Phillip Stubbes's Anatomy of the abuses in England in Shakspere's youth, A.D. 1583 / edited by Frederick J. Furnivall.

  • Stubbs, Philip, active 1581-1593.
Date:
1877-1882
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Phillip Stubbes's Anatomy of the abuses in England in Shakspere's youth, A.D. 1583 / edited by Frederick J. Furnivall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    649/682 (page 111)
    before they would weare anie diftinft kind of apparell from others, they haue rather chofen to render vp both liuinges, goods, families, and all, leaning their flockes to the mouth of the wolues. ^Theod. Is it lawfull for a minifter of the Gofpell to weare a [>sig. p.2. back furplelTe, a tippet or forked cappe, and the like kind of attire ? If Tippets, fork, Jmphil. As they are commaunded by the Pope, the great Anti- ’ chnft of the worlde, they ought not to weare them j but as they be are orderd by commaunded, and inioyned b}^ a Chriftian Prince, they maie weare P^nce,^'^° them without fcruple of confcience. But if they Ihould repofe any i think Min- religion, holineffe or fanftimonie in them, as the doting Papills doe, than doe they greeuouflie offende j but wearing them as things meere indifferent (although it be controuerfiall whether they bee things indifferente or not), I fee no caufe why they maie not vfe them. Theod. From whence came thefe garments, can you tell? from Rome, or from whence els ? Amphil The moft hold that they came firft from Rome, the even tho they poifon of all the world j & moft likelie they did foj but fome other fearching the fame more narrowlie, do hold that they came, not from Rome, but rather from Grecia, which ironi the beginning, for the moft part, hath euer been contrarie to the Church of Rome. But from whence foeuer they came it fkilleth not much, for beeing mere indif- ferent, they maie be worn or not worne without offence, according to the pleafure of the Prince, as things which of the/w^felues bee not [»Sig. p. 3.] euill, nor cannot hurte, excepte they be abufed. Theod. Notwithftanding they holde this for a maxime, that in as much as they came firft fi-om the Papiftes, and haue of them bene idolatrouftie abufed, that therefore they are not, nor ought not to bee, vfed of anie true pallors, or Minifters of the Gofpell. Is this their qffiimption true, or not ? Amphil. It is no good reafo;z to jay fuch a thing came from the Use of a good Papiftes, ergo it is naught. For we read that the Deuils confeffed S-t makf lefus Chrift to be the fonne of God: doth it follow therefore that the bad.*°°'^ fame profeffion is naughte, becaufe a wicked creature vttered the fame ? All thinges are therefore to bee examined, whether the abufe confift in the thinges themfelues, or in others that abufe them. Which being found out, let the abufes be remoued, and the thinges if a good thing remaine ftill. A wicked man maye fpeake good wordes, doe good