Four treatises tending to dissuade all Christians from four no less heinous then common…Foure treatises tending to disswade all Christians from foure no lesse hainous then common…

The most of our new interpreters think that the first words are rather a permission then a precept,¹ and therefore to be understood thus. If you be angry, sin not; or thus, Are you angry? sin not: that is, though through infirmity ye ⟨p. 9⟩fall into anger, yet add not sin unto sin by continuing in it. But I see no reason why the words should be thus wrested, seeing there followeth no absurdity or inconvenience, if they be plainly understood without any alteration, which cannot be avoided if we admit of their exposition: for I would ask of them whether is here meant a lawful and just anger, or that which is unlawful and unjust? if lawful and just, why may it not be commanded, seeing it is as necessary and profitable to the furthering of Gods glory, and our good, as any other sanctified affection? if unjust and unlawful as they understand it, I would know how we can be angry and sin not. But say they if a holy anger were here meant, what needeth the constraint? Let not the Sun, &c. Seeing the longer it lasted, the rather it were to be commended, if it were just and holy: I answer these words are to be referred not to the precept (be angry) but to the prohibition (but sin not) where unjust anger is forbidden as before just anger was commanded and this is manifest in the text, for he doth not say, Let not the Sun go down [Greek or Hebrew] upon your anger, but, [Greek or Hebrew], upon your Wrath, or unjust and inveterate anger, as this word is commonly used.

The most of our new interpreters thinke that the first words are rather a permission then a precept,¹ and therefore to be vnderstood thus. If you be angry, sinne not; or thus, Are you angry? sinne not: that is, though through infirmity yee ⟨p. 9⟩fall into anger, yet adde not sinne vnto sinne by continuing in it. But I see no reason why the words should be thus wrested, seeing there followeth no absurditie or inconuenience, if they be plainely vnderstood without any alteration, which cannot be auoyded if wee admit of their exposition: for I would aske of them whether is here meant a lawful and iust anger, or that which is vnlawfull and vniust? if lawfull and iust, why may it not be commaunded, seeing it is as necessary and profitable to the furthering of Gods glory, and our good, as any other sanctified affection? if vniust and vnlawfull as they vnderstand it, I would know how wee can be angry and sinne not. But say they if a holy anger were here ment, what needeth the constraint? Let not the Sun, &c. Seing the longer it lasted, the rather it were to be commended, if it were iust and holy: I answere these words are to be referred not to the precept (be angry) but to the prohition (but sinne not) where vniust anger is forbidden as before iust anger was commaunded and this is manifest in the text, for he doth not say, Let not the Sunne goe downe vpon your anger, but, , vpon your Wrath, or vniust and inueterate anger, as this word is commonly vsed.