in doom of resoun sufficientli; neither into his finding, leerning, and knowing mannis resoun bi it silf and bi natural help may rise and suffice, withoute therto maad reuelacioun or affirmyng fro God. Forwhi thanne feith were no feith, as it is tauȝt in The folwer to the donet and in the book Of feith and of sacramentis in Latyn. Wherfore moral lawe of kinde, (which is not ellis than moral philsophie writen depe in mannis soule, there ligging with the prent and the ymage of God,) mai not grounde eny article or treuthe or conclu|sioun of feith: but into the grounding of feith serueth Holi Scripture, as it is bi the iije. conclusioun proued. And so this present iiije. conclusioun muste needis be a trouthe.
The ve. principal conclusioun is this: Thouȝ neither the seide moral lawe of kinde neither outward bokis therof writen mowe grounde eny trouthe or con|clusioun of verry feith, ȝit tho outward bokis (as Cristene men hem maken) mowe weel ynow reherce and witnesse trouthis and conclusiouns of feith groundid bifore in Holi Scripture; and so thei doon. Forwhi it is no more repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the ground|ing of Holy Scripture, than that bokis of Holi Scrip|ture reherce trouthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of moral philsophie, and that bokis of grammer reherce treuthis and conclusiouns propre to the grounding of Holi Scripture. But so it is that bokis of Holi Scripture rehercen treuthis longing to the grounding of moral philsophie, as it is bifore schewid in proof of the secunde conclusion; wherfore it is not repugnant that bokis of moral philsophie, namelich tho whiche Cristen men maken, reherce treuthis of feith longing to the grounding of Holi Scripture. And that thei so doon it is open bi the book of Cristen reli|gioun and hise parties mad in the comoun peplis langage.
