Rome tooke the oath of fealty to the Emperour Ludouicus father to Lotharius This oath was taken in the time of Fredericke the first in Verona The forme of the oath was this I do sweare that frō this time forward I will be faithfull and true to my Lord Fredericke Emperour of Romanes against all men c. And that I will neuer go about to take from him his royalties c. These were the differences betweene Fredericke Barbarossa and the Pope and the opposition grew so great and strong that diuerse of the Cardinals conspired against the Emperour and gaue large summes of money to Adrian the Pope to excommunicate him And this conspiracy was confirmed with oathes that none should draw backe or seeke the Emperours fauour without the rest And that if the Pope should dye they should choose none but one of the conspiring Cardinals to succeede him But as Dauid sayd They shall curse but thou shalt blesse so GOD that spake by the mouth of Dauid turned all that these conspiratours did to a contrary effect For it came to passe that some few dayes after the Pope had denounced excommunication against the Emperour at Anagnia going forth to refresh himselfe with some fewe accompanying him hee dranke of the water of a certaine well and presently a Flye entred into his mouth and stucke so fast in his throat that by no skill of Physitions it could bee drawne out till hee had breathed out his last breath Yet were not the conspirators discouraged by this accident but after his death the greater part of Cardinals chose Rowland the Chancelor a professed enemy to the Empire and one of the conspiratours in contempt of Fredericke and the Germane Nation though there were some other that chose Cardinall Octauian and named him Victor This Rowland naming himselfe Alexander the third after he came to the Popedowe had many dangerous conflicts with the Emperour and was oftentimes put to the worse by him in so much that in the end hee was forced to disguise himselfe and in the habit of a Cooke to flye to Venice where hee liued for a certaine space in base condition till in the end being knowne hee was honourably entertained and kindly intreated by the Venetians which when Fredericke vnderstood of hee was greatly displeased with them for entertaining his enemy and sent his Sonne with a great Nauy and strong army by force and violence to fetch him thence But such was the ill hap of the yong Prince that beeing incountred by the Venetians hee was by them taken prisoner neither could his deliuerance by any meanes be procured vnlesse Fredericke would come in Person to Venice and seeke to be reconciled to the Pope This hard condition the Emperour yeelded to for his Sonnes sake went to Venice in person and was reconciled to the Pope vppon this condition that hee should restore to the Pope the citty of Rome and whatsoeuer belonged to the royalty of it and that hee should do such pennance as hee should inioyne him which beeing yeelded vnto he came to the doore of Saint Markes Church and all the people looking on the Pope commaunded him to prostrate himselfe on the ground and to aske forgiuenesse and then treading on his neck said It is written thou shalt goe vpon the Aspe and Basiliske and thou shalt treade vpon the Lyon and the Dragon and when Fredericke said vnto him Non tibi sed Petro cuius successor es pareo that is I doe not thus submit my self to thee but to Peter the Pope answered mihi Petro that is thou shalt doe it both vnto mee and vnto Peter This storie so liuely describing the insolencie and pride of the Pope which hitherto hath gone for current is now by certaine Romanists called in question so little doe they regard their owne Historians and so freely may they cast aside whatsoeuer standeth in their way Howsoeuer we see how mainely the Popes did striue after they had gotten a kind of ciuill dominiō vnder the Emperours to cast off their yoake wholly and not content therewith sought to be Lords also ouer the Emperours and to make them acknowledge that they holde their Empire from them How and vpon what occasiō Leo the third with the consent of the people of Rome proclaimed annointed Charles the Great King of France by inheritance and of Italy by conquest and Emperour of Rome I haue shewed before Yet as Sabellicus noteth the opinions of men in the world were greatly altered and changed after this new inauguration for whereas before the Empire was thought to be frō Heauen and the gift of God Now many began to think it to be the gift of the Pope Whereupon wee reade that Adrian the fourth vpon the report of some villanies offered to the Bishop of Landa in the parts of Germany as hee returned frō Rome and not so pursued sought out and revenged as was expected by Fredericke Barbarossa then Emperour writeth vnto him and maruailing at his negligence in revenging wrongs offered to men of the Church putteth him in mind what benefites he had receiued frō him and the Church of Rome as namely the fulnesse of Imperiall dignitie and honour the crowne appertaining thereunto and professeth that hee would haue beene willing to haue conferred greater benefites then these vpon him knowing right well how much good he might doe vnto the Church This Letter being brought to the Emperour by two Cardinals Bernard Rowland offended the Emperour Princes exceedingly especially in that it was said in the Letter that the fulnesse of dignitie and honour was cōferred vpon the Emperour by the Pope that hee had receiued the Imperiall crowne of his hand and that it would not grieue him if he had receiued greater benefites of his hand They which heard this Letter read were induced to make a strict construction of the words and to thinke the Pope vttered them in the sense which they conceiued because they knew well that certaine Romanists had not feared to affirme that the Emperours had hitherto possessed the Empire of Rome and the Kingdome of Italy by the Popes gift and that they had not onely vttered such words but that by writing they had affirmed the same and by painting liuely represented it that so it might be transmitted sent ouer to posterities For in the Palace of Lateran they had painted the manner of Lotharius the Emperour his receiuing the Crowne of the Pope and written ouer it these words Rex venit antè fores iurans prius urbis honores post homo fit papae sumit quo dante coronam That is the King doth come before the gate first swearing to the cities state the Popes man then doth hee become and of his gift doth take the Crowne This painting and superscription being reported to the Emperour the yeare before when hee was neare the citty by certaine faithfull and trusty subiects of his greatly displeased him But the
one by vnity wherein there are not many things foūd which neither cōsisteth in many things nor of many things in which sort God only is most properly sayd to be One in whom there is neither diuersity of natures nor multiplicity of parts nor composition of perfection and imperfection being and not being as in all creatures One by vnion is that which either consisteth in many things or of many things and is either in a sort only or simply One. In a sort onely a thing consisting in or of many things is sayd to be one three waies First when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other nor the property of it as when stones are layd together to make one heape 2ly When the one hath the property of the other but no denomination from it as is the vnion betweene the hand and those sweete spices it holdeth in it Thirdly when the one hath denomination from the other but no property of the other as a man is sayd to be apparelled from his apparell but noe property thereof passeth from it vnto him as the sauour of the sweete spices doth into the hand Vnion simply is of diuerse sorts First when one of the things vnited is turned into the other this falleth out soe often as there is a repugnance betweene the things vnited and one is predominant and preuailing as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessell of wine Secondly when both the things vnited are changed in nature and essence and that commeth to passe so often as the the things vnited haue a repugnance betweene themselues and yet no preuailing of one ouer the other In this sort the elements are vnited to make mixt or compound bodies Thirdly when there is no transmutation of the things vnited but the constitution of a third nature out of them because they haue no repugnance but mutuall dependance Of this sort is the vnion of the soule and body Fourthly when there is neither transmutation of the natures vnited nor constitution of a third out of them but onely the founding setling and staying of the one of the things vnited in the other and the drawing of it into the vnity of the personall being or subsistence of the other this commeth to passe when there is neither repugnance nor mutuall dependance of one of the things vnited vpon the other but a dependance of another kinde so the braunch of a tree being put vpon the stocke of another tree is drawne into the vnitie of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put and whereas if it had beene set in the ground it would haue growne as a separate tree in it selfe now it groweth ◅n the tree into which it is grafted and pertayneth to the vnitie of it Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees nor constitution of a third out of them but only the drawing of one of them into the vnity of the subsistence of the other so that here is not Compositio huius ex his but Huius ad hoc that is not a composition of a third thing out of the things vnited but an adioyning of one of the things vnited to the other And this kinde of vnion doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personall vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ wherein the nature of man that would haue beene a person in it selfe if it had been left to it selfe is drawen into the vnity of the diuine person and subsisteth in it being preuented from subsisting in it selfe by this personall vnion and assumption This that wee may the better conceiue we must consider what the difference is betweene nature and person and what maketh an indiuiduall nature to bee a person Some thinke that nature and person differ as that Quod est and Quo est that is as the thing that is and that whereby it is Other that the condition of personall being addeth to an indiuiduall nature a negation of dependance or beeing susteined by another but to leaue all vncertainty of opinions to bee this or that is indiuiduall to bee this or that in and for it selfe is personall being to be this or that in and for another is to pertaine to the person or subsistence of another so that euery thing that is in or for it selfe is a subsistence or thing subsisting and euery such rationall indiuiduall nature is a person Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence or to subsist in and for themselues there is very great difference for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kinde as wee see in all those things wherein euery part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath as euery droppe of water is water and being left to it selfe is a subsistence in it selfe and hath that beeing quality and nature that is in it in and for it selfe but being joyned to a greater quantity of water it hath now no beeing quality or operation but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is powred Other things there be that cannot naturally or by the working of naturall causes put themselues into the vnity of any other thing but by the helpe of some forreine cause they may be made to pertaine to the vnity of another thing different in nature kind So the braunch of a tree of one kinde which put into the ground would bee an entire distinct tree in it selfe growing mouing and bearing fruite in and for it selfe may by the hand of man be put into the vnity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort and so grow moue and beare fruite not distinctly in and for it selfe but joyntly in and for that tree into which it is implanted A third sort of things there are which being left to themselues become subsistences and cannot by force of naturall causes nor the helpe of any forreine thing euer become parts of any other created thing or pertaine to the vnity of the subsistence of any such thing such is the nature of all liuing things and such is the nature of man which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertaine to the vnity of any created subsistence because it cannot haue such dependance on any created thing as is required to make it pertaine to the subsistence thereof yet by diuine and supernaturall working it may bee drawen into the vnitie of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinitie wherein the fulnesse of all being and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselues For though all created things haue their owne being yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselues and they are in a better sort in him then in themselues there is no question but that they may be preuented and stayed from being in for themselues caused to bee in
for one of the diuine Persons of the blessed Trinity So that as one drop of water that formerly subsisted in it selfe powred into a vessell containing a greater quantity of water by continuitie becommeth one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water as a braunch of a tree which being set in the ground left to itselfe would bee an entire independent tree becommeth one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed they both lose their own bounds within which contayned they were distinctly seuered from other things the relation of being totall things so the individuall nature of man assumed into the vnity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity loseth that kinde of being that naturally left to it selfe it would haue had which is to bee in for it selfe not to depend of any other getteth a new relation of dependance being in another And as it is continuitie that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joyned so here a kinde of spirituall contact betweene the Diuine Person the nature of man maketh GOD to be Man For as situation and position is in things corporall so is order and dependance in things spirituall There are many similitudes brought by Diuines to expresse this vnion of the Natures of God Man in the same Christ as of the soule body of a flaming fierie sword of one man hauing two accidentall formes lastly of a tree a braunch or bough that is graffed into it The similitude of the soule body making but one man is very apt vsed by the Ancient yet is it defectiue imperfect first for that the soule body being imperfect natures concurre to make one full perfect nature of a man secondly for that the one of them is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of the other but both depend of a third subsistence which is that of the whole whereas in Christ both natures are perfect so that they cannot concurre to make a third nature or subsistence but the Eternall Word subsisting perfectly in it selfe draweth vnto it personally sustaineth in it the nature of man which hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Son of God communicated vnto it Touching the similitude of a fiery flaming sword it most liuely expresseth the vnion of the two Natures in Christ in that the substances of fire of the sword are so nearely cōjoyned that the operations of thē for the most part concurre there is in a sort a cōmunication of properties from the one of them to the other For a fiery sword in cutting dividing wasteth burneth in wasting and burning cutteth and diuideth and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire and the nature of the Steele or Iron whereof the sword is made doe concurre meete that it is fire that it is steele or Iron that this fiery thing is a sharpe piercing sword and that this sharpe piercing sword is a fiery devouring thing But this similitude is defectiue because the nature of Iron is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of fire nor the fire of Iron so that we cannot say this fire is steele or Iron or this steele or Iron is fire The third similitude of one man hauing two qualities or accidentall formes as the skill of Physicke and Law hath many things in it most aptly expressing the personall vnion of the two Natures of God Man in Christ. For first in such a man there is but one person and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same the qualities are different and the things had not the same But hee that hath and possesseth them is the same Secondly the person being but one is denominated from either or both of these different formes qualities or accidentall natures and doth the workes of them both and there is a communication of properties consequent vpon the concurring of two such formes in one man For wee may rightly say of such a one This Physitian is a Lawyer and this Lawyer is a Physitian This Lawyer is happy in curing diseases and this Physitian is carefull in following his Clients causes Scotus especially approueth the similitude of the subject and accident first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject as that it is potentiall in respect of the accident to be informed of it and in a sort perfected by it Secondly that which is of imperfection in the accident as that it must be inherent for otherwise the nature of man is joyned to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis for that advenit enti in actu completo that is it commeth to a thing already complete and perfect in it selfe In which sort one thing may bee added and come to another either so as not to pertaine to the same subsistence as the garments that one putteth on or so as to pertaine to the same subsistence but by inherence or thirdly so as to pertaine to the same subsistence without the inherence of the one in the other by a kind of inexistence as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed which is the fourth similitude and of all other most perfect For there are but two things wherein it faileth and commeth too short whereof the first is for that the branch hath first a seperate subsistence in it selfe and after looseth it and then is drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted the second for that it hath no roote of it owne and soe wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree But if a branch of one tree should by diuine power bee created and made in the stocke of another this comparison would faile but onely in one circumstance and that not very important seeing though the humane nature want noe part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree in that it hath no roote of it owne yet the humane nature in Christ hath no subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it and therefore in that respect it is in some sort like to the branch that hath noe roote of it owne but that of the tree into which it is implanted communicated vnto it This comparison is vsed by Alexander of Hales and diuers other of the Schoole-men and in my opinion is the aptest and fullest of all other For as betweene the tree and the branch there is a composition not Huius ex his but huius ad hoc that is not making a tree of a compound or middle nature and quality but causing the branch though retaining it owne nature and bearing it owne fruite to pertaine to the vnity of the
the influence thereof more powerfull yet is there a kind of influence vpon the waters wherein the Moon is more excellent then the Sun In like sort the power which is spirituall may do greater things then that which is temporall yet the temporall may do those things the spirituall cannot do And therfore it will not follow that the Ecclesiasticall state the principall Ministers of the Church may take vnto themselues the authority of Kings or take vpon them to do the things that pertaine to Kingly offices because they are greater in dignity and haue a greater power vnlesse they had a greater dignity power in the same kind Nowthey who most amplifie the greatnes of Ecclesiasticall power preferring it before the other which is ciuill neuer make the greatnes of it to consist in that in ciuill affaires it may do more then that but in that it hath a more noble object more wonderfull effects We also saith Nazianzen haue power and authority that farre more ample and excellent then that of ciuill Princes insomuch as it is fit the flesh should yeeld to the spirit things earthly to things heauenly Priesthood saith Chrysostome is a Princedome more honourable great then a Kingdome tell not mee of the purple diademe scepter or golden apparell of Kings for these are but shadowes and more vaine then flowres at the spring time If you will see the difference betweene them how much the King is inferiour to the Priest cōsider the manner of the power deliuered to them both you shall see the Priests tribunall much higher then that of the King who hath receiued only the administratiō of earthly things But the Priests tribunal is placed in heauē he hath authority to pronoūce sentence in heauēly affairs And again Earthly Princes haue power to bind but our bodies onely but the bands which Priests can lay vpō vs do touch the soul it self reach euen vnto the heauēs so far forth as that whatsoeuer Priests shal determin here beneath that God doth ratifie aboue in heauen and confirme the sentence of his seruants vpon earth When king Richard the first returning from the holy land was taken and holde as a prisoner by Duke Leopold of Austria and the Emperour Henry the sixth Queene Elenor his mother seeking all meanes to procure his deliuerance among other thinges wrote a letter to the Bishop of Rome intreating him to interpose his authority The words of her letter are these expressing the passion and earnest desire of her heart This onely remaineth ô Father that you draw forth the sword of Peter against malefactors which sword God hath appointed to be ouer nations and kingdomes The Crosse of Christ doth excell the Eagles that are in Caesars Banners the spirituall sword of Peter is of more power then was the temporall sword of Constantine the Emperour and the See Apostolicke is more potent then any Imperiall power or authority and I would aske whether your power be of God or of men did not the God of Gods speake to you in Peter the Apostle saying Whatsoeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall bee loosed in heauen and why then do you so negligently or rather cruelly delay for a long time to lose my sonne or why dare you not do it perhaps you will say that the power giuen you by God of binding and losing is for soules and not for bodies Let it bee so truly it is sufficiont for vs if you will binde the soules of those that hold my sons body bound in prison By all these sayings of them that most admired the excellency of Priesthood it appeareth that the excellencie thereof aboue princely power is in respect of the object thereof which is more noble the effects thereof which are more wonderfull not in respect of greater power authority right to dispose of temporal affaires businesses either simply or vpon any abuse or negligence of ciuil Princes So that from hence it cannot be inferred that the chiefe ministers of the Church may depose the Princes of the world Hugo de sancto Victore sayth There are two kinds of power the one terrene the head whereof is the King the other spirituall the head whereof is the pope To the Kings power those things pertaine that are terrene to the Popes those that are spirituall and looke how much the spirituall life is better then the earthly so much doth the spirituall power excell the earthly in honour and dignity For the spirituall power doth constitute the terrene power that it may be and iudgeth it whether it proceede aright or not But it selfe was first instituted of God and when it goeth aside can bee judged of none but of God onely From hence as Waldensis sheweth some men tooke an occasion of errour affirming that the roote of terrene power doth so farre fotrh depend vpon the Pope that by commission from him the execution of things pertaining thereunto is deriued vnto the Prince and that when the Prince goeth aside or faileth to do his duty the chiefe Bishop may manage the ciuill affaires because hee saith the spirituall power doth institute the ciuil power that it may be But these men presume too farre and in so doing offend because the terrene power of Kings is not reduced into any other originally as hauing authority ouer Kings but vnto Christ onely and yet notwithstanding as the Priest joyneth the man and his wife in marriage and blesseth them that they may be man and wife and joyfull parents of happy children and judgeth afterwards whether they performe the duties of marriage or not So the chiefe Priest setteth the crowne vpon the head of the Empreor anointeth him with holy oyle taketh an oath of him for the defence of the Christian faith and religion putteth vpon him the royall robes and thereby inuesteth him with royall power putteth him in possession of his Imperiall state and dignity But it is not to be imagined saith Waldensis that the imperiall power is from the power of the Church or dependeth of it though certaine solemnities bee vsed by Bishops in the inauguration of Kings and Emperours neither may the chiefe Ministers of the Church any more challenge the disposing or managing of ciuill affaires vpon any defect or failing of ciuill Princes then they may the administration and dispensation of holy things vpon the defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers Yet in case of necessity either of these two states may and ought to helpe and succour the other not as he sayth vt vtens potestate sed fraternitatis accessu that is Not as hauing authority or by vertue thereof presuming to doe any thing but as one brother maketh hast to helpe another in danger reaching forth the hand to stay him that is standing and to raise him that is fallen Both the brethren sayth Waldensis both
away and this was said by the Auncient but now it is commonly holden that many carry venial sinnes with them out of this world euen in respect of the staine and fault Caietan agreeth with those Auncient Diuines that this Author speaketh of his words are these Patet quòd nec pro fomite purgando qui etiam in baptizatis remanet nec pro reliquis quibuscunque nisi satisfactione debit â pro commissis velomissis poenae sunt purgatoriae sicut nihil acquirit grave ex remotione prohibentis sed iuxta pristinam gravitatem tendit ad proprium locum it a anima ex remotlone prohibentis iuxta sortitam prius charitatem in coelestis patriae mansionem sibi paratam intrat That is It is evident that Purgatory paines serue neither for the purging out of the remaines of concupiscence which still abideth euen in the Baptized nor for the taking away of any other thing whatsoeuer but onely for the satisfying for the sinnes of omission and commision that are past and therefore if that bee once performed as a heauy thing when that is taken away which hindered getteth no new quality or vertue but by force of that waight and heauinesse it formerly had goeth to the proper place where nature hath appointed it to rest so the soule so soone as that is taken away which hindered by force and vertue of that charitie it formerly had entereth into the mansion of the Heauenly Countrey provided for it Further hee addeth that as after death charitie is extra statum merendi that is in a state wherein there is no farther meriting so likewise it is in a state wherein it is capable of no increase the increase of charitie being the bound of the merite of it whence it followeth that there is no purging out of any sinne after death for if after death there bee no new increasing of that grace and charitie which during life stood together with veniall sinne there is no purging out of any such sinne after death seeing it is charity stirred vp and enkindled that consumeth sinne as the burning Furnace doth a droppe of water and nothing else This is the resolution not of a few or meane men but of many and those the greatest and best esteemed of in the Churches wherein our Fathers liued and died To these I say Gregory seemeth to agree saying That the very feare that is found in men dying purgeth out the lesser sinnes But heere Maister Higgons hath noted three points of fraudulencie as hee saith committed by mee in a few words First by an omission in that whereas Saint Gregory saith plerunque for the most part it is so I omitte and leaue out this particle Secondly by a reddition in that whereas Gregory saith the Smallest I say the Lesser Thirdly by an extension in that whereas Gregory saith the Soules of the iust are purged I say in a more generall sort the soules of men dying are purged For answere hereunto I say I haue no way misalledged Gregory nor deriued any conclusion out of any words of his contrary to his purpose and Doctrine in other places for Gregory seemeth to bee of opinion that the feare that is found in the soules of good men dying doth alwayes purge out the lesser sinnes so often as it is found in them but that it is not alwayes found in them but for the most part whereas I haue onely said it doth purge out such sinnes without adding alwaies or for the most part And that hee addeth the particle for the most part to shew that this feare is not alwaies found in good men when they are to die and not to deny the effect of purging out the smaller sinnes vnto it wheresoeuer it is found appeareth in that immediatly after by way of opposition he saith that nonnunquam that is sometimes God strengtheneth and confirmeth the mindes of men ready to die that otherwise would feare so that they doe not feare at all but if wee take the words as Higgons would haue vs yet am I no whit disaduantaged for if the feare of Gods iudgements alone doe for the most part purge out the lesser sinnes it is likely that other good motions and the strengthning of grace and putting of it into a state of perfection by the subtraction of impediments should take away the rest which is all that I haue said For I doe not say that hee doth agree with those that thinke all sinfulnesse is purged out in the very moment of dissolution but that hee seemeth to agree with them or that in consequence of reason hee should agree with them Neither is his next exception of least and lesser any better then this For Gregorie himselfe in the thirty ninth chapter of the same booke speaking of those sinnes that are compared to timber hay and stubble and are to be purged out by the fire the Apostle speaketh of to the Corinthians calleth them indifferently peccata parua minima leâ—…ia leuissima minuta atque leuissima that is small and smallest light and lightest sins so that small or light sinnes in the positiue degree are the same with him that least or lightest and therefore it was no fraudulencie in mee not translating any sentence of Gregorie but reporting his opinion touching veniall sinnes indifferently and freely to name them small lesser or smallest and lightest sinnes seeing in his meaning and phrase of speech and trueth of the thing it selfe they are all one The last exception is more friuolous then the two former for speaking onely of the soules of the iust and the purging out of such sinnes as are found in them till death in my whole discourse what neede was there that I should adde iust seeing no man could possibly vnderstand mee to speake of any other but it seemeth the pooreman knoweth not well what hee saith for hee will haue Gregorie to meane by iust men men of singular sâ—…ctity and not generally all that are in the state of grace and yet denieth that all the sins of these are purged out in death so casting into purgatorie not only those of the middle sort but the best and perfittest also contrary to the opinions of his owne Diuines So that wee see here is much a doe about nothing and as the poore man said when he shore his Sowe heere is a great crie and a little woolle For I doe not absolutely say that Gregory fully agreeth with these worthy Diuines before mentioned who thinke all sinnefullnesse to be vtterly abolished and remoued out of the soule in the very moment of dissolution but that hee seemeth to agree vnto them or that in consequence of reason hee should agree vnto them in that hee maketh the very feare that is found in men dying to purge out their lesser sins when it is found in them though alwayes it be not found in them which is not my priuate conceit but the Grecians in their Apology touching Purgatory long before deliuered