lyuyng, and in the same place which Eusebi spekith of. [Hist. Trip. lib. iii. c. 12.] Wherfore, if the reule of Crist in the Gospel be good and to be kept, which he techith there to be kept, that "in the mouth of ij. or thre schal ech word of witnessing stonde," [See Matth. xviii. 16.] it folewith that this parti is miche more credible than is the contrarie partie; ȝhe, and that the contrarie parti is an apocrif. And so fynali it is proued that the storie affermyng the seid voice to be mad in the eir seijng, This dai venom is hilde into the chirche, is not credible.
The iije. resoun is this: The storiyng which the seid Girald makith of this voice is this in wordis, It is rad that the oold enemy pronouncid openli in the eir thus, This dai venom is hildid into the chirche. Wherfore folewith that if it be not writun in eny storie bifore the seid storiyng of Girald, that the oold enemy made such a voice thanne in the eir, al the storiyng which Girald makith of the same voice is not to be bileeued. But so it is, that noon eldir storie or cronicle can be founde writun bifore the seid stori|yng of Girald, in which eeldir storie is mensioun mad of thilk voice. Wherfore this that Girald writith of this voice is ful sengil to be bileued.
Confirmacioun to this resoun is this: Sithen the storiyng which Girald makith of this voice is this, It is rad that such voice was in the eir, et cætera, Girald ȝildith him silf in so storiyng that he is not the fundamental storier ther of, but that ther of is an other storie bifore him, fro which he takith his storiyng of the same voice: wherfore [The sense seems to require ther|fore.] if noon other storie be founde eeldir than the storie of Girald, in which eeldir storie mensioun is maad of this same voice, (as in trouthe no such storie or writing can as
