A10335:106
Th'overthrow of stage-plays, by the way of controversy betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes…Th'overthrow of stage-playes, by the way of controversie betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes…
Th'overthrow of stage-plays, by the way of controversy betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes wherein all the reasons that can be made for them are notably refuted; th'objections answered, and the case so cleared and resolved, as that the judgement of any man, that is not froward and perverse, may easily be satisfied. Wherein is manifestly proved, that it is not only unlawful to be an actor, but a beholder of those vanities. Whereunto are added also and annexed in th'end certain latin letters betwixt the said Master Rainoldes, and D. Gentiles, reader of the civill law in Oxford, concerning the same matter.Th'overthrow of stage-playes, by the way of controversie betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes wherein all the reasons that can be made for them are notably refuted; th'objections aunswered, and the case so cleared and resolved, as that the iudgement of any man, that is not froward and perverse, may easelie be satisfied. Wherein is manifestly proved, that it is not onely vnlawfull to bee an actor, but a beholder of those vanities. Wherevnto are added also and annexed in th'end certeine latine letters betwixt the sayed Maister Rainoldes, and D. Gentiles, reader of the civill law in Oxford, concerning the same matter.
Middelburg: printed by Richard Schilders, 1599
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
In the second head, to a reason drawn out of the law of God for the reproof of stage-plays as now you handle it, denying that you made it to prove that men may lawfully put on women's raiment therein, as I took it; though how just cause I had to take it so, I have declared; but unto this reason grounded on the mlaw of God in Deuteronomy, Whatsoever man doeth put on woman's raiment, he is abominable to the Lord; But men did put on women's raiment in your plays; you must acknowledge therefore that you were justly blamed: you reply in like sort as unto the former of the civill law; first, that the prohibition of men to wear women's raiment is not general, but toucheth certain cases only; next, that your players did not wear women's raiment. And because in treating of the prohibition I showed out of the Scriptures, that it doeth belong not to the ceremonial law, but to the moral; and no part of the moral law may be transgressed, no, not for the saving of honour, wealth, or life: my proofs hereof being so clear, strong, and pregnant, that you durst not deny the thing to be proved, you move a doubt, as your term is, out of words of mine; in deed you reason thus against it. I pray you give me leave to propose my contrary doubt. The moral law, as you truly say, is the law of love and charity; to the which wheresoever the ceremonial law is repugnant, there it giveth place to the moral. The moral law therefore is never contrary to love and charity, in commanding or forbidding any thing. But the place of Deuteronomy, being taken strictly, absolutely, and in the rigour of the letter, may sometimes hinder the actions of love and charity, both towards our selves and others; as in those cases, which both you and I propose. Ergo in that strictness it belongeth rather to the law ceremonial, though the equity thereof pertaineth to the law moral, and so it is perpetually and simply to be observed. Now, I have given you leave to propose your contrary doubt. I pray you give me leave to propose my contrary question. In the ⟨p. 83⟩same book of Deuteronomy it is written, nThou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery. These precepts being taken strictly, absolutely, and in the rigour of the letter, may sometimes hinder the actions of love and charity, both towards our selves and others; as appeareth by the example of Joseph, and of David: