so perfit as these ben; neither it is to be seid that Holi Writt approueth the seid sufficience to be of more holynes than the seid beggerie or the seid riche endewing, bi cause that Holi Writt makith mensioun that Salamon chase and askid rathir the seid suf|ficience than the seid beggerie or the seid ricchessis. For of this, that Holi Writt makith this now seid mensioun, folewith no more, but that Holi Writt groundith this [this is interlineated by a later (?) hand.] or witnessith this;—that Salamon chaas the seid sufficience bifore the seid beggerie and bifore the seid ricchessis. But the argument is nauȝt, "Holi Writt seith that Salamon chaas this bifore that; therfore Holi Writt seith that this is bettir than that;" but if therwith this were knowen for trewe, that Salamon chas this afore that, bi cause that this was bettir and perfiter than that, and that he weel knewe this to be better than that. But this Holi Writt seith not, and also this is not trewe, as may be proued: and therfore it is to be seid, as is now bifore seid, that Salamon,—as a freel [man], and as he which ofte and miche synned, and as he which knewe [miche knewe, MS. (first hand).] his vnperfitnes, and was feerd forto aske and assaie and take upon him the hardir, hiȝer, and per|fiter wey,—askid mekeli and discreetli the imperfiter [ī pfit̛, MS. Very likely the scribe, (who often disjoins prepo|sitions in composition from their nouns and verbs,) intended the text to be in perfiter.] wey, as it which was to him surer and meeter than was the perfiter wey. And more than this can not bi the rehercid text of Salamon be had bi maistrie, if eny man be aboute forto seie ther aȝens nay, in the maner now mynistrid.
Neuertheles alwey thoruȝ al what is seid euer this apperith to be trewe, that forto be endewid in to a sufficience aȝens beggerie, which ellis now schulde be, and aȝens beggerie, which ellis in tyme com|yng
