cause that the doom of resoun cometh out and fro the resoun, as the liȝt of the sunne comith fro the sunne.
Aftir that y haue schewid thus: That noon incon|uenient is, thouȝ God assigne for oure reule into his seruice the power of resoun in oon maner of reuling, as a power of deedis hath forto reule; and also aftir that y haue schewid thus: That the doom of resoun miȝte be a surer reule to us into Goddis moral ser|uice than is the power of reson,—now y schal schewe that euereither of hem is needis to be seid oure reule into the moral seruice of God to be doon. And firste thus: Of al the moral seruice of God, which is moral lawe of kinde, Holi Scripture is not the reule. Forwhi than therof Holi Scripture were the ground, which is proued bifore to be vntrewe: Also of al the now seid moral seruice of God, Holi Scripture is oonli a witnesser and a rehercer, and takith it out and fro moral lawe of kinde and out of moral philsophie, as it is bifore proued. Wherfore Holi Scripture is not neither may be reuler of thilk moral lawe and seruice to God. And thanne thus: Of thilk now seid moral lawe and seruice to God Holi Scripture muste be reuler, or sumwhat ellis bisidis Holi Scripture muste be ther of the reuler; but now and bifore it is proued that Holi Scripture may not be ther of the reuler, bi cause he is not therof the grounder, and he is ther of oonli the rehercer and witnesser, and taker of it fro an other which is grounder. And herwith it is also open that noon othir thing bisidis Scripture can be assigned forto be ther of the reule or reuler, but if it were the seid doom of resoun mad in forme of sillogisme as the next and best reule, and the power of resoun as for the romber and ferther reule; in as miche as fro the power of resoun cometh forth the now seid doom of resoun. Wherfore needis it muste be grantid, no man may it avoide, that bothe resoun which is the power of resonyng and of deemyng, and
