he erre not, oure feet that thei slide not and stumble not, God wole holde us excusid, thouȝ oure power of seing erre, and thouȝ oure power of heering erre, and thouȝ oure feet stumble; and it schal be allowid to us as miche of God as if it be seen ariȝt, herd ariȝt, and walkid ariȝt. And euen so, bi cause that God hath ȝouen to vs noon other power of resonyng than which may faile and erre, he wole holde us excusid, thouȝ we folewe an erroneose doom of resoun, whilis we ben not necligent but diligent bothe in oure owne avising and bi counseil taking of othere forto haue a riȝt doom in oure resoun; and he wole allowe, rewarde, accepte, and take oure deede which we doon bi such an erroneose doom, as ferforth as it were doon bi a riȝt doom; al the while that thilk errour in oure resounys doom is had aȝens oure wil, and not bi oure consent and willing or necligence. And so, if this be trewe, (as it is proued be trewe in othere placis of my writingis,) noon inconuenience is, if God ordeyne the power of resoun for to be oure reule in his seruice doing, thouȝ thilk power of reson be such that he schal sumtime (ȝhe, and ofte tyme) erre, but if the gretter laboure be mad theraȝens bi avisingis and bi counseil taking and bi leernyng long tyme in scolis.
Neuertheles it may be answerid to the firste obiec|cioun in other wise thus: That the power of resoun in him silf is not ordeyned of God to be oure next and best and surest reuler or reule anentis alle resonable treuthis, but the doom of reson is ordeyned to so be; and ȝit not ech doom of resoun, but thilk doom of resoun which is a formal complete argument clepid a sillogisme in resoun, whos bothe premissis ben sureli or likeli knowen for trewe, and that bi hem silf or bi sume othere bifore had lijk sillogisme or sillogismes prouyng the premisse hauyng nede to be proued, into tyme it bicome into premissis openest in suerte or openest in probabilite or likelihode. And
