is vnleeful eny man be preest; which is aȝens Scrip|ture plein ynouȝ bi textis alleggid aftir in the [ije.] [A space left in the MS. for the number.] chapiter of this iiije. partie. And therfore this arguyng now maad is nauȝt, proceding vpon the mys vndir|stonding of tho ij. textis.
If the first of tho ij. textis were so streiteli to be vndirstonde, that it were vnleeful eny man be clepid maister, thanne for the ije. parti of thilk same hool text sownyng in lijk wise it schulde be vnleeful eny man to [to is interlineated by a later hand.] be clepid fadir, sithen in the ije. party of the same text it is writun, Math. xxiije. capitulum., thus: Nile ȝe calle to ȝou fadris vpon erthe, for oon is ȝoure Fader which is in heuen. And ȝit theraȝens meetith the wordis of Crist in an other place, Mark, xe. capitulum., where he seith thus: Worschipe thou thi fader and thi modir; and Effecies, vje. capitulum., Poul seith thus: Honoure thou thi fadir and thi modir. How euer wolden Crist and Poul calle persoones fadir and modir to me, but if tho persoones weren verrili fader and modir to me, and but if it were also leeful to me forto calle hem fadir and modir to me, as thei ben verili fadir and modir to me? And so open it is herbi, that the firste parti of the first text, which ie. parti is this, Nile ȝe be clepid maistris, is not to be vnder|stonde so streitly as he sowneth, no more [nomore, MS. (accidentally?).] than the ije. partie of the same first text, Nile ȝe calle to ȝou fadris vpon erthe, is to be take and vndirstonde so stritli [Perhaps a clerical error for streitli.] as he sowneth. And sithen the iije. parti of the hool rehercid text declarith how the ije. partie is to be vndirstonde, that is to seie thus: "Nile ȝe calle to ȝou ȝoure principal fadir upon erthe;" (for whi so meeneth the iije. partie of the same text, whanne it
