of Iewis mad bi hem, or if he hadde blamed the seid ij. tradiciouns for that that thei weren mennys tradiciouns, sotheli thilk ij. long processis, (oon of Ma|theu, an other of Mark) hadden proued weel the ije. premysse of the principal argument sett bifore in the bigynnyng of the next chapiter. But for as miche as it can not be had bi the ij. processis of Matheu and of Mark, that Crist blamed there alle tradiciouns mad bi the Iewis, saue oonli tho tradiciouns whiche weren aȝens Goddis comaundement or in eny other wise yuel, neither that he blamed there the ij. there spokun tradiciouns, for that thei weren mennys tradiciouns oonli, saue for that thei weren badde tradiciouns, (as it is open ynouȝ, if the wordis of Mark be weel markid and set forto expowne the wordis of Matheu upon the firste there spokun tradicioun)—therfore it is open ynow, that tho ij. long processis of Matheu and of Mark prouen not it what that thei ben brouȝt forth to proue, that is, the seid ije. premysse. And therfore the seid argument hath not wherbi he mai haue his entent proued. Ferthermore, alle Cristen peple (name|lich, al tho lay persoonys which wolen nedis entermete with reding in the Newe Testament) y biseche for to attende into these thingis or notabilitees, [natabilitees, MS.] whiche y schal now reherce as into thingis ful miche profitable to hem, and whos vnattendaunce hath causid ful myche yuel, namelich in tho lay persoones whiche entermeten miche with reding in the Newe Testament.
The firste ys: That ful ofte oure Lord Iesus for|bedith or weerneth certeyn gouernauncis, and ȝit he expressith tho gouernauncis not oonli in the maners and circumstauncis in whiche he hem forbedith and weerneth and in which thei ben forbedable or weern|able, but he expressith hem in a forme comoun to the maners and circumstauncis in whiche thei ben
