Young—William Gager's Defence of Academic Stage. 617 
quution is not. for in my answere I doe not thus argue; it is lawfull 
in suche and suche cases to putt on weemens rayment, ergo it is 
lawfull to doe it in Playes; but thus, ergo it is not simply vnlawfull 
so to doe. and so my consequution in Logick standethe good. The 
Antecedent also you denye me, because you prove the place of 
Deuteronomge to belonge to the lawe Morall and not Ceremoniall. 
I pray you gyve me leave to propose my contrarye dowte. the 
Moral lawe, as you truly saye, is the lawe of love and charytye, 
to the whiche whersoever the Ceremonial lawe is repugnant, there 
it gyvethe place to the Moral, the Moral lawe therfor is never 
contrary to love and charytye, in commandinge or forbiddinge 
any thinge. but the place of Deute. beinge taken strictly, absolutely 
and in the rigor of the letter, may somtymes hinder the actions of 
love and charytye, bothe towardes owre selves and others, as in 
thos cases which bothe you and I propose; ergo in that strictnes 
it belongethe rather to the lawe Ceremonial thoughe the equytye 
therof pertaynethe to the lawe Moral, and so it is perpetualy and 
simplye to be observed, for I confesse vnto you that I doe not 
thinke, that it is an abomynation in the sight of God, for a yonge 
man eyther in iest in his pryvye chamber, to putt on his wyves 
petticote, or in ernest to clad hym selfe in her apparell for the 
safegarde of his goods, his owne lyfe by could or sworde, his wives 
and childrens, his fathers and mothers, no not for the saftye of 
his cuntrye, or the defence of the glorye of God. neyther dothe it 
therfor followe that men and weemen may indifferently weare eche 
others apparell. for simplye, or in the cases specifyde, to putt on 
weemens rayment, is not ordinaryly, vsually, and withowte 
Christian, and naturall modesty, or distinction of sexe, to weare 
suche apparell. 
My twoe examples of Alexander the sonne of Amyntas , and of 
Achilles the sonne of Thetis , howsoever you may well drawe evill 
consequutions from their whole actions, yet in the circumstance 
that I applye them for, thay are alleaged to good purpose * 1 , for 
us from the keeping of the ceremonial. . . . And hereof it foloweth that if a 
man might saue his life, or benefit many, by putting on womans raiment, 
yet ought he not to do it, because it is euill. [ Overthrow , pp. 8-10.] 
1 The arguments, wherby you striue to proue the contrarie, are drawen 
from two examples: One of the Macedonians, whose king Amyntas enter¬ 
taining Persian ambassadors, & having at their request broght noble wemen 
to the banket, when the embassadours dalying with them did touch their 
brests, & offred some to kisse them; the kings sonne, misliking their lascivious 
actions, desired them to giue the wemen leaue to go forth, pretending they 
should returne neater, & so by his direction there came in their steed yong 
men, attired like them, with daggers vnder their garmentes, who slew the 
embassadours as soone as they offered to touch them [side-note, from Momus, 
lines 144-147: Veste fdius Amyntse indui Iuvenes muliebri dum iubet, tot 
fseminis Claris pudorem servat, & petulantiam Persis superbam coede prseclara 
excutit.]: The other of Achilles, whose mother Thetis, at the time of the 
Troian warre, knowing (as Poets faine) that hee should [p. 12] dye at Troy, 
