a treuthe may be concludid in a formal argument fro a treuthe. And therfore sithen this schort argument is formal: "Robyn rode without stiropis, eke thanne his legge lollid," it muste nedis be that, if the premysse be trewe, that the conclusioun be trewe. And for that this argument is formal: "This thing is miche briȝte and ful white, eke thanne he mai be seen;" ther fore if the premysse be trewe, the conclusioun is ther with trewe. And for that this argument is formal: "Noman lackith a bodi, eke thanne noman is without a place long and brood:" ther fore if the premysse be grantid of eny man, he ouȝte nedis graunte the conclusioun.
Certis thouȝ no more were for to [to is interlineated in a later(?) hand.] iustifie the iije. seid principal gouernaunce than the profis of the thre next bifore going principal conclusiouns fro the bigynnyng of this present iije. parti hidir to, thei were sufficient forto iustifie the same seid iije. principal gouernaunce. Forwhi what schulde lette eny gouer|nance to be doon, if neither Holi Scripture, neither doom of cleer resoun, neither mennys lawis letten it to be don? Neuerthelatir sumwhat more into the [the is interlineated in a later hand.] iustifying of the same iije. principal gouernaunce schal be set therto bi the iij. [Pecock has in fact added five.] next conclusiouns now aftir comying.
xv. CHAPITER.
THE iiije. principal conclusioun of this present iije. partie is this: Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament allowith [allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).] the iije. ofte seid principal gouernaunce, that is to seie, preestis forto haue vnmouable posses|siouns
