and use no dissimulation, why did John Clement, a countryman of ours, but few years past, in the presence of certain honest men and of good credit, tear and cast into the fire certain leaves of Theodoret—­the most ancient father and a Greek bishop—­wherein he plainly and evidently taught that the nature of bread in the Communion was not changed, abolished, or brought to nothing?  And this did he of purpose, because he thought there was no other copy thereof to be found.  Why saith Albertus Pighius that the ancient father Augustine had a wrong opinion of original sin? and that he erred and lied and used false logic, as touching the case of matrimony concluded after a vow made, which Augustine affirmeth to be perfect matrimony, indeed, and cannot be undone again?  Also when they did of late put in print the ancient father Origen’s work upon the Gospel of John, why left they quite out the whole sixth chapter?  Wherein it is likely, yea, rather, of very surety, that the said Origen had written many things concerning the sacrament of the Holy Communion contrary to these men’s minds; and would put forth that book mangled rather than full and perfect, for fear it should reprove them and their partners of their error.  Call ye this trusting to antiquity, when ye rent in pieces, keep back, maim, and burn the ancient fathers’ works?

It is a world to see, how well-favouredly and how towardly touching religion these men agree with the fathers of whom they use to vaunt that they be their own good.  The old Council Eliberine made a decree that nothing that is honoured of the people should be painted in the churches.  The old father Epiphanius saith:—­“It is a horrible wickedness, and a sin not to be suffered, for any man to set up any picture in the Church of the Christians, yea, though it were the picture of Christ Himself.”  Yet, these men store all their temples, and each corner of them, with painted and carved images, as though without them religion were nothing worth.

The old fathers Origen and Chrysostom exhort the people to read the Scriptures, to buy them books, to reason at home betwixt themselves of divine matters—­wives with their husbands, and parents with their children.  These men condemn the Scriptures as dead elements, and—­as much as ever they may—­bar the people from them.  The ancient fathers, Cyprian, Epiphanius, and Hierom, say, for one who, perchance, hath made a vow to lead a sole life, and afterwards liveth unchastely, and cannot quench the flames of lust, “it is better to marry a wife, and to live honestly in wedlock.”  And the old father Augustine judgeth the selfsame marriage to be good and perfect, and that it ought not to be broken again.  These men, if a man have once bound himself by a vow, though afterwards he burn, keep queans, and defile himself with never so sinful and desperate a life, yet they suffer not that person to marry a wife; or if he chance to marry, they allow it not for marriage.  And they commonly teach it is much better and more godly to keep a concubine and harlot, than to live in that kind of marriage.