clausulis folewing and afore going, and as a thing seid not to purpos, but if the clausulis ioyned therto weren also seid of Petiris persoon. And so therfore the hool clausul, in which is mensioun of the stoon, was seid of Petiris persoon.
Confirmacioun into this same is this: If y were to seie to my felawe, that y wolde do eny thing to myn owne persoon; (as that y wolde drinke or ete or slepe), wherto schulde y seie next bifore to him thus: "Thou art in this place, or thou art there, or thou art Iohun or William, y schal do this thing or that thing, as that y schal dyne or drinke or slepe?" Certis it schulde not bicome me or eny man, having ful smal witt and discrecioun, forto so in|pertynentli [So written at length in the MS.] speke, and forto sette to gidere in speche maters not hanging to gidere. Wherfore sithen miche rathir we ouȝten not bere an honde that Crist spake inpertinentli, and in such maner which bisemeth not eny man other than a fool forto speke, (namelich, withoute eny nede of the better therto dryuyng or more sownyng than to the contrarie,) it muste needis folewe that the seid hool myddil clausul (speking of the stoon) Crist spak to Peter and of Petiris persoon, and not of his owne persoon or of eny othir thing dyuers fro Petiris persoon; euen as in the clausul next bifore going and in the ij. clausulis next folewing aftir the seid hool clausul Crist spake of Petris persoon.
Vpon which thing thus concludid and proued y argue ferther in lijk maner, as y haue argued bifore in the next bifore going principal argument thus: If Crist bihiȝte that he wolde upon Peter bilde his chirche, y aske whether Crist meened that he wolde bilde his chirche upon the persoon of Peter, whilis that Crist lyued here, or aftir Cristis ascencioun; or ellis that
