III. His third conclusion was, that " the Lord Christ in his human conversation

was always jioor, not for that he loved or desired poverty for itself," &'c. Wherein this is to be noted ; that Armaehanus differed not from the friars in this, tliat Christ was poor, and that he loved poverty ; but herein stood the difference, in manner of loving, that is, whether he loved ])overtv for itself, or not. Wherein the aforesaid Armaehanus used four ])robations.
First, forasuuich as to be poor is nothing else but to be miserable, and seeing no man coveteth to be in misery for itself; therefore he concluded that Christ desired not poverty for itself.
His second reason was derived out of Aristotle :^ Nothing, saith he, is to be loved for itself, but that which (all commodities being secluded which follow thereupon) is voluntarily sought and desired. But take from poverty all respect of commodities following the same, and it woidd be sought neither of God nor man. Ergo, he concluded, Christ loved not poverty for itself.
Thirdly again, no eflect of sin, said he, is to be loved for itself. But poverty is the effect of sin. Ergo, poverty was not loved of Christ for itself.
Fourthly, no privation of the thing that is good, is to be loved for itself. Poverty is the ])rivati()n of the thing that is good, that is, of riches, for God himself is principally rich. Ergo, poverty for itself was not loved of Christ.