it folewith that Cristen peple abiden ȝit hidir to chargid with the seid ful al hool moral lawe of kinde, and with the positijf lawis of Cristis newe sacramentis, so that welnyȝ or weel toward the al hool lawe with which Cristen men ben chargid is mad of lawe of kinde, which is doom of resoun and moral philsophie as of the oon partie, and of lawe of the newe sacramentis, which is lawe of newe feith, as of the other partie. And if this be trewe, as it is openli and cleerli ynouȝ lad forth to be trewe, it muste nedis folewe that welnyȝ or weel toward al the hool lawe of God in tyme of the Newe Testament, except a fewe positijf lawis of Cristis fewe newe sacramentis, is not ellis than the same lawe of kinde which was long bifore the tyme of Abraham and of Iewis.
And thanne ferther ther of y argue thus: But so it is that al thilk now seid lawe of kinde which was bifore the tyme of Iewis, not withstonding it is the more partie of Cristen lawe now bi ful greet quantite, is not foundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testa|ment, neither in Holi Scripture of the Oold Testament, neither in hem bothe to gidere. Forwhi this lawe was whanne neither of the Newe neither of the Oold Tes|tament writing was, and that fro the tyme of Adam into Abraham, wherfore folewith that thilk lawe ȝit abiding to Cristen men is not groundid in Holi Scrip|ture, but in the book of lawe of kinde writen in mennis soulis with the finger of God as it was so groundid and writen bifore the daies of Abraham and of Iewis. Whi in this iije. principal argument y haue seid these wordis welnyȝ or weel toward schal appere and be seen bi what schal be seid aftir in proofis of the vije. and xe. conclusiouns, and more openli by the place there alleggid in the book clepid The iust apprising of Holi Scripture.
The iiije. principal argument is this, What euer
