbarous manner take away the poor Players from their Houses, being met there to discharge the duty of their callings; as if this Army were fully bend and most traitorously and maliciously set to put down and depress all the King's Friends, not only in Parliament but in the very theatres; they have no care of Covenant or any thing else, but being most faedifragous' would deprive the King of all his Rights and Prerogatives, which they are bound by the Covenant to maintain; and was it not always an allowed Prerogative to Kings and great Princes to have Players for their Recreations, which I am verily persuaded they are as little able to answer for considering their Covenant, as for their other illegal action towards us in the Parliament.  
But now I know what the malicious, ill-spoken, clamorous, and obstreperous people will object against me; namely, That I did once write a Book against stageplays, called Histriomastix, for which I underwent a cruel censure in the Starchamber. I confess it is true, I did once so, but it was when I had not so clear a light as now I have; and it is no disparagement for any man to alter his judgement upon better information, besides it was done long ago, and when the King (whose virtues I did not then so perfectly understand) governed without any control, which was the time that I took the better to show my conscience and courage, to oppose that power which was the highest, but had I truly known the King, I must confess with sorrow, I should not have compared him to Nero the most wicked of the Roman Emperors (as I did in that book) for loving of Stageplays; nor have given the Queen those bitter and cruel words of whore and strumpet, for playing a part in Mr Montague's Pastoral, but I have suffered for that long ago, and am now ready to suffer, in discharging my conscience, under what power so ever is now set up to Martyr me.  
But that Plays are lawful things, and are to be allowed as recreations for honest men, I need not quote many Authors to prove it, it will serve the turn, if I do but tell you that many good men have been Authors of Comaedies and Tragaedies; and many of them Christians (Buchanon, Grotius, Hensius, Barclaius,) there are also many ancient Comedians and Tragedians among the Heathen, which were men of no ill note, (Menander, Soploches, Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristoplanes, Terentius, Plautus, Seneca) and whereas I did quote many Fathers and other Ancient Christian Authors against Stageplays, I confess I was not perfectly advised in all the circumstances belonging to them, being not such Plays as were written and acted in England of late, for the Recreation of our most gracious King and Queen, and many of their best friends: and therefore distinctions ought to be used in those cases; for all Plays are not of one nature; and virtues, magnanimity, chastity, sobriety, temperance, justice, modesty, goodness, etc. may be taught in Plays, and many men have been made the better for seeing of them. And whereas divers objections have been made against Stageplays, for that many of them are profane, many of them have swearing and blaspheming in them, many of them have cozening, cheating, legedemain, fraud, deceit, juggle, impostures, and other lewd things, which may teach young people evil things, and corrupt good manners, I do also myself speak against such Plays, and will not at all maintain them, much less would I be content to suffer in such a cause as that were. But that honest Plays may be tolerated, and not to be forbidden by any Army under heaven, I do maintain before all the world. It is true that some have objected against Stageplays, that there is an unlawful thing used in them, which is against a place in the Old Testament (and is urged by Dr Reinolds and other reverend men against Plays) namely, that men or boys do wear the apparel of women, being expressly forbidden in the Text. To this I answer, first, that if this be all, it is a fault may be easily amended; and we may do in England, as they do in France, Italy, Spain, and other places, where those which play women's parts, are women indeed; and so there no offence against that place. But then again it may be objected, That that is more wanton than if boys acted women's parts, and more apt to engender lose thoughts; and I myself am of that opinion, And therefore do desire rather to maintain that tenant, That men's putting on of women's apparel is not again the Scripture in a plain and ordinary sense; for it had a farther meaning, as one of the Rabbis affirms; for it was a custom of men in those days, when they prayed to Rimmon who was Mars, that they put on women's apparel, to seem like to Venus, and so to please that false god; and women, when they prayed to Ashtaroth who was Venus, put on men's apparel, to seem like to Mars, and so to please that goddess. And therefore I think, because this scruple is satisfied, I may conclude that good Plays, which are not profane, lewd, bad, blasphemous, or ungodly, may be acted; and that this wicked and tyrannical Army ought not to hinder, to impede, let, prohibit, or forbidden the acting of them; which I dare maintain to all the world; for I was never afraid to suffer in a good cause.  
FINIS.