can not be founde that the seid iije. principal gouernaunce was forbode to the clergie of the Oold Testament.
The ije. argument to the same purpos is this: Thouȝ God forbade that the kinrede of Leuy, being as for thanne his clergie, schulde haue part in the seid firste departing and lotting of the al hool lond, as is open bi the textis bifore sett in this ie. chapiter, ȝit God purueied for hem in other wise; and bade, Numeri xxxve. capitulum., to al the hool multitude of the seid xij. kinredis receyuyng the al hool lond bi the seid departing and lotting, that after the seid depart|ing and lotting mad to hem of al the hool lond, they schulden ȝeue to the kinrede of Leuy, being the clergie of preestis and dekenis, certein citees bi lott of her al hool receit with the suburbis of pasturis ligging to the same citees, that in tho citees the peple of clerkis myȝten sufficientli ynouȝ dwelle, and that in the seid pasturis of suburbis the same clerkis myȝte sufficientli pasture her beestis. And in the performyng and exe|cuting of this now rehercid comaundement of God xlviij. citees with her suburbis weren ȝouun to the preestis and dekenes, as it is open, Iosue xxje. capitulum. And so, if good rekenyng in this mater be mad, it schal be founde that the kinrede of Leuy hadde mo citees ȝouun to hem than hadde eny oon other of the seid xij. kinredis, except the kinrede of Iuda; name|lich sithen summe of the seid kinredis hadde not mo than ten citees in his part and lott of the firste departing and lotting, as it is open, Iosue xvje. capitulum. Wherfore needis folewith, that the Holi Scripture in the Oold Testament grauntid and licencid preestis and dekenys of thilk tyme forto haue in lordschip and in possessioun vnmouable godis, as citees, housis, and pasturis; namelich so manye as thei hem silf, withoute into ferme to othere men leting, hadden nede or profit for to haue, holde, and occupie.
