The Institution of Christian Religion

Wherefore it was a most pestilent either ignorance or malice, that the Schoolmen of these commandments, touching not desiring of revengement, and loving our enemies, which in the old time both were given to the Jews and at the same time were commonly given to all Christians, have made Counsels which it is in our liberty to obey, or not obey. And the necessary obeying of them, they have posted over to Monks which were though but in this one point forsooth more righteous than simple Christians, that they willingly bound them selves to keep the Counsels. And they render a reason why they receive them not for laws, for that they seem to burdenous and heavy, specially for Christians that are under the law of grace. So dare they presume to repel the eternal law of God touching the loving of our neighbours? Is there any such difference in any leaf of the law? and are not therein rather in it each where found commandments that do most severely require of us to love our enemies? For what manner of saying is that, where we are commanded to feed our enemy when he is hungry?¹ to set into the right way his Oxen or Asses straying out of the way, or to ease them when they faint under their burden? Shall we do good to his beasts for his sake without any good will to him self? What? is not the word of the Lord everlasting:² Leave vengeance to me, and I will requite it? Which also is spoken more plainly at large in an other place. Seek not vengeance, neither be mindful of the injury of thy Citizens. Either let them blot these things out of the law, or let them acknowledge that the Lord was a lawmaker, and not lyingly feign that he was a counsel giver.

Wherefore it was a moste pestilent either ignoraunce or malice, that the Schoolemen of these commaundementes, touching not desyringe of reuengmente, and louinge oure enemies, whiche in the olde time bothe were geuen to the Iewes and at the same tyme were commonly geuen to all Christians, haue made Councels whiche it is in our libertie to obey, or not obey. And the necessarie obeyinge of them, thei haue posted ouer to Monkes which wer though but in this one poynt forsoothe more righteous than simple Christians, that thei willingelye bound them selues to keepe ye Councels. And thei rendre a reason why thei receiue them not for lawes, for that they seeme to burdenous and heauy, specially for Christians that are vnder the lawe of grace. So dare thei presume to repel the eternall law of God touching the louing of oure neighvoures? Is there any suche dyfference in any leafe of the lawe? and are not therein rather in it eche where founde commaundementes that do moste seuerely require of vs to loue oure enemies? For what manner of sayinge is that, where wee are commaunded to feede oure enemie when he is hungry?