Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:52:03.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom? The Anthropological Concepts in Luther and Melanchthon Compared*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Oswald Bayer
Oswald Bayer
Affiliation:
Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sigmund Freud speaks of three offenses against the human love of self. The first blow is “cosmological” and is associated with the name Copernicus. The second blow is “biological” and conjures up the name Darwin. Freud himself performs the “psychological blow,” which is directed at human narcissism. This “psychological blow” follows from the fact that “mental processes are in themselves unconscious and only reach the ego and come under its control through incomplete and untrustworthy perceptions.” These discoveries “amount to a statement that the ego is not master in its own house.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 373 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

01 Freud, Sigmund, “A Difficulty in the Path of Psycho-Analysis,” in idem, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 17: 1917–1919: An Infantile Neurosis and Other Works (trans, and ed. Strachey, James, Freud, Anna, Strachey, Alix, and Tyson, Alan; London: Hogarth and The Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1962) 137–44, especially 143.Google Scholar

02 Kant, Immanuel, “Introduction to the Doctrine of Virtue,” in idem, The Metaphysics of Morals (trans, and ed. Gregor, Mary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

03 Freud, “A Difficulty in the Path of Psycho-Analysis,” 143.

04 Ibid

05 “It is taught among us that private absolution should be retained and not allowed to fall into disuse. However, in confession it is not necessary to enumerate all trespasses and sins, for this is impossible, Ps 19:12, ‘Who can discern his errors?’” Translation from the German text of the Augsburg Confession, Article XI, in The Book of Concord. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (trans, and ed. Tappert, Theodore G.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 34Google Scholar. The text cited in Book of Concord is equivalent to Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956) 66Google Scholar. The Augsburg Confession XXV states, “Concerning confession we teach that no one should be compelled to recount sins in detail, for this is impossible. As the psalmist says, ‘Who can discern his errors [Ps 19:12]?’ Jeremiah [Jer 17:9] also says, ‘The heart is desperately corrupt; who can understand it?’” (Book of Concord, 62 [= Bekenntnisschriften, 98.27–99.4]). The Apology to Augsburg Confession XI states, “It is certain that we neither remember nor understand most of our sins, according to the statement (Ps 19:12), ‘Who can discern his errors?’” Book of Concord, 181 [= Bekenntnisschriften, 251.47–49]. In the “Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony (1528),” Luther writes, “The papal kind of confession is not commanded, namely, the recounting of all sins. This, furthermore, is impossible, as we read in Ps 19 [: 13], ‘But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults.’” In Luther's Works. American Edition (55 vols.; ed. Pelikan, Jaroslav and Lehmann, Helmut T.; St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia and Fortress, 1958–1986) 40Google Scholar. 296. This text is a translation of “Unterricht der Visitatoren an die Pfarrherrn,” in WA 26. 220, 2–4. Compare the Smalcald Articles (Bekenntnisschriften 440.25–441.13; 452.9–20; 453.8–9).

06 Jer 17:9. In a letter to Johann Gotthelf Lindner from March 10, 1759, Johann Georg Hamann writes, “Our heart is the greatest deceiver, and woe to him, who trusts his own [heart]. In spite of this born liar, God, however, remains faithful. Our heart may deceive us as it will, like a self-interested Laban. God, however, is greater than our heart. Our heart may condemn and scold us as it will; is the heart God, that it can judge us?” Hamann, Johann Georg, Briefwechsel (7 vols.; ed. Ziesemer, Walther and Henkel, Arthur; Wiesbaden: Insel, 1955) 1. 297.11–16. See 1. 425.30–426.12.Google Scholar

07 “Es ist das Herz ein trotzig und verzagt Ding; wer kann es ergründen?” The RSV does not capture Luther's translation. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” The translation from the Hebrew text by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig is, in German: “Schlichereich ist das Herz / mehr als alles / und sehrend wund ist es, / wer kennt es aus?” (Die Schrift, verdeutscht von Martin Buber gemeinsam mil Franz Rosenzweig, vol. 3: Bücher der Kündung [8th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel Gesellschaft, 1992])Google Scholar. For the passage in the LXX, see the next footnote. The passage in the Vulgate reads as follows: “pravum est cor omnium et inscrutabile.” Melanchthon cites this passage in his Loci from 1521. “And Jeremiah the prophet says that the heart of man is ‘deceitful … and desperately corrupt (Jer. 17:9).’” Philipp Melanchthon, Loci communes theologici (1521), in Pauck, Wilhelm, ed., Melanchthon and Bucer (LCC 19; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 29–30Google Scholar. This text is equivalent to the Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu Hypotyposes theologicae (1521) in Philipp Melanchthon, Loci Communes 1521. Lateinisch-Deutsch (trans, and annotated Pohlmann, Horst Georg; ed. Lutherisches Kirchenamt of the VELKD; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1993) 63. See also Loci communes theologici 34 on Gen. 6:5. “Gen. 6:5: ‘Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.’” 2. 34 (= Loci communes theologici (1521) 2. 36: “Omne desiderium cogitationum cordis humani vanum et pravum”).Google Scholar

08 Jer 17:9 (LXX): βαθεῖα καρδία παρ πάντα.

09 This passage is a translation of Bayer's paraphrase of Melanchthon's understanding of sin. “For who is able to penetrate the labyrinth of the human heart?” Loci communi theologici, 36 [= Loci communes (1521) 2. 47 [de peccato] 47: “Quis enim labyrinthum humani cordis possit explicare?”].

10 “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin” (Heidelberg Disputation [1518], in Luther's Works, 31. 40 [thesis 13] [= WA 1. 354. 5–6]). The text is also found in Luthers Werke in Auswahl (8 vols.; 3d ed.; ed. Clemen, Otto; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963) 5. 378.21–22. This thesis is condemned in the papal bull, “Exsurge Domine” from 15 June 1520. See DS 776. Compare with Martin Luther, “Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X. novissimam damnatorum (1520),” art. 36 (= WA 7. 142.22–149, 7; idem, “Defense and Explanation of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther which were Unjustly Condemned by the Roman Bull [1521],” art. 36 and 37 in Luther's Works 32. 92–97 [= WA 7. 445.30–451.7]). An opposing and conservative position is represented by, for example, Nicolaus Herborn, “Locorum communium adversus huius temporis haereses enchiridion, 1529” (CCath 12. 128.25–131; 16. 132.24–36).Google Scholar

11 “Therefore the spirit makes us gods, the flesh makes us brute animals. The soul constitutes us as human beings; the spirit makes us religious, the flesh irreligious, the soul neither the one nor the other. The spirit seeks heavenly things, the flesh seeks pleasure, the soul what is necessary. The spirit elevates us to heaven, the flesh drags us down to hell, the soul has no charge imputed to it. Whatever is carnal is base, whatever is spiritual is perfect, whatever belongs to the soul as life-giving element is in between and indifferent.” Erasmus, Desiderius, The Handbook of the Christian Soldier, in Fantazzi, Charles, ed., Collected Works of Erasmus (86 vols.; ed. John W. O'Malley; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988) 66Google Scholar. 52. In his treatise, “On the Dignity of Man (1486),” Giovanni Pico della Mirandola titanically emphasizes the freedom to choose. In “God's Speech to Man,” della Mirandola has God say, ‘”We have given to thee, Adam, no fixed seat, no form of thy very own, no gift peculiarly thine, that thou mayest feel as thine own, have as thine own, possess as thine own the seat, the form, the gifts which thou thyself shalt desire. A limited nature in other creatures is confined within the laws written down by Us. In conformity with thy free judgment, in whose hands I have placed thee, thou art confined by no bounds; and thou wilt fix limits of nature for thyself. I have placed thee at the center of the world, that from there thou mayest more conveniently look around and see whatsoever is in the world. Neither heavenly nor earthly, neither mortal nor immortal have We made thee. Thou, like a judge appointed for being honorable, art the molder and maker of thyself; thou mayest sculpt thyself into whatever shape thou dost prefer. Thou canst grow downward into the lower natures which are brutes. Thou canst again grow upward from thy soul's reason into the higher natures which are divine.’ O great liberality of God the Father! O great and wonderful happiness of man! It is given him to have that which he chooses and to be that which he wills.” (“On the Dignity of Man,” in Wallis, Charles Glenn, trans., On the Dignity of Man. On Being and the One: Heptaplas (intro. Paul J. W. Miller; Library of Liberal Arts Series; Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965) 4–5Google Scholar. Compare Ibid, 7: “In order for us to understand that after having been born in this state so that we may be what we will to be.”

12 See Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I. Q. 19, A. 10: “liberum arbitrium est facultas rationis et voluntatis, qua bonum et malum eligitur.”

13 “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other” (Gal 5:17 [RSV]; see also Rom 7:23).

14 Martin Luther, “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,” in Luther's Works, 35. 377 (translation modified).

15 Loci communes theologici, 22–30 [= Loci communes (1521), I. 1–70]. Melanchthon expanded and placed this section before the other loci in his Loci communes (1521) only after the publication of Luther's, “Assertio omnium articulorum …” (see n. 10) and their confirmation that the will is unfree. Maurer, Wilhelm, Der junge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation (2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 2. 141.Google Scholar

16 “It cannot be denied that there is in it a certain freedom in outward works” Loci communes theologici, 26 [= Loci communes (1521) 1. 42]. The Augsburg Confession XVIII states, “It is also taught among us that humanity possesses some measure of freedom of the will which enables them to live an outwardly honorable life and to make choices among the things that reason comprehends” (Book of Concord, 39 [= Bekenntnisschriften 73. 2–5]). Melanchthon stresses the aliqua throughout his career, as his answer to the Bavarian Inquisition in 1558 shows. “Etiam in homine non renato est aliqua libertas voluntatis, quod attinet ad externa opera facienda.” In “De XXII Articulo: An redant in homine esse liberum arbitrium?” of the “Responsiones ad articulos inquisitionis Bavariae [1558],” in Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl (7 vols.; ed. Stupperich, Robert; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951) 6. 310, 6–7.Google Scholar

17 Loci communes theologici, 26–27 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 44].

18 Loci communes theologici, 27 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 44].

19 Loci communes theologici, 27 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 46].

20 Ibid; also: “For since God judges hearts, the heart and its affections must be the highest and most powerful part of man” (Loci communes theologici, 2g [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 57]).

21 Loci communes theologici, 30 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 65].

22 Plato Tim. 70a-d.

23 Duns Scotus Sent. III, Dist. 37, Q. 2; Sent. III, Dist. 25, Qu. un; William Ockham Sent. III, Q. 9; Gabriel Biel Sent. II, Dist. 28, Q. and A. 3.

24 In this respect, Kant can be said to belong to the neo-Stoic philosophers of modernity (see n. 2).

25 “[F]or by experience and habit we find that the will (voluntas) cannot in itself control love” (Loci communes theologici, 27 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 44]).

26 Loci communes theologici, 24 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 18].

27 In his Loci communes (1521), Melanchthon does not clarify whether it is the will that guides the affections or whether it is the affections that guide the will. On this problem, see Mühlen, Karl-Heinz zur, “Melanchthons Auffassung vom Affekt in den Loci communes von 1521,” in Beyer, Michael, Wartenberg, Günther, and Hasse, Hans-Peter, eds., Humanismus und Wittenberger Reformation. Festgabe anläβilich des 500. Geburtstages des Praeceptor Germaniae, Philipp Melanchthon, am 16. Februar 1997, Helmar Junghans gewidmet (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt Leipzig, 1996) 327–36.Google Scholar

28 “Since all things that happen, happen necessarily according to divine predestination, our will (voluntas) has no liberty.” Loci communes theologici, 25 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 19].

29 Loci communes (1521), 1. 19 (see n. 28); 1. 26–28, 30, 34.

30 “Audire verbum, non repugnare, sed assentiri verbo Dei” (Philipp Melanchthon, “Loci praecipue theologici nunc denuo cura et diligentia, summa recogniti multisque in locis copiose illustrati [1559],” in Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, 2.1. 244. 10–11). “Cumque ordimur a verbo, hic concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis, verbum Dei, Spiritus sanctus et humana voluntas assentiens nee repugnans verbo Dei. Posset enim, excutere, ut excutit Saul sua sponte. Sed cum mens audiens ac se sustentans non repugnat, non indulget diffidentiae, sed adiuvante etiam Spiritu sancto conatur assentiri, in hoc certamine voluntas non est otiosa” (Ibid, 243. 14–21). “Liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam, id est, audit promissionem et assentiri conatur et abiicit peccata contra conscientiam. Talia non fiunt in Diabolis. Discrimen igitur inter Diabolos et genus humanum consideretur. Fient autem haec illustriora considerata promissione. Cum promissio sit universalis nee sint in Deo contradictoriae voluntates, necesse est in nobis esse aliquam discriminis causam, cur Saul abiiciatur, David recipiatur, id est, necesse est aliquam esse actionem dissimilem in his duobus. Haec dextre intellecta vera sunt, et usus in exercitiis fidei et in vera consolatione, cum acquiescunt animi in Filio Dei monstrato in promissione, illustrabit hanc copulationem causarum, verbi Dei, Spiritus sancti et voluntatis” (Ibid, 245. 30–246. 8). This line of the argument has already been foreshadowed in the Scholia on Colossians (1527; see Wilhelm Maurer, Art. “Melanchthon,” RGG, vol. 4, col. 837) and in Secunda Aetas, Corpus Reformatorum (ed. Bretschneider, Carolus Gottlieb and Bindseil, Henricus Ernestus; 27 vols.; Halle: Schwetscke, 1834–1859) 21Google Scholar. 375–78, esp. 376. Here, however, the ductus is different. Concerning the Tertia aetas (Corpus Reformatorum 21. 567–70, 597–98), compare Seils, Martin, Glaube (Handbuch systematischer Theologie 13; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996) 134–35.Google Scholar

31 The version quoted above (n. 30) was probably elaborated by Melanchthon in 1544; he published it after Luther's death (Corpus Reformatorum 21. 570.4): “Hic locus, Luthero mortuo, ab auctore additus.”

32 “Liberum arbitrium in homine facultatem esse applicandi se ad gratiam” (Melanchthon, Loci [1559], in Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, 2.1. 245. 30–31 [see n. 31]). In his Diatribe II. a. 11, Erasmus writes, “Furthermore, one finds the opinion, that it is within our power to turn our will toward or away from grace—just as it is our pleasure to open or close our eyes against light.” Erasmus, “A Diatribe or Sermon Concerning Free Will,” in Winter, Ernst F., trans, and ed., Erasmus-Luther. Discourse on Free Will (Milestones of Thought in the History of Ideas Series; New York: Ungar, 1961) 29Google Scholar. In Diatribe I. b. 10, Erasmus writes, “By freedom of the will we understand in this connection the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads unto eternal salvation” (Ibid, 20). For Luther's contrary position, see WA 18. 667. 29–668. 3 [= Luthers Werke in Auswahl 3. 157. 29–38].

33 Erasmus, Diatribe II. a. 11, 31.

34 “Since it is very little [perpusillum] that the free will can effect, and even that comes from divine grace which has at first created free will and then redeemed and healed it” (Ibid IV. 8. 86). On the context of IV. 8, compare Diatribe II. a. 11 with III. c. 4.

35 Diatribe I. a. 8, 12.

36 Boethius, “Consolation of Philosophy,” in Trost der Philosophic: Lateinisch und Deutsch (ed. and trans. Gegenschatz, Ernst and Gigon, Olof; 3d ed.; Zürich: Artemis, 1981) 5.6p (pp. 262–74).Google Scholar

37 Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q. 19, A. 10 (see n. 12); Q. 19, A. 8; idem Summa contra gentiles I. 67.

38 The traditional distinction between the necessitas consequentiae and the necessitas consequentis only serves, as Luther astutely observes, to carve out a space for that tiny bit of human freedom (see Luther's Works 33. 39–41 [= WA 18. 616. 13–618. 18; = Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 3. 109. 10–110. 24]).

39 “Faith, however, is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God, John 1 [:12–13]” (Luther, “Preface to Romans”; Luther's Works, 33. 370; see n. 14).

40 In vs. 4 of his hymn, “Befiehl du deine Wege,” Paul Gerhardt writes, “dein Werk kann niemand hindern, / dein Arbeit darf nicht ruhn, / wenn du, was deinen Kindern / ersprießlich ist, willst tun.” In Evangelisches Gesangbuch. Ausgabe für die Evangelische Landeskirche in Württemberg, no. 361.

41 Luther's Works 33. 39–42 (= WA 18. 618. 19–620. 12; = Luthers Werke in Auswahl 3. 110. 25–111. 33). “For if you doubt or disdain to know that God foreknows all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe his promises and place a sure trust and reliance on them?” (Luther's Works 33. 42 [= WA 18. 619. 1–3; = Luthers Werke in Auswahl 3. 110. 30–33]).

42 The discrete arguments in “De servo arbitrio” can be critically evaluated from the perspective offered by the “confession” at the end of the treatise. Luther himself (Luther's Works 33. 39 [= WA 18. 616 n. 1]) defines the use of the word necessitas as follows (in the Jena edition): “I could wish indeed that another and a better word had been introduced into our discussion than this usual one, ‘necesssity,’ which is not rightly applied either to the divine or the human will.”

43 Luther's Works 33. 288–89 [= WA 18. 783, 17–39; = Luthers Werke in Auswahl 3. 288. 16–289].

44 Melanchthon's response to the Bavarian Inquisition still treats the theme of the certainty of salvation. This theme is later documented in the text, “Corpus doctrinae (1560).” Melanchthon concentrates on the decisive point of the certainty of salvation in order to polemicize sharply against the Council of Trent. “Hanc consolationem Papistae delent, qui iubent manere in dubitatione” (“Responsiones ad articulos inquisitionis Bavariae [1558],” in Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, 6. 320. 25–26; compare 327. 8–24). On the Council of Trent, see DS 802.

45 On the “finis ultimus” of theology according to Melanchthon, see Bayer, Oswald, Theologie (Handbuch systematischer Theologie 1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994) 152–55.Google Scholar

46 See nn. 30–31.

47 The second article of the Formula of Concord is on free will (Book of Concord, 469–72). See also Spam, Walter, “Begründung und Verwirklichung. Zur anthropologischen Thematik der lutherischen Bekenntnisse,” in Brecht, Martin and Schwarz, Reinhard, eds., Bekenntnis und Einheit der Kirche. Studien zum Konkordienbuch (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1980) 129–53.Google Scholar

48 Bekenntnisschriften, 896. 64–68 (Formula of Concord II): “quod Deus alium modum agendi habeat in homine, utpote in creatura rationali, et alium modum in alia aliqua irrationali creatura, vel in lapide aut trunco”; but compare Ibid, 879. 20–882. 5: “sacrae litterae hominis non renati cor duro lapidi … item rudi trunco … comparant … in spiritualibus et divinis rebus, quae ad animae salutem spectant, homo est … similis trunco et lapidi.” This has been contradicted by the Augsburg Interim, Article VI (De modo per quern homo iustificationem accipit): “Deus misericors non agit hic cum homine, ut cum trunco, sed trahit eum volentem” (Das Augsburger Interim. Nach den Reichstagsakten deutsch und lateinisch [ed. Mehlhausen, Joachim; 2d ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996] 49). Compare the Leipzig Interim (Corpus Reformatorum, 7. 51): “The merciful God does not deal with man as with a block, but pulls him in such a way that his will cooperates.”Google Scholar

49 Bekenntnisschriften, 897. 64–67 (Formula of Concord II): “Haec autem agitatio spiritus sancti non est coactio, sed homo conversus sponte bonum operatur”; compare Ibid, 69–71: “tunc per virtutem spiritus sancti cooperari possimus ac debeamus.”

50 If Melanchthon had conceived of the third cause (besides God's word and spirit), the affirmative human will, as of a causa “materialis”—which he, in fact, did not do—or if he had understood it the way Haendler, Klaus (Wort und Glaube bei Melanchthon. Eine Untersuchung über die Voraussetzungen und Grundlagen des melanchthonischen Kirchenbegriffes [Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1968] 553–54) supposes, then he would have wanted to refer to nothing else but mere human passivity, as Luther did when speaking of the “aptitudo passiva” (WA 18. 636. 19–20). The context, however, hardly allows this interpretation.Google Scholar

51 An interpretation of Melanchthon's treatise, Liber de anima, is offered by Günter Frank, “Philipp Melanchthons ‘Liber de anima’ und die Etablierung der frühneuzeitlichen Anthropologie,” in Beyer, Wartenberg, and Hasse, eds., Humanismus und Wittenberger Reformation, 313–26.

52 Loci communes (1521), 1. 13: “Nam perinde, ut in republica tyrannus, ita in homine voluntas est, et ut senatus tyranno obnoxius est, ita voluntati cognitio, ita ut, quamquam bona moneat cognitio, respuat tamen earn voluntas feraturque affectu suo.”

53 Liber de anima (1553) (Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, 3.364. 31–33): “voluntas est praestantior, quia velut rex eligit deliberata aut reiicit, tamen non habet tyrannicum imperium, sed recto iudicio obtemperare debet” (compare Loci communes theologici, 22 [= Loci communes (1521), 1. 13]).

54 See also Augsburg Confession XVIII: Freedom of the Will. “It is also taught among us that man possesses some measure of freedom of the will which enables him to live an outwardly honorable life and to make choices among the things that reason comprehends. But without the grace, help, and activity of the Holy Spirit man is not capable of making himself acceptable to God, of fearing God and believing in God with his.whole heart, or of expelling inborn evil lusts from his heart” (Book of Concord, 39).

55 An autobiographical statement appears in Melanchthon's testament: “Ago autem gratias Reverendo D. Doctori Martino Luthero, primum, quia ab ipso Evangelium didici” (Corpus Reformatorum, 3. 827 [1539]). This text must be interpreted according to its emphatic sense that includes the learning of the distinction between law and gospel. Only one excerpt from the Liber de anima is cited here to show that Melanchthon continued to hold the position on the absolute necessity of the distinction between law and gospel from his early Loci communes (1521) until the Liber of 1553. “Necesse est omnibus in conspectu esse discrimen legis et Evangelii. Hic si quis recte didicit hanc puerilem doctrinam, scit legem notitias esse nobiscum nascentes, sicut aliarum artium principia et demonstrationes. Sed Evangelium dissimilimam vocem esse, ac nequaquam nobiscum nasci, sed singulari revelatione a Deo illustribus testimoniis patefactum esse” (Corpus Reformatorum, 13. 7).

56 I Sam 16:7.

57 Loci communes theologici, 38 [= Loci communes (1521), 2. 34], A representative text by Luther makes the same point as Melanchthon. “Haec ego feci. Ex hoc: feci, vere fiunt feces” (WA 40/111, 222. 34–35 [Der 127. Psalm ausgelegt, 1532/33; to verse 1]). On Luther and Melanchthon's criticism of Cicero, see Bayer, Oswald, Freiheit als Antwort. Zur theologischen Ethik (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1995) 141–42.Google Scholar

58 “Den alten Menschen kränke, daß der neu’ leben mag.” Elisabeth Kreuziger, “Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn,” in Evangelisches Gesangbuch, no. 67, verse 5, lines 3–4, translator's note. Only the first four verses of Kreuziger's hymn appear in the translation of Russell, Arthur T., in Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis: Augsburg and Board of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1990) no. 86.Google Scholar

59 “In general, they should proceed as if there were no God and they had to rescue themselves and manage their own affairs” (Luther, “Exposition of Psalm 127, For the Christians at Riga in Livonia [1524],” in Luther's Works 45. 331 [= WA 15. 373. 3]).

60 Freud, Sigmund, The Future of an Illusion (trans, and ed., Strachey, James; New York: Norton, 1961) 54.Google Scholar