defaut: and more than this can not be take bi the seid first text of Poul, whanne he seith thus: Who euer vnknowith, he schal be vnknowen. Wherfore fol|ewith that the other vndirstonding, bi which summen streynen [streynen, MS., the e being in a later hand.] thilk text forto speke of the writing which we han now of the Newe Testament, is not dewe to him, namelich sithen in thilk text no mensioun is maad of eny writing. And therfore whi schulde it be seid that needis thilk text is to be vnderstonde of the writing which we now han of the Newe Testament? And thus it is now opened, bi this laste now mad argument, which is the trewe and dewe vndirstonding of the same text.
Wherfore sithen ech Cristen man and womman, thouȝ thei neuere rede oon word in the Bible, or thouȝ thei neuere lerne bi oon daies labour ther yn, mowe leerne and kepe as miche lawe of kinde as God chargith hem forto leerne and kepe, and as miche lawe of feith as God chargith hem forto leerne and kepe, and mowe leerne as miche feith not being lawe to hem how miche God chargith hem forto leerne and knowe; and therfore al that Cristen men and wom|men ouȝten leerne, thei mowe leerne out of the Bible, and bi bokis treuli drawen out of lawe of kinde and out of the Bible:—ȝhe, and sithen al this thei mowe leerne and kunne more pleinli and more fulli and sooner than thei mowe it leerne in the Bible, (as it folewith out and fro the vje. and vije. and xe. bifore sett conclusiouns, and as experience wole nedis proue to eche asaier for to lerne The donet and his Folewer in to Cristen religioun, The book of Cristen religioun, The filling of the iiij. tablis, with othere bookis an|nexid and knyt to The book of Cristen religioun) it muste needis folewe that al the kunnyng, whos igno|raunce
