or of natural philsophi or of methaphisik rehercid bi him, be reulid bi resoun and his [in his, MS. (first hand).] doom (takun in the ije. maner) in alle tho now seid trouthis, conclusiouns, and gouernauncis, ther of fol|ewith not that the worthier in that that he is wor|thier is subdewid vndir reule of the vnworthier as he is the vnworthier. Certis, if Holi Scripture be wor|thier in eny of hise treuthis and conclusiouns than is doom of resoun takun in the ije. maner, and as he comprehendith natural philsophie and metaphisik and moral philsophie, he is so worthier in hise treuthis of feith whiche ben not lawis to man, whiche Holi Scrip|ture groundith, and the seid doom of resoun may not hem grounde, as that God is iij. persones, and that the secunde persoone of hem was mad man, and that he suffrid and died, and that we schulen rise in fleisch aftir oure deeth, and so forth of othere suche feithis being no lawis to man; and ȝit whether Holi Scrip|ture be worthier or profitabiler to man than is the now seid doom of resoun taken in the ije. maner, forto serue God and deserue meede in hevene, schal not be disputid and determyned here in this book, but per|auenture it schal be determyned in my writingis to heerers of hiȝer vndirstonding.
Neuertheles with this y wolde it were not forȝete what y haue tauȝt bifore bi the [seventh] [A space left in the MS. for the number. The seventh rather than the tenth conclusion seems to be intended; but neither of them is exactly designed to prove what is here affirmed to be proved. See pp. 39, 43.] principal conclusioun, that al the positijf lawe of feith which Scripture groundith or techith, that is to seie, al the feith being positijf lawe to man, which Scripture groundith or techith, is not so worthi in it silf, nei|ther so necessarie and profitable to man, for to serue God and deserue meede in heuen, as is the seid doom of resoun being moral lawe of kinde; and therfore
