For Melanchthon, the first use, the law as a teacher of sin, remained primary. Neuser also detected a Calvinistic stamp on the HC’s portrayal of the law in part 1 as a mirror for our misery. The fact that HC 4 answers the question, “What does God’s law require of us?” with the words, “Christ teaches us this in summary in Matthew 22” ... suggests a Calvinistic understanding of the law— one in which law and gospel are not polar opposites but different expressions of the gracious righteousness of God. This represented a significant revision of the first part of the SC, where we encounter a sharp Melanchthonian contrast between law and gospel. Therefore, Neuser concluded, whoever was the final redactor of the HC was certainly a Calvinist.¹