A09432:1206
A godly and learned exposition of Christs Sermon in the Mount
A godly and learned exposition of Christs Sermon in the Mount: preached in Cambridge by that reverend and judicious divine M. William Perkins. Published at the request of his executors by Th. Pierson preacher of Gods word. Whereunto is adjoined a twofold table: one, of special points here handled; the other, of choice places of Scripture here quotedA godly and learned exposition of Christs Sermon in the Mount: preached in Cambridge by that reuerend and iudicious diuine M. William Perkins. Published at the request of his exequutors by Th. Pierson preacher of Gods word. Whereunto is adioyned a twofold table: one, of speciall points here handled; the other, of choise places of Scripture here quoted
Cambridge : Printed by Thomas Brooke and Cantrell Legge, printers to the University of Cambridge, 1608Cambridge : Printed by Thomas Brooke and Cantrell Legge, printers to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge, 1608
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
that is, suppose Angels had tongues, and that I could speak as eloquently as they. The words of the 4. v. are for substance all one with the former in the 3. The difference between them is only this; in the 3. v. Christ speaks only of rash judgment conceived in the mind; but in the 4. he speaks of rash judgement uttered in speech, How sayest thou to thy brother, &c. So that in both verses the words are a parable bearing this sense: with what face, honesty, or conscience, canst thou find fault with thy brother either in thought or speech, thou thy self being tainted with greater faults and offences? And hence the second reason may be thus conceived:
that is, suppose Angels had tongues, and that I could speake as eloquently as they. The words of the 4. v. are for substance all one with the former in the 3. The difference between them is onely this; in the 3. v. Christ speaks onely of rash iudgment cōceiued in the mind; but in the 4. he speaks of rash iudgemēt vttered in speech, How saist thou to thy brother, &c. So that in both verses the words are a parable bearing this sense: with what face, honestie, or conscience, canst thou finde fault with thy brother either in thought or speach, thou thy selfe beeing tainted with greater faults and offences? And hence the second reason may be thus conceiued:
He that hath greater faults, must not censure him that hath lesser:
But he that gives rash judgement, hath greater faults then he whom he censureth: And therefore no man ought to use rash judgment. The proposition or first part is omitted: the Assumption expressly set down in the 3. & 4. v. whereupon the conclusion follows against rash judgement.
But he that giues rash iudgement, hath greater faults then he whom he censureth: And therfore no mā ought to vse rash iudgment. The proposition or first part is omitted: the Assumption expressely set downe in the 3. & 4. v. whereupon the conclusion follows against rash iudgement.