In the iije. maner religioun is take for religioun of the firste maner and religioun of the ije. maner to gidere seet; and in this maner y toke and vndirstode this name "religioun," whanne to a certein book which y haue mad y puttid this name, The reule of Cristen religioun.
Iames in his text alleggid bifore in the firste sem|yng skile meened not of religioun takun in the now seid firste maner, but of religioun taken in the ije. now seid maner; and ȝit bi thilk same text Iames meened not, that a man forto visite fadirles and mo|dirles children and widowis in her tribulacioun, and a man forto kepe him vnwemmed fro this world schulde be al an hool religioun takun in the ije. maner; but that these deedis bi him there expressid schulden be summe parties of an hool religioun takun in the secunde maner. Forwhi a man forto worschipe and releeue his fadir and modir is a parti of the same al hool religioun takun in the ije. maner, and a man forto forbere fals sweryng and idil swering is an other parti of the same hool religioun takun in the ije. maner; and lijk maner ech moral vertu is a parti of the same religioun takun in the ije. maner. And therfore bi this, that now is thus declarid, it is open ynowȝ that the firste maner of arguyng rehercid bifore upon the seid text of Iames is not worth, whanne it is argued thus: A man to visite fadirles and modirles children and widewis is a religioun; for it is a parti of the now seid greet religioun; therfore noon other vertu than this visiting is a religioun.
For answere to the ije. maner of arguyng maad upon the same text of Iames it is to be seid, that the firste premisse is vntrewe, which is there takun and fourmed thus: What euer religioun lettith, bifore bar|rith, ȝhe, and forbedith an othir religioun to be had or doon, which is a cleene and an vnwemmed reli|gioun at God and the Fadir, is vnleeful and not
