In his small work on the last words of David,* Dr. Luther, a little before his death, wrote thus: “According to the other, the temporal, human birth, the eternal power of God was also given unto him, but in time, and not from eternity. For the humanity of Christ has not been from eternity, like the divinity, but, according to our computation, Jesus the Son of Mary is now 1543 years of age. But from that moment, in which the divinity and humanity were united in one person, the man, the Son of Mary, truly is, and is called the omnipotent, eternal God; who has eternal power, who created and preserves all things, per communicationem idiomatum, because with the divinity, he is one person, and is also true God. Concerning this, he says: ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father,’ Matt. 11:27. And in another place: ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,’ Matt. 28:18. Who is he that says: ‘Unto me?’ Unto me, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary, and born as man. From eternity I have this power of the Father, before I became man. But when I became man, I received it in time according to the humanity, and held it concealed until my resurrection and ascension, when it was to be manifested and declared;—as Paul, Rom. 1:4, writes: ‘He was declared to be the Son of God with power;’” John uses the term glorified, John 17:10. (Henkel Translation, p. 702).

But we beg every Christian reader to consider for God’s sake: If we can be justified before God and become Christians through such works, I would like to hear, (and we pray all of you to make every effort to reply,) what the difference would be between the doctrines of the philosophers and of Christ; if we can obtain the remission of sins through such works of ours, what benefit, then, is Christ to us? If we can become holy and pious in the sight of God, by natural reason and our own good works, what need have we then of the blood and death of Christ, or to be born anew through him? as Peter says in his first Epistle 1:3. This dangerous error (taught publicly in the schools and from the pulpit) has, alas, led even eminent theologians at Lyons, Paris, and other places, to recognise no Christian piety or righteousness, but that taught in philosophy; although every letter and syllable of Paul teaches differently; yet, while this ought reasonably to surprise us, and we could justly deride their views, they laugh at us, yea, ridicule Paul himself.

So greatly has this shameful, abominable error prevailed! I myself heard a reputable minister, who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, but preached the ethics of Aristotle, (Aristotelis ethicos). Is not such preaching puerile and foolish among Christians? If, however, the doctrine of our adversaries be true, then are these ethics (ethici,) an invaluable collection of sermons, and a fine new bible. For it is not easy for any one to write better than Aristotle, with regard to an external, honorable life.

We see, that some learned men have written books, in which they endeavour to show, that the words of Christ and the sayings of Socrates and Zeno harmonize beautifully, as if Christ had come to give us good laws and commandments, through which to merit the remission of our sins; instead of proclaiming to us the grace and peace of God and imparting the Holy Spirit, through his own merits and blood.

Hence, if we receive the doctrine of our adversaries, that we can merit the forgiveness of our sins, by the powers of natural reason and our own works, we are Aristotelians and not Christians, and there is no difference between an honorable Heathen, a Pharisaic, and a Christian life, between philosophy and the Gospel. (Henkel Translation, p. 158-159).

Here the scholastics have followed the philosophers; and when they attempt to define, how man is justified before God, they teach only the righteousness and piety, of a correct external deportment before the world, and of good works, and in addition devise the dream, that human reason is able without the aid of the Holy Ghost, to love God above all things. For it is true, undoubtedly, that when the human heart is at ease and free from trouble and temptation, and does not feel the wrath and judgement of God, it may imagine that it loves God above all things and does much good and many works for God’s sake; but this is mere hypocrisy. Yet in this manner our adversaries have taught, that men merit the remission of sins, if they do as much as lies in their power; that is, if reason regrets sin, and elicits also a willingness to love God.

Since men are naturally inclined to the idea, that their merits and works are of some value in the sight of God, this false principle has bought forth innumerable, perverted methods of worship in the church: for example, monastic vows, the abuse of masses, and the like, without number; new modes of worship being constantly devised out of this error. And in order that such confidence in our merits and works might be still farther disseminated, they impudently maintained, that the Lord God must of necessity give grace unto those who do such good works; not indeed, that he is compelled, but because this is the order, which God will not transgress or alter.

In these opinions, in this very doctrine, many other gross, pernicious errors, and horrid blasphemies against God are embraced and hidden; to state all of which now, would require too much time. (Henkel Translation, p. 158).