Holi Scripture as in the positijf lawis of feith to man is not so worthi in him silf, neither so profitable and necessarie to man as is the seid doom of resoun, which is lawe of kinde.
And ferthermore, sithen al what mai be clepid in eny maner largeli lawe of feith, being not positijf lawe of feith, is propirli lawe of kinde and not oonli lawe of feith, (as it is tauȝt bifore in proof of the xe. con|clusioun bi remyssion into the book Of iust apprising of Holi Scripture,) it folewith that if we speke of lawe of feith in this maner, al the lawe of feith which Holi Scripture techith is not so worthi and so profit|able to man as is lawe of kinde tauȝt out of Holi Scripture bi doom of resoun, with oute godli reuelacioun. Forwhi thus [thus is by a later hand, the original reading having been erased; this word may have been propirli, which the sense seems to require.] forto speke of lawe of feith ther is no lawe of feith, saue it which is positijf lawe of feith; and al positijf lawe of feith is oonli lawe aboute the newe sacramentis; and the vsis of tho (as for and bi hem silf) ben vnworthier and lasse profitable to man than is lawe of kinde, as it is bifore proued. If Holi Writt be take in the ije. maner and doom of resoun in the firste maner, certis y holde thanne that doom of resoun in sum maner is worthier and perfiter than is Holi Writt thoruȝ out al the Bible. Forwhi the seid doom of resoun in this firste wise taken is cause of the Holi Writt takun in the ije. wise. Forwhi doom of resoun takun in the firste wise is cause of al kun|nyng in the vndirstonding or intellect of man, and that whether thilk kunnying be feith or no feith; and Holi Scripture in the ije. maner takun is not ellis than a certein kunnyng causid bi doom of resoun takun in the firste maner, by occasioun of Holi Writt takun in the first maner; and therfore Holi Writt in this ije. maner takun is vnworthier than is doom of resoun takun in the first maner, and that as weel where Holi
