works of reason, wherefore is there need of Christ or regeneration
[as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff.]? And from these opinions the
matter has now come to such a pass that many ridicule us because we
teach that an other than the philosophic righteousness must be sought
after. [Alas! it has come to this, that even great theologians at
Louvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any other godliness or
righteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul teaches
otherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach. And although
we ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to ridicule
it, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.] We
have heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead
of a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have heard
a great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and
preached the ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolish
way to preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things
are true which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the
adversaries be true, the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and a
fine new Bible]. For Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so
learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. We
see books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared with
the sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come
for the purpose of delivering certain laws through which we might
merit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive this
gratuitously, because of His merits. Therefore, if we here receive
the doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we merit
the remission of sins and justification, there will be no difference
between philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christian
righteousness.

Although the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require a