neither for that thilk lawe is a lawe of mannys mak|ing, but for that he is aȝens sum commaundement of Cristis lawe, (that is to seie, aȝens sum point of lawe of kinde or of Cristis sacramentis,) he must allegge forth which thilk religioun or thilk mannys lawe is; and ther upon he schal be herd and his pretensioun schal be examyned. And if he can proue what he pretendith, he schal be suffrid to reioice his opinioun, and othere men schulen ther yn holde with him. But forto crie and diffame and bacbite in this wise; "The pope makith lawis contrarie to Cristis lawis, and therfore he makith lawis of anticrist;" and ȝit this diffamer can not assigne and bringe forth eny of thilk lawis which he is, and whi he is aȝens Goddis lawe, is a beestly gouernaunce, and such a gouernaunce as y dar weel avowe [a vowe, MS.] is aȝens the lawe of God. And therfore to suche ypocritis, pretending hem to loue the lawe of God, y seie thus: Take out the beem which is in thin owne iȝe, et cætera, Math. vije. [viij e., MS.] capitulum.
viij. CHAPITER.
FOR to semyngli iustifie the blamyng and the re|proving of the ve. principal gouernaunce rehercid and sett bifore in the vje. chapiter of this present iiije. partie summe semyng skilis mowen be mad, of which the firste takun bi textis of Holi Scripture is this: What euer gouernaunce God in his Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament blameth and reproueth is not worthi be had and vsid rennyngli with his comon Cristen lawe. But so it is, that God in his Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament blameth and reprou|eth generali withoute eny excepcioun mennys lawis
