616 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters . 
and namely the one of owre Choristers, for playinge Phemius; 
notwithstandinge for his honesty, modesty, and good voyce, he 
is as wurthy to be delyvered from infamye, as Phemius hym selfe is 
fayned to be saved from deathe, for his excellent skill in Musicke, 
to say nothinge of the rest. I dare not denye this argument, be¬ 
cause it is yours, I referr it to the charytable iudgment of my 
betters. In the meane tyme, I thinke it was a fowle shame for 
noble men and Nero to playe; but to playe noble men or Nero it 
is no shame for vs. as he saythe in the Comedye, Duo cum idem 
faciunt, sxpe vt possis dicere, Hoc licet impune facere huic, illi 
non licet, Non quod dissimilis sit res, sed quod, quifacit. 1 And therfor 
I did iustly conclude agaynst Momus, and better then Nero coulde, 
Quis hie rogauit sportulam, vet quis dediD Cui non patebant spontb 
sine lucro fores ? 2 Wherfor imagininge M. Cato to be the accuser in 
this cause, I may fittly saye vnto hym, thoughe in wordes sum- 
what altered, as Tullye dothe in an other matter, tolle mihi e 
causa nomen Catonis, remoue, ac praetermitte authoritate m, con- 
gredere mecum criminibus ipsis. quid accusas Cato, quid ajfers in 
iudiciuml quid arguist histrioniam accusas; non defendo, sed 
famam pudorem, atque innocentiam. histrioniam vero ipsam, vel 
tecum accusabo, si voles 3 4 . <1p. 50> 
In myn answere to the place of Deuteronomyef you say my 
Antecedent is naught beinge wayde in the skates of ye Sanctuarye; 
and ye consequution wurse, beeinge caled to the tryall of the touche- 
stone of Logick 5 . the Antecedent in deede is myne, but the conse- 
1 Gager’s side-note: Ter. Adelph. Act. 5. Sc. 3. 
2 Momus, 11. 138-139. 
3 Gager’s side-nate: Ora. pro Murena. 
4 Gager’s side-note: Deu. 22.5. 
5 ‘To the next, drawen from the best law indeed euen the lawe of God [Side- 
note: Deute. 22.5] which forbiddeth a man to put on womans raiment; [p. 9] 
a thing though not distaining all stage-playes, yet welnigh all, and there 
amongst all yours: you answer that it is not unlawfull simply and alwayes , 
as if one doe it to saue his life, to benefit many; & hereof you conclude that to do 
it in playes is not unlawfull. [Side-note, from Momus, 141-3, 148-9: Semperne? 
quid si cogeret lethi metus Mutare vestem? publicum quid si bonurn suaderet? 
and, Non ergo juveni est grande simpliciter nefas, Mollem puellam induere] 
Of the which enthymeme (to call the triall of your argumentes to the touch¬ 
stone of Logicke) the consequution doutlesse is vnsound and naught, whatso¬ 
ever the antecedent bee: and the antecedent, although in the balance of hu¬ 
mane reason it may seeme to haue weight, yet if it be weighed in the- skales 
of the sanctuarie, will proove vnsound and light too. . . . By conference 
and laying of which thinges together we are taught this difference betwene 
the morall law, and the ceremoniall, that the ceremoniall was not enioyned 
to be kept absolutelie and simply; and therefore when it could not bee kept 
without the breach of the morall lawe, the law of loue and charitie it yeelded 
therevnto: but the morall lawe is simply and absolutely enioyned to be kept, 
as a paterae of that [p. 10] holinesse which God requireth in his children, 
Be yee holy, for I am holy; and therefore, who so breaketh any part thereof, 
though to keepe an other parte, doeth defile himselfe, and displease the 
Highest. Now, the prohibition of men to be attired as wemen, wemen as men, 
belongeth to the morall, not to the ceremoniall law. For Christ hath delivered 
