the iije. seid principal gouernaunce. Wherfore folewith needis, that the seid iije. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner leeful.
The vije. conclusioun is this: The iije. seid principal gouernaunce is a gouernannce of Goddis lawe. This conclusioun schal be proued thus: Ech gouernance, which is leeful and allowid and approued bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as it is vndoutabili proued in manye placis of my writingis, namelich in The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. But so it is, that the iije. seid principal gouernaunce is leeful bi the next bifore going iije. principal conclusioun, and he is al|lowid and approued by Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, as prouen weel the next bifore going iiije. and ve. principal con|clusiouns. Wherfore thilk iije. gouernaunce is a gouer|naunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament.
The viije. principal conclusioun is this: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi deede to othere men the iije. seid principal gouernaunce. That this con|clusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men [to othere men is added by a later hand in the margin, after which a different hand (exceedingly similar to that of the original scribe, if not identical with it,) has written a deede; the whole being marked with a red line, probably by the same hand that illuminated the MS. This tends to show that the cor|rections of the MS. are (in part at least) scarcely later than the original text.] a deede and a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament. But so it is, that the iije. seid prin|cipal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as proueth weel the next bifore going vje. principal conclusioun. Wherfore it is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men the iije. seid principal gouernaunce.
