IV. " The fourth conclusion was, that Christ our Lord and Saviour did never

beg wilfidly." Which he proveth by sundry reasons.
1. For that Christ in so doing should break the law, which saith, " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his wife, his servant, his maid, his ox, his ass, or any thing that is his " [E.xod. xx.] ; the danger of which command- ment he that beggeth voluntarily must needs incur.
2. Item, If Christ had begged voluntarily, he should have committed sin against another commandment, which saith, " There shall be no beggar, nor needy person among you," &c. [Ueut. vi.]
3. Item, Christ in so doing should have transgressed the em])cror's law, under which he would himself be subject (as appeareth by giving, and bidding tribute to be given, to C;esar), forasmuch as the same emperor's law saith, " There shall no valiant beggar be suffered in the city."
4. Item, If Christ had been a wilful beggar, he had broke the law of loving his neighbour ; whom lie had vexed, having no need. For whoso, without need, asketh or craveth of his ncnghbour, doth but vex him, in such sort as he would not be vexed himself: which Christ w(juld never do.
5. Item, If Christ had begged wilfiilly, he had moved slander, thereby, to his own gospel, which he with miracles did confirm ; for then they that saw his miracle in feeding five thousand in the wilderness, would have thought much with tliemselves how that miracle had been wrought, if he who fed others, cither eoidd not, or would not feed himself.
G. Item, If Christ had begged wilfully, then he had done that which himself condemneth by Paul, for so we read, [1 Tim. vi.] that Paul condemneth them, who esteem ])icty to be gain and lucre ; which all they do, who, under the colour of piet)-, hunt or seek for gain, when otherwise they need not.
7. Item, If Christ had begged wilfully, he had offended in declaring an
(1) Chrysost. in opcrc iicrfecto.
;2) Arist. Ethic, lib. i.
ORATION OF AIIMACIIAKUS AGAIXST BKGGIN'G KlUARS. 763
untruth in so doing; for lie tliat knowctli, in his mind, tliat he ni'cdetli not in Edward deed, that thing wliich in word lie asketh of another, dechircth in liimsclf an •'^^^• unti'uth, as who in word prctendeth to be othtnwise tlian he is in very deed; . t. which Chi-ist without doubt never did, nor would over do. Viro
8. Item, If Christ had begged wilfully, that is, having no true need there- '-
unto, then had he appeared either to be a hypocrite, seeming to be that he was
not, and to lack, when he did not ; or else to be a true beggar in very deed, not able to suffice his necessity. For he is a true beggar indeed, who, being constrained by mere necessity, is forced to ask of another that which he is not able to give to himself. But neither of these two agiveth to Christ.
9. Item, If Christ had begged wilfully, then why did Peter rebuke the mother of St. Clement, his disciple, finding her to stand among the beggars, whom he thought to be strong enough to labour with her hands for her living, if she, in so doing, had followed the example of Christ ?i
10. Item, If Christ had begged wilfully, and if the friars do rightly define Clement's perfection of the gospel by wilful poverty, then was Clement, St. Peter's e-^'ampi'-' successor, to blame, who laboured so much to remove away beggary and to the poverty from among all them that were converted to the faith of Christ, and is friars, speciallj-, for the same, commended of the church.
11. Again, why did the said Clement, writing to James, bishop of Jerusalem,^ command so much to obey the doctrine and examples of the apostles ; who, as he showeth in that epistle, had no beggar or needy person amongst them, if christian perfection, by the friars' philosophy, standeth in wilfid beggary ?
12. Item, If Christ the high priest had begged wilfully, then did the holy church err wittingly, which ordained that none without sufficient title of living aiul clothing, should be admitted to holy orders. And moreover, when it is said, in the canonical decrees, that the bishop or clerk that beggeth. bringeth shame upon the whole order of the clergy.
13. Item, If Christ had wilfully begged, then the example of wilful poverty had pertained to the perfection of christian life, which is contrary to the old law, which commandeth the })riests (who lived then after the perfection of the law) to have possessions and tithes to keep them from beggary.
14. Item, If Christ did wilfully beg, then beggary were a point of christian perfection: and so the church of (lod should err, in admitting such patrimonies and donations given to the church, and so in taking from the prelates their perfection.
15. Again, what will these friars, who put their perfection in begging, say to Melchisedec, who, without begging or wilful poverty, was the high priest of God, and king of Salem, and prefigured the order and priesthood of Christ?
16. And if beggary be such a perfection of the gospel, as the friars say, how cometh it, that the Holy Ghost given to the apostles, which should lead them into all truth, told them no word of this beggarly perfection, neither is there any word mentioned thereof throughout the whole Testament of God I
17. Moreover, where the prophet saith, " I never did see the just man forsaken, nor his seed go begging their bread :" how standeth this with tiie justice of Christ, which was most perfectly just, if he should be forsaken, or his seed go beg their bread ? and then how agreeth this with the abomi- nable doctrines of friars Franciscan, who put their perfection in wilful begging ?
18. Finally, do we not read that Christ sent his disciples to preach with- out scrip or wallet, and bade them salute no man by the way ; meaning that they should beg nothing of any man ? Did not the same Christ also labour with his hands under Joseph? St. Pan], likewise, did he not laboiu- with his hands, rather '.han he would burden the church of the Corinthians? And where now is the doctrine of the friara, which putteth the state of perfection in wilful begging ?