the seid sillogistik doom of resoun ben in her bothe dyuerse maners reulis of al oure moral seruice to God, whiche is moral lawe of kinde, and of al oure lawe to God noon except, whether thei ben lawis of feith or not of feith; for noon of hem can be knowen of us withoute a sillogisme. And thus miche is ynouȝ for answere to the firste obieccioun.
xv. CHAPITER.
FOR answere to the ije. obieccioun: Sithen it is so that Holi Scripture hath not to do in him silf forto reule eny trouthe or gouernaunce of natural philsophi or of moral philsophi and of moral lawe of kinde, which he rehercith, witnessith, or tretith, and as of hem he rehersith, witnessith, and tretith, (for this is ofte bifore schewid and proued,) and for that he is reule oonli of feithis whiche he tretith and techith, bi cause that oonli of hem he is founder and grounder; and therfore of tho treuthis and conclusiouns of moral lawe of kinde as thei ben witnessid in Holi Scripture sum thing muste be reule, riȝt as of hem sum thing muste be ground, and noon such thing can be avisid to be bisidis Holi Scripture forto be to hem reule and ground, saue the seid sillogistik doom of resoun in oon maner, and the power of resoun out of which thilk doom cometh and that in an other maner: (wherfore needis it muste be grauntid that bothe resoun which is the power of resonyng, and resoun which is the seid doom and sillogistik deede of resonyng ben in her ij. dyuerse maners reulis to Holi Scripture in alle the pointis of mannis moral seruice to God, noon except; and that for cause now late bifore sett and seid which is broddir declarid in The folwer to the donet, and is proued openli in the first parti of The book of
