For certis ellis it wolde needis folewe that tho writers, how euere holi thei were, wroten and tauȝten aȝens trewe philsophie and aȝens trewe diui|nyte and aȝens trewe doom of resoun, which as for thilk euidence is not to be grauntid.
And therfore wolde God that men wolden bithenke weel, that no man may vndir oon reule and oon maner kepe his gouernaunce toward him silf, toward his meynee, and toward hise othere peple, in wynter and in somer, in a ȝeer of derth and in a ȝeer of greet cheep, in tyme of wete and in tyme of drouȝth; and if in oon ȝeer such transmutacioun and chaunge of wether muste make a man chaunge his moral gouer|naunce anentis him silf and anentis his peple, whi not bi lijk skile if thoruȝ hundridis of ȝeeris ben falle manye transmutaciouns in the circumstauncis of the seid politik gouernaunce, and manie lettis and manye vnhelpis and manye lackis of helpis, whiche in the eeldir daies weren not in the circumstauncis of the same gouernaunce? The prelate muste make thilk gouernaunce to be doon in an other maner and in an other reule, as resoun for the tyme wole deeme, and not vndir the same forme and reule in which it was doon bifore in eeldir daies, and in which thouȝ it be writun that in thilk reule that it was doon in eeldir daies bifore; ȝhe, and if such transmutacioun and greet dyuersyte be in oon diocise, miche more and miche other wise than in an other diocise, whi schal not the gouernaunce in thilk [thik, MS.] diocise be doon bi doom of resoun myche other wise than the same kinde of gouernaunce ouȝte be doon in an other [a other, MS.] diocise?
If therfore reders in lawis and writingis of eeldir daies were ferther and better instructid than in her grammer in such doctrine as is now sumwhat here schortli seid and touchid, thei wolden not ȝeue such
