And ȝit wherto schal y make me so bisy forto defende the firste [Both here and below Pecock should have written thridde instead of firste.] principal gouernaunce aȝens eny forbode which schulde be pretendid to be ther aȝens in the lawe of Iewis? Forwhi, ben not alle the lawis of the Iewis reuokid bi Crist ech oon, except what is lawe of kinde, that is to seie, what doom of cleer resoun wole haue to be do or to be left vndo; as alle Cristen men bileeuen, and as it is open bi Poul in his Epistle to the Romayns and in his First Epistle to Corinthies and in his Epistle to Galathies and Acts xve. capitulum.? And therfore, thouȝ it hadde be trewe, (as it is not trewe,) that vnmouable endewing in propirte of lordschip hadde be [An erasure of a letter (n?) has been made at the end of be.] forboden to preestis and clerkis of the Iewis, what is it forto forbede to preestis of Cristen men, but if Cristen preestis weren Iewen preestis; or but if the lawis of Iewis weren not ceesid; or but if doom of cleer resoun wolde nedis dryue and proue that Cristen preestis ouȝten not haue eny vnmouable endewing? Which thing doom of cleer resoun can not proue, (as in the ije. principal conclusioun of this iije. present parti it schal be proued,) but y can proue the contrarie, as schal be seen aftir in this present iije. partie in the ve. prin|cipal conclusioun. Wherfore, forto answere to eny colour taken bi Iewes lawes aȝens the seid firste prin|cipal gouernaunce had and vsid in the clergie of Cristis chirche is more than is nede forto take upon me.
Also thus: If eny oon forbode maad in Iewis lawe to preestis schulde binde also Cristen preestis, bi lijk skile ech other forbode maad in Iewis lawe to preestis schulde [schulden, MS. twice (first hand).] also binde Cristen preestis. And so wolde folewe this, that if this forbode mad to Iewen preestis, that thei schulden not haue vnmouable endewing,
