is principally riche:) Ergo pouertie for it selfe was not loued of Christ.

MarginaliaThe iiii. cōclusion of Armachanus against the fryers.The fourth conclusion was, that Christ our Lorde & sauiour did neuer begge wilfully. Whiche he proued by sondry reasons.

Marginalia1First, for that Christ in so doyng should breake the law, whiche sayth: Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, his wife, his seruaunt, his mayd, his oxe, his asse, or any thing þ^t is his. Exod. 20. In the daunger of which commaundement, he that beggeth voluntarely muste nedes incurre.

Marginalia2Item, if Christ had beggen volūtarely, he should haue committed agaynst an other commaundement, whiche sayth. There shalbe no begger, nor nedy person among you. &c. Deut. vi.

Marginalia3Item, Christ in so doyng should haue transgressed the Emperours law, vnder whiche he would hym selfe be subiect (as appeareth by geuyng, and byddyng tribute to be geuen to Cesar) for asmuch as the same Emperours law sayth. There shall no valiaunt begger bee suffered in the Citie.

Marginalia4Itē, if Christ had been a wilfull beggar, he had broke the law of louyng his neighbour: whom he had vexed, hauyng no nede. For who so without nede asketh or craueth of his neighbour, doth but vexe him, in such sorte as he would not be vexed hym selfe. Whiche Christ would neuer do.

Marginalia5Item, if Christ had begged wilfully, he had moued slaunder therby to his owne Gospell, whiche he with miracles did confirm. For thē they that saw his miracle in fedyng 5000. in wildernes, wuld haue thought much w^t thēselues how that miracle had been wrought, if he in fedyng other, either could not, or would not fede hym self.

Marginalia6Item, if Christ had begged wilfully, then he had done that whiche hym selfe condemneth by Paule: for so we read. 1. Timo. 6. That Paul condemneth them, whiche esteme pietie to be gayne and lucre. Which all they do þ^t vnder the colour of pietie, hunte or seke for gayne, when otherwise they neede not.

Marginalia7Item, if Christ had begged wilfully, he had offended in declareing an vntruth, in so doyng. For he þ^t knoweth in his minde, that he nedeth not in dede that thyng whiche in worde he asketh of other: Declareth in him self an vntruth, as who in worde pretendeth to be otherwise then he is in very dede, which Christ without doubt neuer did nor would euer do.

Marginalia8Item, if Christ had begged wilfully, that is, hauyng no true nede therunto: then had he appeared either to be an hypocrite, seming to be that he was not, and to lacke when he did not: or els to be a true begger in very dede, not able to suffice his necessitie. For he is a true begger in dede, which beyng constrained by meere necessitie, is forced to aske of other that whiche he is not able to gyue to hym selfe. But neither of these ij agreeth in Christ.

Marginalia9
Ex vita Clementis.Item, if Christ had begged wilfully, thē why did Peter rebuke the mother of S. Clement his disciple, finding her to stand amōg the beggers, whom he thought to be strong enough to labour with her hands for her liuyng: If she in so doing had folowed the example of Christ?

Marginalia10
Clements example contrary to the Friers.Item, if Christ had begged wilfully: And if the friers do rightly define perfection of the Gospell by wilfull pouertie: then was Clement S. Peters successor to blame, which laboured so much to remoue away beggerie and pouertie from amōg al thē, þ^t were conuerted to the faith of Christe: and is specially for the same commended of the Churche?

Marginalia11
13. quest. 1. cap. 1.Agayne, why did the sayd Clement, writing to Iames byshop of Hierusalem, commaunde so much to obey the doctrine and exāples of the Apostles: who as he sheweth in that Epistle, had no beggar nor nedy person amongst them, If christian perfection (by the Friers Philosophie) standeth in wilfull beggery?

Marginalia12Item, if Christ the highe priest had begged wilfully, then did holy churche erre wittyngly, whiche ordeyned that none without sufficient title of liuing and clothing, should be admitted to holy orders. And moreouer, when it is sayd in þ^e canonicall decrees, that þ^e byshop or clerke that beggeth, bryngeth shame vpon the whole order of the clergy.

Marginalia13Item, if Christ had wilfully begged, then the example of wilfull pouertie had pertayned to the perfection of Christian lyfe, which is contrary to the olde law: which commaundeth the priestes (which liued then after þ^e perfection of the law) to haue possessions and tythes, to kepe them from beggerie.

Marginalia14Item, if Christ did wilfully beg, then beggery were a point of Christian perfection. And so the church of God should erre, in admitting such patrimonies and donations geuen to the church, and so in taking from the prelates their perfection.

Marginalia15Agayne, what will these friers which put their perfection in begging, saye to Melchisedech: who without begging or wilfull pouertie, was the high priest of god, and king of Salem, and prefigured the order and priesthoode of Christ?

Marginalia16And, if beggerye be such a perfection of the Gospell (as the friers say) how commeth it, that the holy ghost geuen to the Apostles, which shoulde lead them into all truth: tolde them no worde of thys beggerly perfection, neither is there any word mentioned therof through the whole Testament of God.

Marginalia17Moueouer, where þ^e prophet sayth, I neuer did see the iust mā forsaken, nor hys seede go begging their bread: How stādeth this w^t the iustice of christ, which was most perfectlye iuste, if he should be forsaken, or his seede goe begge their bread? And then how agreeth this with the abhominable doctrine of fryers Franciscan, which put their perfection in wilfull begging?

Marginalia18Fynally, doe we not read that Christ sent his Disciples to preach without scrippe or wallet, and byd them salute no man by the waye? Meaning that they should begge nothing of no mā? Dyd not the same Christ also, labour with his handes, vnder Ioseph? Sainct Paule likewyse dyd he not labour w^t his handes, rather then he woulde burden the church of þ^e Corinthians? And where now is the doctrine of the friers, which putteth state of perfection in wilfull begging.

MarginaliaThe 5. conclusion of Armachanus agaynst the Friers.The fifth conclusion of Armachanus agaynst the friers was this: that Christ neuer taught any man wilfully to begge, which he proued thus. It is written Act. 1. Christ began to do & to teach. If Christ therfore, which did neuer wilfully begge himselfe, as hath been proued, had taught men otherwise to do, then his doing and teaching had not agreed together.

Item, if Christ which neuer begged himself wilfully, had taught mē this doctrine of wilfull begging contrary to his owne doing: he had geuen suspition of his doctrine, and ministred slaunder of the same, as hath been proued in the fourth conclusion before.

Moreouer in so teaching, he had taught contrary to þ^e Emperours iust law, which expresly forbiddeth þ^e same.

MarginaliaThe 6. conclusion of Armachanus against the fryers.The sixt conclusion of Armachanus against the friers was, þ^t our Lord Iesus Christ teacheth vs, þ^t we should not begge wilfully, which he proueth by 7. or 8. reasons

Fyrst, where it is written Luke. 14. When thou makest a feast, call the poore, weake, lame, and blinde: and thou shalt be blessed, for they haue not wherwith to rewarde thee agayne.

To this also pertayneth the decree of the Apostle, 2. Thes. 3. He that wyl not worke, let hym not eate. Furthermore the same Apostle addeth in þ^e same place: For you haue vs for example, howe we were burdenous to no man, neither dyd we eate our bread freely, but wyth labour and wearynes toylyng both day and night, and