rees continually were
devised. What would these men (trow ye) have said in those days? which
side would they specially then have taken? and which would they then have
forsaken? which Gospel would they have believed? whom would they have
accounted for heretics, and whom for Catholics? And yet what a stir and
revel keep they at this time upon two poor names only of Luther and
Zuinglius? Because these two men do not yet fully agree upon some one
point, therefore would they needs have us think that both of them were
deceived; that neither of them had the Gospel; and that neither of them
taught the truth aright.

But, good God, what manner of fellows be these which blame us for
disagreeing? And do all they themselves, ween you, agree well together?
Is every one of them fully resolved what to follow? Hath there been no
strifes, no debates, no quarrels among them at no time? Why then do the
Scotists and the Thomists, about that they call _meritum congrui_ and
_meritum condigni_, no better agree together? Why agree they no better
among themselves concerning original sin in the Blessed Virgin?
concerning a solemn vow and a single vow? Why say the canonists, that
auricular confession is appointed by the positive law of man: and the
schoolmen contrariwise, that it is appointed by the law of God? Why doth
Albertus Pighius dissent from Cajetanus? Why doth Thomas dissent from
Lombardus, Scotus from Thomas, Occamus from Scotus, Alliacensis [ed. 1564
Alliensis] from Occamus? And why do the Nominals disagree from the
Reals? And yet say I nothing of so many diversities of friars and monks;
how some of them put a great holiness in eating of fish, and some in
eating of herbs; some in wearing of shoes, and some in wearing of
sandals; some in going in a linen garment, and some in a woollen; some of
them called white, some black; some being shaven broad, and some narrow:
some stalking abroad upon pattens, some barefooted; some girt, and some
ungirt. They ought, I wiss, to remember, how there be some of their own
company which say, that the body of Christ is in His Supper naturally:
contrary, other some of the self-same company deny it to be so. Again,
that there be other of them, which say, the body of Christ in the Holy
Communion "is rent and torn with our teeth:" and some again that deny the
same. Some also of them there be, which write that the body of Christ is
_quantum_ in the Eucharistia; that is to say, hath his perfect q