LUTHER'S ATTITUDE TOWARD

ST. BERNARD

by

Armin W. Schuetze

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Re­quirements for the Degree

of Master of Arts

Milwaukee. Wisconsin July, 1969

PREFACE

Historians generally speak of Luther's high regard for St. Bernard.

To a varying degree they see the twelfth century monk as an influence

on Luther. Whoever reads Luther's writings w1ll encounter references

to Bernard. What was it that attracted Luther to the Cistercian? Was

this interest of such a nature that Bernard became a major factor in

Luther's life? Did luther's praise for the Cistercian abbot continue

throughout his life? These questions call for answers. While doing

a IIBibl10graphical Study of Luther and the Refonnat1on ll under the

direction of Dr. R. Zupko of Marquette University I found that only

limited research had concerned 1 tse 1 f wi th Luther as he relates to

Bernard. It seems reasonable then to undertake a quantitative and

horizontal study of Luther's attitude toward the medieval monk and

saint.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introducti on . .

I. r1elanchthon's Hioqraphical Reference

II. Luther' s Kno~/l edge of Bernard

III. Luther's Views of Bernard ..

IV. Su~nary Observations and Conclusions

Bibliography ••.•....•••....

2

4

7

15

· 32

• 54

· 59

U~

PL

St. L.

WA

~,~f/ r

WT

3

ABBf\EVIATIJj~S

Luther's Works, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. louis and Philadelphia, 1955- ).

Patrologiae ,fursus fompletus ••. Series latina, (Paris, 18Si-1904) •

Or. Martin Luthers S~mmtliche Schriften, ed. by J. G. Walcn {2nd edition~ St. Louis, lSao-19l]0.

O. Martin Luthers Werke. Krit1sche Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar, --1883- ) . ---

D. Martin Luthers ~~erke. Briefwechsel. (l~eimar, 1930- \ J •

D. ~1artin Lutilers Werke. Tischrecien. (Weimar, 1912-1921).

INTRODUCTION

Bernardus Claraevallensis was the last. but not the least, of the

Church Fathers. Although Bernard declined any position of authority

within the hierarchy of the Church, although he accepted no ecclesiastical

preferment beyond the abbacy of Clairvaux, his influence was considerable

during the twelfth century and far beyond. It was Bernard who injected

new life into the Cistercian order. He traversed Europe to end a papal

schism. He was victorious over Abelard, his superior in dialectical

skill. He was the preacher and protagonist of the Second Crusade, the

failure of which can hardly be charged against h1m. Indeed, it was he

who became the mentor of Eugene III, a Cistercian who rose to the papacy,

and wrote his famous De consideratione !!i by w~ of paternal Christian

concern for his spiritual son. Quite properly Bernard has been called

1I0ne of the most prominent personalities of the twelfth century, of the

enti re Middle Ages, and of church history in general. "I At the 800th

anniversary of his death, in 1953, Pius XII honored the memory of this

1I1 as t of the Fathersll with the Encyclical Letter, Doctor Mell1f1uus. 2

Among those who esteemed Bernard highly was Martin Luther. In his

early years he quoted Bernard with approval. However, also after Luther

had broken with Rome. after he had renounced monasticism, a major factor

in Bernard's life, Luther continued to count Bernard among the greatest

of doctors, preachers, and monks. As a doctor of the Church he placed

1M• Herold, "Bernard of Cla1rvaux,1l The New Schaff-Herzo~ Enclclope­dia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids,-r96~print), 1t,6 .

2Thomas Merton, The Last of the Fathers (New York, 1954). This con­tains Merton's translation of the Encyclical Letter together with a commentary.

4

5

Bernard third, after Augustine and Ambrose. 3 Bernard, the preacher,

however, lIexcel1ed all other doctors, even Augustine himself. 1l4 He is

"pure gold when he teaches and preaches. 1I5 Even as a monk Bernard

receives commendation from Luther. Admitting that IIFrancis, Dominic,

Bernard, and the others .•• were not without their gifts," Luther

singles out Bernard as the one whom he prefers tlabove all the others,

for he had the best knowledge of religion ••• "6 He regarded him as

"the most pfous of all the monks ll and preferred "him to all the others,

even to St. Dominic. 1I7 To the end of hh l1fe, Luther continued to have

the high regard for Bernard that he expressed in 1524: USt. Bernard was

a man so lofty in spirit that I almost venture to set him above all

other celebrated teachers both ancient and modern. HB

In view of Bernardls position of eminence and influence, 1n view of

lutherls h1gh esteem for the Cistercian abbot, the question is relevant:

Did Bernard exert a theological influence on the sixteenth century

reformer? Did Bernard make a significant contribution that led Luther

3WT 1, No. 683: If Bonaventura inter scho1asticos doctoras optimus est. Inter ecc1esiasticol doctores Augustinus primas tenet, Ambrosius secundas t

Bemhardus tertias. 1f

4WT 1. No. 872: lfBernhardus in sermonibus suis amnes a110s doctoras, ett am 1 psum Augus ti num exce 11 it.. "

5WT 1. No. 584:"Sic Bernhardus ist gulden, quando docet et praedicat II

6WA 42, 453:"fateor sane non defuisse sua bon. Francisco, Dom1nico, Bernhardo et al11s. qui pr1m1 1nstituisse collegia monachorum d1cuntur: ac antefero omnibus Bernhardum: habuit en1m religionis optimam cog-ntttonem •.• "

7WA 47, l09:"Also hat auth S. Bernhard gethan, welchen 1ch fur den a1ler 1romsten Munch ha1te und allen andern Munchen, auch S. Dominico, furztehen ••• "

SwA 15, 4O: uSanct Bernhart ist eyn man von grossem geyst gewesen, das fen yhn schier thurst uber all. 1erer setzen, die berumbt stnd, beyda a1lte und newe."

6

to hh ultimate evangelical theology? lil'iat was luther's attitude toward

Bernard? To investigate this question I shall begin by examining a

much quoted excerpt from Melanchthon's biography of Luther, written soon

after Luther's death. Thereupon, I shall take up a study of references

to Bernard from Luther's own writings. These will be examined for

what they reveal about Luther's knowl edge of Bernard and about Luther's

attitude t04ard Bernard's views. In the final part I shall make some

observations and draw some conclusions that this examination seems

to justi fy.

I. M£LANCHTHON'S BIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCE

Was Luther influenced by Bernard in his theological developn~nt?

A source that historians have used in answering this question 1s the

biography of Luther, written by Melanchthon soon after Luther's death

1n lieu of an autobiography from Luther's own pen.

Kostl1n, one of the first to write on the history of Luther's

theological developn~nt, sees Bernard's sermons exerting as much of an

influence on luther as Staupitz's personal assurances. He bases this

on an excerpt from ~le 1 anchthon I s biography. In Luther's spi ri tual

struggles at Erfurt an old Augustinian monk. had directed Luther to this

stat~nent from Bernard's sermon ~Annuntiatione:

In addition you must also believe that through Him your sins are forgiven. This is the testimony that the Holy Spirit has put into your heart when he says: 'Your sins are forgiven you.' For this is the meaning of the Apostle. that man, without merit, 15 justified through fa1th.9

Melanchthon, according to K6stlin, sees the ~itness of Bernard's

sermons exerting a powerful fnfluence on Luther in spite of all the other

parts of Bernard's theology that Luther considered unevangelical. 10

Schaff in his seven volume H;lstory of ~.!l!! Christian fhurch quotes

K6stlin and the comment on Melanchthonls biography as evidence of

Luther's high regard for Bernard. 11 Fife refers to Melanchthon's

biography to show that lithe practical myst1dsm of the great medieval

9 ' Julius K6st11n t Luthers Theologie 1n ihrer [e~chichtl1chen Ent-

v~!.cklung und 1hrem fnneren Zusammenhang T2nd ed.; Stuttgart,' !9in},p. 25.

10 Ibid. t p. 26

11David Schaff, H1storx of the Chrfstian Church (Grand Rapids, 1957 reprint), Vol. V, p. 344f. -------

7

8

preacher m~ well have furnished him (Luther) with consolation in the

Erfurt d~s."12 Schwiebert adds a further comment of Melanchthon to the

effect that the statement from Bernard's sermon Itclari fied for him the

meaning of the passage in Romans: 'The just shall live by faith. 11I13

Referring to Luther's struggles at Erfurt, Kuiper, too, mentions

Bernard of Cla1rvaux and Johann von Staupitz as the "two men who did

more t~an any others to help him through this period. It 14 More recently

Atkinson says that IIBernard is known to have had an influence on the

young Luther. tt1S and Pauck on the bas'is of the Lectures on Romans sees

the ~sticSt particularly Bernard of Clairvaux and Tauler, as important,

after the Bible and Augustine, in detennining luther's theological

outlook. 16 However~ Pauck credits not only Bernard's mysticism with

attracting Luther to him, but also Bernard's "teaching on the personal

faith in the forgiveness of sin. fl17 This is the content of the quotation

mentioned by Melanchthon from Bernard's De Annuntiatione, which luther

quotes in his Romans lectures.

Closely related to the question of Bernard's influence on Luther is

another: to what extent did Luther occupy himself in his early years with

reading Bernard·, writings?

12R• H. fife, In! Revolt ~Mart1n luther (New York, 1957), p. 125

13E• G. Schwiebert. Luther and His Times (St. Louis, 1950). p. 171.

148arend Klass Kuiper, Martin luther. The Formative Years (Grand Rapids, 1933), p. 118. --

15James Atkinson, luther; E,r~ Theological Works (Philadelphia. 1962). Vol. XVI of The Lfbrarl ~ rlstian elaStics, p. 256.

16Wi1helm Pluck, luther: lectures on Romans (Philadelphia, 1959), Vol. XV of !h! library 01 tnr1st1an t1aS5r1cs. p. xxxix.

17 Ibid., p. 1 ..

9

Kuiper lists Bernard as the greatest of all the mystics with whose

writings Luther came into contact in his studies at Erfurt from 1505 to

1508. 18 However, he 9i ves no evi dence from which thi s concl us i on is

drawn. Fife, too, asserts that luther's "acquaintance \'iith the works of

Bemard of Clairvaux .•• dated back to his early theological studies

1n Erfurt." 19 Preserved Smith mentions Bernard of Clairvaux together with

Occam, Gabriel Biel, Ai11y, Gerson, Bonaventura, r~auburn and Gerhard of

ZUtphen as the men whom luther read between 1505 and 1512. Of these,

especially Bernard, Bonaventura, Gerson, and Gerhard of ZUtphen are

listed as those whom Luther continued to read during his lectures on

Romans. 20

Quite different views are held by Otto Scheel, whose Martin Luther,

Vom Kathol1zismus ~ Refonnatipn, published 1n 1917, is still considered

"one of the most adequate treatments of Luther's intellectual back­

ground. 1I21 Admitting that he cannot base his opinion on clear evidence,

Scheel says of the early Erfurt years: "Whether he read Bernard's

writings, especially the sermons, is doubtful. flZ2 He does concede,

however, that it is not improbable. He correctly points out that

Melanchthon is silent about any acquaintance of Luther with Bernard's

18 Kuiper. p. 114.

19 Fife, p. 217.

20preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (Boston and New York. 1914), pp. 12,2'1.- - ---

21S• A. Gerrish, IIMartin Luther," The EncycloJ?!!dia of Philosophy (New York, 1967), V, 113.

220tto Scheel, Martin Luther, Vom Katho11z1smus zur Reformation II {TUbingen, 1917}, p. 109: DOb er Bernhards Scnr~'ten:-rlamentl1cn d1e-­Predigten gelesen hat, ble1bt zwe1felhaft.1I

10

sermons through personal study.

Scheel is reluctant to accept Melanchtllol'l's biography as significant

eviaence of l3ernard's influence on Luther. He considers Melanchthon

"unreliable" because he believes that Nelanchthon in his account of the

"old man" who quoteu Bernard's sennon to Lutner is ~'<'riting i>witl1out exact ri""

knov/ledge of what happened."LJ ~Jhat Nelancf.thon relutes is in contra-

diction k/ith Luther's own assertions. Scneel writes: "The reformer makes

no mention of an 'ola rnan' at Erfurt nor of bernard's semon vJhen he

speaks of his di scovery of the Gospel • nor does he i denti fy him as

someone who led him to tile Gospel. ,,24 He believes rvtelanchthon must 11ave

misunderstood Luther or confused some of Luther's reminiscences.

Following the lead of Scheel, Heinrich Boehmer in his more popular

Road to Kefonnation writes of Luther: "Later he prized the greatest --- -- . religious genius of the Middle Ages, Bernard of Clairvaux, almost as

highly as Augustine. But Luther nowhere suggested that Bernard gave

him any help, nor is it evident in his writings. H25

Ebeling, on the other hand, asserts that Luther's acquaintance with

Bernard's sermons goes back to around 1507, although he recognized that

Scheel rejects the incident mention~d by Melanchthon as unreliable. 26

He makes no attempt to evaluate the significance of Bernard's influence

23Scheel, p. 364, n. 38: 'iohne genaue Kenntnis des Vorgangs. iI

24Ibid ., p. 137: lIiJer Refonnator weisz gar nichts vom Erfurter 'Greis· und von Bernhards Predigt, wenn er von der Entdeckung des Evange11ums spricht •.• und kennzeichnet ihn nicht als einen sein~r FUhrer zum Evangel i UIT!. II

25Heinrich Boehmer, Road to Refor.nation (Philadelphia, 1946), p. 139.

26Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung (Darmstadt, 1962 reprint), pp. 150f.

11

on Luther but is satisfied to establish it as a fact so far as Luther's

interpretation of the Gospel is concerned. 27 . This raises some questions: Has more weight been placed on the

incident of the "old man" in Melanchthon's biography than it can carry?

Exactly what does Melanchthon say? Must every statement of Melanchthon

find corroboration in Luther's writings before it can be accepted?

This is what Melanchthon wrote ( nw translation):

He (Luther) also related that he was often reassured by conversations with an old man at the Augustinian brotherhood at Erfurt. When he explained to him his inner fears, he heard him expound at length on faith, and he said that he was directed to the Creed where it says: I believe in the rem1ssion of sins. The old man had interpreted this article as follows: Not only should one believe in general that some few receive forgiveness. as even the devils believed that David and Peter were forgiven; but the command of God is that each one individually should believe that his own sins are forgiven. And he said that this i nterpretati on was confi nned by the say" n9 of Bernard t and a place was pointed out from the sermon de Annunciatione, where these words appear: In addition you must also believe this that through him your sins are forgiven to you. This is the witness which the Holy Spirit raises in you~eart, s~ing: your sins are forgiven you. The Apostle thus 15 of the opinion that man is justified freely through faith.

Luther said that by this conversation he had not only been reassured, but had also been reminded of the entire meaning of Paul, who so often inculcates this word: by faith are we justified. Since he had read the interpretation of many people on this point, he now from the conversations of this man and from the consolation of his own mind had come to see the emptiness of the interpretations then at hand. Gradually as he read and compared the words and examples spoken by the Prophets and Apostles and as he stirred up his faith through daily prayer, he reached greater clar1 ty. At that time he also began to read the books of Augustine, where in the exposition on the Psalms and in the book on the spi ri t and the letter he found many clear statements that confirmed this doctrine about faith and the comfort which had been kindled in his heart. Nevertheless, he did not immediately forget about the commentators on Lombard's Sentences (Sententiar10s). Gabriel 8iel and Peter d'Ail1y he was able to reci te nearly ver)atim from memory. He spent much

27 Ebeling, p. 156.

time reading the writings of Occam, whose acumen he placed above that of Thomas and Scotus. Also Gerson he had read with diligence. But the many writings of Augostine he had read most often and remembered best.28

12

My interest here is only to ask what Melanchthon says about Luther

and Bernard. On this the following may be said:

1. The "old mann used the quotation from Bernard's sermon de

Annunciatione to corroborate his interpretation of the credal statement:

I believe 1n the forgiveness of sins.

2. The "old manU showed (monstra,tum locum) this quotation from

Bernard' s sermon to Luther. Th is does not appear to be a mere reference

from memory. but apparently a copy of this sermon was at hand to which he

directed Luther's attention.

2BcorPVs Reformatorum (New York and London, 1963 reprint), VI, 159: Et senls cu usdam sermonibus in Augustin1ano Collegio Erphord1ae saepe se confirmatum esse' narrabat, cui cum consternat10nes suas exponeret, audivit eum de fide multa disserentem, seque deductum aiebat ad symDolum, in quo dic1tur: credo remissionen peccatorum. Hunc articulum s1c ille 1nterpre­tatus arat, non solum 1n genere credendum esse, a11qu1bus remitt1, ut et daemones credunt, David1 aut Petro remitti. sed mandatum Dei esse, ut singuli homines nobis remitti peccata credamus. Et hanc interpretationem confirmatam d1cebat Bernardi dicto, monstratumque locum in concione de Annunciatione, ubi haec sunt verba: sed adde, ut credas et hoc, quod per fpsum peccata TIBI donantur. Hoc est testimonium, quod perhibet Spiritus sanctus in corde tuo, dicens: dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arb1tratur Apostol us , gratis iustificar1 hominem per fidem.

Hac se voce non solum conf1rmatum esse Lutherus dicabat, sed commone­factum etiam de tota Pauli sententia, qui toties inculcat hoc dictum: fide iustff1camur. De quo cum multorum expositiones legisset, tunc et ex huius sermon1bus at suae mentis consolatione animadvertisse interpretatfonum, quae tunc in manibus erant, van1tatem. Paulatim legenti et conferent1 dicta et exampla 1n Prophetis et Aposto11s rec1tata, et in quotidiana invocatione exc1tanti fidem. plus lucis accesset. Tunc et Auyustint libros legere coepit, ubi et in Psalmorum enarratione, et 1n 1bro de spiritu et litera, multas persp1cullS sententias reperit, quae conf1nnabant hanc de fide doctrinam et consolationem, quae in tps1us pectore accensa erato Nec tamen prorsus rel1nqu1t Sententiarios. Gabrielem et Cameracensem pene ad verbum .mor1ter rec1tare poterat. Diu multumque legit scripta Occam, Huius acu~~n anteferebat Thomae et Seoto. Diligenter et Gersonem legerat. Sed omnia Augustini monumenta at saepe legerat et optin~ meminerat.

13

3. Melanchthon says nothing more about Bernard directly. In the

next paragraph he comes back to the "conversation" of the "old man" and

says that this directed Lutherls attention to Paul's word: by faith are

we justified. However, only gradually did Luther begin to see the meaning

of this statement more clearly. Whether Bernardi s sermons contributed to

this is not directly stated. Nothing in the account leads to this con-

c1 usion.

4. I n the fi na 1 pa rag raph Me lanch thon 11 s ts the parti cu 1 ar wri t1 n9$

that occupied Luther at this time. He mentions Augustine, Bie1, dt A1lly,

Occam, and Gerson, but Bernard is not included.

From the above it would seem that Melanchthonls biography does not

force one to conclude that Bernard was a major, continuing influence on

Luther. But neither does it completely rule out such a conclusion.

However, without other evidence, it is based on a weak foundation.

On the other hand, is Scheel justified in casting doubt on Melanch­

thon's accuracy in the account about the Hold manit? Melanchthon was a

careful scholar. One hesitates to question his historical veracity.

The account can be true even thougn Luther never mentions it in his

writings. Scheel's argun~nt, based on Luther's silence regarding this

incident, is hardly conclusive. Nevertheless, Scheel is correct in not

accepting this account by itself as evidence that Bernard was an important

influence on Luther's theological development. Scheel is also on safe

ground in asserting that there is doubt whether Luther at this time read

Gernard's sermons~ although it is not improbable. The seeming presence

of a book of Bernard's sermons when the 1I0 1d man" quoted Bernard to Luther

adds to the probability. But further evidence must be sought.

To gain this further evidence research can proceed in a nunilier of

14

directions. The most thorough study would examine the writings of Luther

and those of Bernard in depth and attempt to detennine whether Luther

follows thought patterns, methods of argumentation, doctrinal or exegetical

expositions. that are similar to those of Bernard. In fact, one would

have to look for similarities in any area at all. However, even then a

further study would have to be made to discover whether possibly a

similarity that was found might merely point to both having had the same

antecedent influence. Specifically, both luther and Bernard might have

been influenced on some point by Augustine without Bernard being the

influence on Luther in spite of their similarity. The difficulty and

scope of this procedure rule it out as the place to begin. Before pur­

suing such a study. there would have to be reason to believe that the

1 nf1 uenee was there and shou 1 d be capable of detecti on. The above method

would also take one far beyond the limitations of this thesis.

I have therefore dlOsen a more limited method. This is to examine

the references in Luther's major writings in which he makes mention of

bernard or quotes di rectly from him. Do these references reveal any­

thing about Luther's knowledge of Bernard's writings? What are Luther's

views of Bernard? What conclusions can be drawn from these findings?

It will be the purpose of the remaining parts of this thesis to examine

Luther's references to Bernard for answers to these questions.

II. LUTHER'S KNOWLEDGE OF BERNARD

This study is based on an examination of nearly 200 references to

Bernard from Luther's writings. 29 These references are of different types.

Sometimes Luther adduces a quotation; at other times he refers to Bernard's

life or doctrine, or merely mentions him together with other theologians.

The references are taken from a variety of writings and from all

periods of Luther's life. However, particularly Luther's early lectures

on the Bible, some of his treatises, and the Tischreden were checked for

as complete a listing as possible. Beyond that, the indexes used provided

references from major and some minor works of various ~pes, without

giving the assurance that the listing is complete. 30 This does, however,

provide a broad, yet cOl.lprehensive, sampling that should lead to some

29S1nce there is no single, comprehensive index to D. Martln Luthers Werke (Weimar, 1883- ), the search for references presents some d'fflculty. The index volume, WA 58, 88, 178-180, provides some references. For the Tischreden. the indexes in WT 6, 529, 712, are adequate. The introduction in WA S7, lxxxii, lists all references to Bernard in Luther's Ad Hebraeos e~isto1a. Volume XV of The L1brar~ Christian Classics has agood index o "Proper Names il for lutner's Ad -nos ephtola. Eacn volume of Luther1s Works (St. Louis and rfif1aaelpfita, 19S5- ) has an index and to t'fi"e"extent that these indexes are complete t they provide the Bernard references for the works included. They yield numerous references from Luther'S ill Pf1m~1I l1brum Mose enarrationes. his Ad Galatos cOl'!ll1entarius of 1519 and 0 1 31, ana hrs-sermons on the first-rour cnapters of the Gospel of St. John. The index volume of Luthers SIn~tl1che Schriften (St. Louis~ 1380-1910) has four columns 01 references that are taken from the writings included in this set of 23 volumes. While this is not complete, it doesprovfde numerous references from a great portion of luther'S writings. Some of Luther's major works, particularly his Dictata super Psalterium, were examined in their entirety to find all Bernard references in them, since these writings were considered important for this study and no index provides this information.

30Nota 29. which outlines the mode of procedure follo~~d in searching for references to Bernard in Luther's writings, also indicates many of the major works of Luther from which the majori ty of the references are taken. Besides those mentioned, two writings from 1521, De abroganda missa and De votis monas tf c1 s, have 7 and 9 references respectlVe l.v. ~ach of a number 01 other major works provide only one or two references to Bernard.

15

16

tentative conclusions.

How familiar was Luther with Bernard's writings? This will appear

from the material quoted, from the manner of quoting, and from the type

of works in which the quotes appear.

From which of Bernard's writings does Luther quote? In the Oictata

sup~r Psal teri um of 1513-15 Luther quotes four times from the Sermones

ill cantica,31 four times from other sermons ,32 and three times the identical

reference from a letter of Bernard. 33 The years 1515-16 saw Luther lec­

turing on D1vi Pauli apostoli !£ Romanos epistola. He again uses the

quotation from Bernard's letter,34 quotes from the sermons three times,35

and adds the treatise, De consideration~, as a source of reference. 36 In

hi s lectures on Uhf Pauli apostol i ad He9r~eC!s ~pJS!9JC! of 1517-18 and

his DiY1 Pauli apostolici ad Galatos commentarius of 1519 he continues with

several references to the sennons37 and one to De consideratione. 38 In

1521 he makes mention of ~ praecepto et disp!nsatione. 39 Of more than

50 quotations in Luther's writings after 1522, nearly all are from Bernardls

31WA 3, 417,420; WA 4, 74; WA 55/2, 101.

32WA 3. 175, 236; WA 4, 198. WA 55/2,119.

33WA 3, 110; WA 4, 364; WA 55/2, 64.

34 WA 56, 239, 441. 35 WA 56,79, 369f., 486. 36 WA 56, 19, 137, 192, 480.

37There are only two references in each to the sermons: WA 57, 169, 216; WA 2, 543, 602.

38rhis is in the lectures on Ad Hebraeos epistola, WA 57, 162.

39WA 8, 634.

17

sermons.40 with only one from O~ consideratione and one from his letters. 41

T\lJenty .. six of the quotations from the sermons' are from the Sermones in

cantica.

Accordi ng to thi s, Luther quotes by far mos t often from Bernard's

sermons. Among these, the ?ermones 1n £antica_ provide about half of the

quotations. Of the treatises. only y~ ~ons;derationE!_ receives appreciable

mention. Surprisingly, trle well-knmm and important treatises of Bernard!

['~.~.i1igelldo lJeo dnd .Q..e_ grati,~ et JJbero, arbitrio, have not been identi­

fied as sources for any of the quotations I found. 42 This does not

necessarily justify the conclusion that Luther was not familiar with these

other treatises of Bernard. IrJhen Luthet~ \'/rites that he knows Bernard,43

ile, no doubt, had the treat; ses as well as the sermons in mi nd. Tne

40Uf these quotations, 14 are found in the In primum librum Mose enarrationes, written 1535-45, eight from his sermons on John 1 to~from the years 1537-38, five from the T1schreden, three from his 1531 Ad Galatos commentarius, three from his 1523 sermons on First Peter. The remaining are found widely scattered with only one or b/o in any other single writing.

41Soth of these references are in the .!!lprimum librl.!iri j,10se enarrationes, WA 43, 36, 194.

42There is an allusion to De gratia et libero arbitrio in WT 1, No. 589, 1r/tien Luther says that in hfS treaITses bernard ass; gned too great a role to the commandments and free will: IlIbi nimium tribuit praecepto et libero arbitrio." Also in Luther's De servo arbitrio, t~A 18, 644, he refers to Bernard's view of free will without directly naming or quoting from De ~ati~ et l1bero arbitriq". However, it must be stated that only limited researc~has been carried on to identify quotations from or allusions to Bernard's writings in Luther. In his introduction to WA 55/1, 29*, Rein­hard Schwarz includes Bernard and his mysticism among those to whom references 1n the notes are rather incomplete. He writes: "Die Herausgeber sind hier sehr auf zuf~111ge Entdeckungen angewiesen. Denn es fehlt weithin an voroereitenden Untersuchungen zu Detailfragen und an hilfreichen. mit umfassenden Registern versehenen Editionen der einschl~gigen Quellen

!.

431n 1521 in the treatise t\ationis Latomianae confutatio Luther wrote: "Sed esto, sit al1quis patrum, quem ego nondum v1derim. Ram August1num, HieronymuHl, Ambrosium, G~90rium, Bernhardum nov;, ut frustra mih; tot nubes ob1eceris. II WA 8, 102.

18

overwhelming use of the sermons in contrast to the treatises does not

mean that he knew the fo~r and not the latter. It is entirely in keeping

with the opinion luther expresses on Bernard's writings. He praises

Bernard as excelling all other doctors of the Church in his sermons. In

his disputations or treatises, however, Bernard is a different man and

contradicts what he writes in the sermons.44 The very fact that the cmn­

parison is made shows that luther was familiar with both. In addition,

luther·, k.nowledge of Bernard included the letters. He quotes, however,

from only two of them, although the one is used several t1mes. 45

To sum up. Luther was acquainted with all of Sernard's writings.

He had a defin1 te preference for the sermons and these are the source of

his quotations fn about 88% of those that were identified.

Ooes 'the manner in which Luther quotes Bernard reveal anything about

hts knowledge of the latter's writings? How frequently and how accurately

does Luther quote? Does he identify the source. i.e., the particular

wri t1 n9 from wh1 th he quotes 1

Although the number of references to Bernard, when they are grouped

together, seems quite large, these references do not appear with con­

spicuous frequency in anyone of luther'S writings. Nineteen references

to Bernard in the Dt~tata sUHr Psalterium are not many when they are

spread out over the thousand pages of this work.. The same is true of the

thl rty-one references I found in the three volumes of !!!. pr1mum l1brum

Mose enarrationes. Then, too, when the nineteen references in the

44WT 1t No. 872: HBernardus 1n sermonibus su1$ amnel alios doctorel. etlam lpsum Augustlnum excel1et. quia Christum pulcherrfme praedfcat, sed 1n d1sputationibus suis plane sui est diss1milis et omnia contrarfus .ibi in s~l~nibus.u Cf. also Wi 1. No. 684, No. 871; WT 3. No. 337Gb.

46 Cf. notes 33. 34. and 41.

19

Dictata are spread out over the years 1513 to 1515 and the tilirty-one

references in the Enarrationes over the years 1535 to 1545. their fre­

quency is not impressive. And yet, there is a consistent, though sorrle~'1hat

scattered, mention of Bernard. In this there does not appear to be any

appreciable change over the years. The D1ctata froill early in Luther's

1 i fe compare favorably in the number of references ~Ji til the Enarrati ones

from Luther's last decade.

In this connecti on it is necessary to note tha t Luther often repeats

the same reference. Gottfried Ectel draws attent10n to this and lists some

examples. 46 It is not surprising that the most frequently used quotation

is from the Semones in cantica XX. 47 The following is a typical use of - -this source:

St. Bernard also, while he was in agony, shouted, "l have lived in a reckless manner for I have wasted my time; ! have nothing, but I know that because my heart is contrite ~nd humble, 0 God, Thou ~/i1t not despise !?1e" (Ps. 51:17).48

Luther uses this quotation for the first time in 1518 and thereupon with

continuing consistency.49

Similarly, although with far less frequency, the same quotation from

a letter of Bernard is repeated a number of times in Luther's early

46Gottfried Edel, Das gemeinkatholische mittelalterliche Erbe beim i.Ull9!!.n Luther (Narburg an der Lahn, 1962), p-. 31. --

47pl 183, 867.

48The translation is from LW 31, p. 89. (WA 1, 534). This will be the manner of indicating tIle English translations from the L'v! I~dition .. The original as found in the Weimar Edition will be included in parentheses.

490f the quotations I gathered, 17 contain this reference. That these are representati ve of the u~c of tlli s refer~nce over the Yl!arS b~comes evident from the following chronological listing: 1518 - W;.'\ 1, 323, 534 1532 - ~JA 32,534; t4J\ 40/2, 362 1521 - WA 8, 528 t 658 1537 - WA 46, 580 1527 - WA 20, 624, 746; vJA 24, 550 1538 - ~IA 47. 85 1531 - WT 1. No. 118; WA 40/1,42,687 1539 - WA 50, 609; WA 47,587,598

20

writings. SO A quotation ~lat is used by Luther with particular approbation

is from the Sermo !!!. festo annuntiat1onh. 51, This 1s the reference to which

Luther's attention was drawn early 1n his monistic 11fe.52 He uses this

in h1s M Rominos ephto1a53 and M. H!t>,rMos epistol_a.54 From Q!

consideratiOQe he quotes the same references several times. 55

In a similar manner Luther may refer to the same event 1n Bernard's

life repeatedly. Again and 8ga1n, for example, he relates from the Vita -Prima how Bernard "denied his body $0 much that his breath stank. ,,56

TIlis raises the question: how broad was Luther's knowledge of Bernard?

Did he know only a few select quotat1ons that he simply repeated? Some

have raised the question whether Luther truly understood Bernard when he

quotes him. 57 Thts latter question i$ really not pertinent to this

present study. Any influence of Bernard on Luther can be based only on

Luther's actual understanding of Bernard. whetndr correct or not.

Nevertheless, It is necessary to inquire into the breadth of Luther's

50Pl. 182, 224. This h .ntioned 3 times 1n the 01ctata, cf. note 33. Other references: WA 1, 649; WA 56, 239.

5lpL 183. 383f.

52 Cf. p. 7 and note 28.

53WA 56, 369f.

54WA 57. 169. 55 ., , WA 1. 601. WA 43, 36, WA 56, 19, 192.

50WA 12, 282'., 295; WA 20, 627ff.; WA 43, 331; WA 47, 62. 85; WT 3, No. 3777.

51Ede1 • p. 31, mtes: t'Bedenkt IUan, dlSI in der gaozen Psalmen­vorl.sung nur etwa 13-15 eigentl1che Bernnardz1tate festzustel1en sind, von Genen e1n1g. in der We1se des Topos auch 1n den anderen Lutherschr1ften vergle1chsweise hauftg w1ederkebren, so w1rd das Mislvemlltnls zwischen Luthers Vorl1ebe fOr den groszen Z1sterz1enser und efne e1gentl1che Bernbard-Kanntn1! deutltch."

21

knowledge of the monk of Clairvaux. The repetition of quotations seems

to show that this was not as great as the number of references indicates.

However, further comment on this will have to await the examination of the

topics in connection with which Luther mentions Bernard.

A further question, however, is 1n place at this point: how accur­

ately does Luther quote Bernard? Does he quote from memory or does he

copy from a text?

It would be useful to knoW' what edi tions of Bernard tne 1 ibraries

at the universities of Erfurt and W;ttenberg possessed. Did Luther

possibly have cop1es of Bernard in his personal library? Unfortunately,

this information evades detection. By 1500 forty-four editions were at ~8

hand.~ The introduction to the revision of Luther's Dictata 1n the

Wei1!l_ar Ausg,abe lists works of Bernard that were published 1n Venice,

Basel, and Strasbourg 1n 1495 and 1497. 59 Since we do not know which

editions Luther had available, we cannot compare Luther's apparently

direct quotations with the text he used.

Another procedure can better answer the question of accuracy. A

comparison of the references to the same quotation would reveal something

about the accuracy of the quotations. If quoted accurately, the same

reference would be identical wherever it appears.

The most often repeated reference is from Bernard1s Sermones in

~ant1Sl!_ XX. Of the more than 17 quotations from this same source, no

two are 1dentical. The follow1ng three are similar in length, originate

from about the same period in Luther's life, and come closest to being

58Edel t p. 31.

59tvA 55/1, 36*.

identical. By compar1ng them we can see the freedom Luther used in

quoting:

Sic en1m b. Bernhardus • • • ·perd1dt tempus meum. quia perd1te vixt nee habe nisi quod cor contr1tum at hum1l1atum. deus, non desp1c1es. 160

••• perdita Yixi, quia tempus perdfd1. Nihil habea, n1si qUOd seia. quia cor eontr1tum et humiliatwm. deus, non desp1e1es.61

T ... us meum perd1d1 t quia perdita vix1. Sed unum me !olature, quod spir1tum contritwn at humil1atum non despicies.6

22

The first two quotations are from 1518. the third from 1521. They

appear to be direct quotations. Yet differences make it evident that

Luther was not copying directly from a text of Bernard.63 Was he per­

haps intentionally paraphrasing? I am rather led to conclude that he

was quoti ng from memory t wi th no concern about camp lete accuracy. To

that extent the result may be a paraphrase.

This free quoting from memory is, of course, much more evident when

Luther uses this same reference in a sermon. Luther's Cemmentary on the

Sermon on the Mount began as a series of semons preached in the years

1530 to 1532. In these he quotes the reference from the Sermones !r! c,antica XX with dramatic elaboration, carrying on a dialog with Bernard

as follows;

He (Semard) WIS an example for everyone else, and I know no one among the monks who wrote or lived better than he. And yet, when the anguish of death came upon him, he himself had to pronounce

60WA 1, 323. From SEt,.. 5!!.. 2S}!n1tentia, 1518.

61WA 1. 534. virtute, 1518.

62WA 8, 601.

From Resolution,!! !!!!2utat10n,!JIR 2! fndu'ifnt1arum

From De monastict. Martini Lutheri tudicium, 1521. ~ ,. ..... .' .... -.,.,~.~.-.----~--.. ,.-.-.,,--~

63rhe text 1n both PL 183 and in S. Bernhardt ~era I, p. 114 reads: ~l ••• pro his vero quos vivendo perd1d'f t qui. perd e vixt, cor contr1tum et hum111atum. Deus, non despic1as. fJ

this judgement on his whole life: "Oh, I have lived damnably and passed my life shamefully. Ii "How so, dear St. Bernard? Have you not been a pious monk all your 'life? Are not chastity, obedience, preaching. fasting, and prayi n9 something va 1 ug~ 1e1" "No,tI he says, "It is all lost and belongs to the devi1."

23

This free quoting from memory. on the other hand, does not become

evident in the three quotations from ~pistola 21 in the Dictata. These

have the same wording; ubi incipis nolle fieri melior, desinis ~ bonus. 65

Trle only difference in the three is that when this is ql.ioted for the third

time another sentence is added. But what is there in all three is identi-

cal. Since this is a very brief quotation. however, not much can be

concluded from the identity. Furthermore, when luther quotes this san~

reference in his ~~oma~os epistola, the singular verb beco~~s a plural:

et ubi inc1pimus . 66

Luther quotes twice in Ad Romano;s ~pistol<!. from De. consideratione I.

2. The footnotes that identify this quotation in the Weimar Ausgabe

both mention the free manner of quoting used by Luther, although the

quotation in the Glossa is acknowledged to be s~~what more exact than

that from the SchoHa. 67

In introducing these quotations lutner frequently uses expressions 68 6'"

like ut ait i. Bernardus or ostendit!. Bernardus ... dicens. '

64lW 21, p. 283 (WA 32, 534).

65WA 3, 46, 110; WA 4, 364. These quotations, however, are not completely identical with the text in PL 182, 224: "et ubi incipis nolle fieri melior, lb1 et1am desfnis esse bonus,"

66WA 56, 239.

b7 . WA 56, 19, note to 1. 26; WA 56, 192, note to 1. 28.

6BWA 56, 239.

69.!!>li., 369.

24

Thts gives the impression of a direct quotation. Nevertheless. the fact

remai ns that Luther was not quoti n9 wi th sdlo 1 ar1y exactness. He is not

concerned with exact words but often appears to quote ideas rather than

verbatim sentences.

Does Luther identify the writing from which he quotes? I found only

fifteen examples of this. Nine of these occur in his early lectures;70

only six are 1n his later wr1 tings. 11 Thts means that a larger percentage

of the quotations 'in the early lectures 15 identified than occurs later.

Generally also the identification 1s more exact. 72 In later years the

identification 1s more casual and less precise. Thts may result partly

from the fact that the earlier quotations are found in lectures, while

the later quotations are from various types of material. including sennons

and the Tisch,..den and had a different type of audience 1n mind. However, . also in the later lectures, prepared for his students. Luther makes no

such closer identification. Could this mean that 1n the ear11er years

Luther was closer to the time whetn he had studied Bernard, that in hh

1 ater years he quoted from a memory that was somewhat farther reRlOved

from thh study? If that conclusion can be drawn, it means that the greater

part of Luther's study of Bernard may have been either in the years before

the lectures, or during those years. Since Bernard has no single work on

the books of the Bible on which Luther lectured, and since Luther devoted

70. • 7 • WA 3. 82. 198, WA 56. 13 , 192, 369' •• 480, WA 57, 162, 169, 216.

71WA 44, 362. WA 1. 601; WT 1. No. 118, No. 494; WA 8, 634; WA 51. 128. This includes the writings from 1518 on after the "early lectures."

72For exrunple, in the 01ctata Luther mentions the exact sermon (ser. 27 syp!.r cant.). WA 55/2, lil1. In Ad Romanos epistol. twice the book"""Di cons deratfOiie is identified, WA 56:-1~4'8tr; sfmnarl,Y in Ad HebrHos ~pJ,~. WX S7, 162. - -

much time to the study of the extant commentaries on those books, his

work wi th aernard may have to a great extent ,preceded the time of hh

early lectures.

25

To sum up, Luther seemingly quotes directly from Bernard·s writings.

However, the free reproduction of Bernard's words points to an acquaintance

with Bernard that allowed Luther to quote from memory. This knowledge

may well have been acquired during his early monastic year5.73 and

possibly during the time of the early lectures.

In what kinds of works does Luther make reference to Bernard? His

lectures, as has already been pointed out, contain such references with

as great a frequency as 15 found in Iny of the writings. Thh is true

of his early lectures, the Dicta~, as well as his late lectures on Genesis.

The sermons delivered in 1531 and 1538 on the first four chapters of John

contain references to Bernard with similar freqUency.74 So there appears

to be little difference between the more fomal and more carefully pre­

pared lectures and the more freely presented semons that have been pre­

served through copies made by friends. Similarly. hh Tischreden, these

corllp lete ly free discourses I contai n references to Bernard wi til about

equal frequency. The indexes I used revealed comparatively few references

to Bernard tn the letters. However. the verification of this would have

to await a more careful examination of the complete body of luther's letters.

The treatises of Luther present a somewhat different picture, although

not one of major significance. ill!. ~ chnstlic,he'l ~ deuts,c,hE!!: Nation

7lrh1s conclusion is supported, 1f in a small way, by reference to Bernard already in luther's marginal notes to Peter Lombard's Sentences. WA 9, 69f. WA 9. 107 a 150 reproduces some Bernard quotations' found on the inside cover of luther's copy of Anselm.

74n.e index in LW 22 lists 19 references to Bernard 1n these sermons.

:w

from 1520 has no reference to Bernard. De clet1v1tate B~bl'on1c~ eeclesiae

from the same year has only one reference. 75 ' This reference appears in

connection with Luther's criticism of monasticism. Another major writing

from 1520, ~9!1 !t!L Fr~iheit eines Cnristenmenschen. contains no reference

to aernard 1n the treatise itself. However, in the introductory letter

to Pope Leo X Luther u1ice refers to Bernard's ~ consideratio~. written

for EUgene. 76 Two treatises from the year 1521 y1eld many r.lOre references.

These are Q!. abroganda misSI I!M vata and 9!. votis moDIS ti cis. In these I

found 7 and 13 respecti VI 11.77 The subject matter accounts for the fre­

quency of Nfttrence. On the other hand, one might expect Luther to mention

Bernard in his De servo arbi trio. since the latter wrote a treatise Oe ~F' _

gratia !i l1be,r'2 arb1trio. 78 However, Luther's work contains only one

reference to Oernard79 and this contains the oft-quoted words from the

Semones in canUca xx • ........... -....... ............ ...--.... ..........

Tn1s 1s a survey of only a limited n~nber of Lutherts treatises.

However, the pattern seems to be tbat Luther does not take up any specific

work of Bernard for careful reference, even on a subject like De servo --arbftr10, but refers to Bernard as the subject matter brings him to mind.

This happens especially in connection with discussions on monasticism,

accounting fQr the many references in .R!. votis mona,stich.

This brief examination of the various types of writings brings nothing

75WA 6, 540.

l6WA 7, 42-49. 77 . . WA 8, 484-485, 527-530, WA 8. 586, 600-603. i12, 617, 622. 628,

634. 640, 646.

leCf• note 42.

79WA 18, 644.

27

unusual to vie~l to change the impressions that have been gained. Whatever

the type of writing, there is little difference in the frequency and

manner of quoti ng, except for greater freedom in the quotati ons found in

the se rmons .

There remai ns the question of the breadth of Luther's knowledge of

bernard, especially since he does repeat the same quotations many times.

Does Luther limi t his reference to Bernard to a few selt=ct suujects t

knowing nothing of Bernaru Leyond these?

In the Di ctata Luthel~ quotes Bernard to show that a time of peace

and security is the most difficult time (amarissima) for the Church,80

to speak of the value of self-examination,Bl of the need for a desire to

82 83 become better, of divine consolation. In his Ad Romanos ept~totii he

quotes Bernard on the hardened heart, 84 and on the need of fai th for for­

giveness of sins. 85 At various times he nentions Bernard's view of Mary,86

87 88 89 90 of prayer, of monastic obedience, of celibacy, of ingratitude.

OOWA 3, 417.

81WA 4, 198.

82 WA 3, 110; WA 4, 364.

83WA 4, 331.

&4 WA 56, 19, 192.

85WA 56, 369f.

86 ' WT 1. No. 494; WA 43, 590. 67 WT 5, No. 6013; WA 57/3, 216; WA 6, 232; WA 43, 327.

8BwA 44, 686.

89WA 8, 644.

90WA 44, 363.

28

He speaks of Bernard's manner of interpreting Scripture. 91 Luther tells

of Bernard's advice to someone who is unable to excuse his brother's 51n92

and mentions 8ernard's testimony that Jesus' suffering on behalf of man moves

man to grieve over sin.93

These Nferenees have been chosen somewhat at random to show the

wi de variety of subjects on wh1 en Luther quotes Bernard. Al though there

are some subjects to which Luther refers repeatedly t he by no lneans limits

himself to only these.

On tbe other hand, seldom does Luther enter into a long cons1der­

ation of any quotation from Bernard. Generally he does not discuss

Bernard's views at length. Usually there is only a br1ef reference, a

quotation with little COIlIIIInt. The chief references I found that are

somewhat longer are two: one from his M Roman,os epistola and another

from his De votts monasticis Martini Lutheri 1udicium. The former is a ............ ... k. bI w ' __ .. , , ,

more extensi ve reference to the quotation frotR the II Sermon on the

Annunciation" to which. according to Melancnthon, an uold man" had directed

Luther .arly 1n his monastic 11f •• 94 In the latter Luther repeatedly

mentions Bernard as an example of a monk wilo. despite his monastic vows.

found salvation through faith in Christ.95 referring .1so here to the

oft·quoted pusage from the Sermones .llt canti ea &. That Luther had a broad knowledge of the content of Bernard j I

writings appears evident. However, that Luther made a careful study and

91WA 44, 361.

92WA 2, 602.

9lwA 2, 543.

94WA 56. 3691.

95 WA 8. 600-603.

29

analysis of Bernard's theology, consciously examining the various aspects

of Bernard's thinking and aiming to bring them together in logical fashion,

cannot be proved. There is no attempt systematically to practice critique~

favorable or unfavorable, on Bernard. This also was not called for,

since Bernard antedated Luther by 400 years. There would have to be a

specific, urgent occasion for such critique, and such an occasion did not

arise, even though Bernard's writings enjoyed continued use.

In 1521 luther wrote: II It may be that there is some father of whom I

have not yet taken notice. As for Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose. Gregory,

and Bernard .. I know them .•. ,,96 There is no reason to question this

assertion. I arrive at the following conclusions as to luther's knowl­

edge of Bernard and his writings:

1. Luther was acquainted with all of Bernard's writings, his

sermons, treatises, and letters. Of these. he quoted most often from

the sermons, especially the Sermones ~ cantica. He had a preference

for the sermons, although even his criticism of the treatises means that

he had read them.

2. luther was sufficiently well acquainted with Bernard's writings

to be able to quote them from memory. a conclusion based on the generally

free and inexact references.

3. Al though there are examples where Luther repeated the same

reference or quotation a number of times, yet the variety of subjects

on which he quoted Bernard shows a broad knowledge of Bernard. There is,

however. little likelihood that Luther had systematically analyzed Bernard's

entire theology.

96 LW 32, p. 221 (WA 8, 102).

30

4. Since Luther already in hb earliest lectures quoted Bernard

with the same frequency as in (lis later lectures, his study of Bernard

will have occurred during his early monastic years. It is especially in

these early lectures that Luther identified the book and chapter or

sermon from wMCI) he quoted. something that appears less frequently and

less precisely in later writings. This points to the possibility that

Luther studied tsernard in his earlier years and later drew from his

memory of these early studies.

5. 1 Ifn inclined to place till tima during which a major part of

this study occurred into the period between Luther's entrance into the

monastery and his biblical lectures. that 1s. Detween 1505 and 1513.

When Luther lectured on the PsallBS. he gave concentrated attention to

those authors who had wrt tten COIllllentaries on the Psalms. Bernard pro~

duced no SUCh cOOlAentary.. The ratner infrequent references also raise

a doubt about Luther's direct and consistent study of Bernard <Wring the

preparation of the Q.1ctata, and of the lectures on M RonlAftoS epistola

and M Hebr.~ epistola.

All of the above conclusions Are not equally compel1ing~ They are

adequate, however. for the assumption that as far as Luther'S knowledge

of Semard and the time when it was acquired are concerned, the possibl1-

ity exists that Bernard's writings could have contributed to Lutherts

theological development. This also can well add credance to Melineh­

thon's a~count of the "old man" who directed Luther to one of Bernard's

sermons early in the Erfurt years. The hhtorilfts that speak of Luther

reading Bernard in those early years may well be correct.

The questfon nevertheless remains: how much of an influence did

aemard's writings have on Luther? How much did they contribute toward

31

the development of his theology? I shall pursue that further by turning

tlO\;J to an examination of Luther's references 'to Bernard to see what

his views of ti1e Cistercian monk were.

III. LUTHER'S VIEWS OF 8EruiARU

The aim here 15 to examine whether Bernard exerted an influence on

LU~ler's development. This aim establishes the method of this investi­

gation and sets up certain limits.

It is necessary to inquire into what Luther says about Bernard at

different periods of Luther's life. For purposes of this study the year

1521 can serve as a useful dividing point. The reason for this choice

is that by this time Luther's theology had become rather well stabilized

and his relationship to the Roman Church had reached its climax. In 1520

luther wrote the three writings in which his theology found mature

expression. UTa the Christian Nobil1ty of the Genoan Nation,1I "The

Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and liThe FreedoAl of a Christian. tl

Then early in 1521 the final bull of excoma~nication, Decet Romanum. was

issued in Rome. and later in the same year luther was placed under the

imperial ban. 1521 therefore appears as a favorable date to thoose if

there 1s to be any division of hh life in studying these references. 97

To remain wi thin the 11m1 tatioos of thh study, those areas must be

investigated in which luther's theology distinguishes itself. The first

area is the doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God. In

this, there are three significant emphases: solus Christus, sola gratia.

97Th• year 1521 was chosen ratner than the time of luther's so-called "breakthrough" in his Turmerlebnis. The time of the latter has never been established. The Turmer1ebnts is still the subject of much stuqy and debate, not only as to tne time when it occurred, but also as to wherein it consisted. For a recent discussion of this. cf. Kenneth G. Hagen, nChanges in the Understanding of Luther: The Development of the Young Luther, II Tneolosieal Studies, XXIX (Sept., 1968),472-496.

32

33

and $ola f1de. 98 The second area concerns itself with the Holy Scriptures

as the sole authority and source in matters of Christian doctrine and

11 fe J the sol~ $cri.,p.tura, principle. These are the two basic areas con­

cerning which the question should be asked: did Bernard make a contribu­

tion to lead Luther to the positions he arrived at? These two areas are

the two foci to which all other points relate.

Does Luther express himself about Bernard's views on these subjects?

What does Luther say in the formative years untl1 15211 How does Luther

evaluate Bernard 1n the later years on these subjects?

During the years until 1521. Luther's references to Bernard are

almost always favorable. When he quotes Bernard, he does so to corrob­

orate a point that has been made. I referred above to nts manner of

introducing a quotation.99 This indicates approval. He does not take

issue with Bernard. Whenever he speaks of Bernard, he does $0 with

commendation.

It is not until 1520 and especially 1521 that Luther begins to express

any disagreement wi th Bernard. In 1521 Luther wrote the two treatises,

liThe Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vowst+ and "The Misuse of the

Mass. iI It would indeed be surprising if Luther at this time found himse'f

in full agree_nt with Bernard on these subjects. Since Bernard was an

ardent monk, one might expect some severe criticism of the medieval saint.

98In this presentation I am assuming that Melanchtilon'S brief articl. on the doctrine of justification in the Augsbun; Confession represents Luther's positton. Th1s contains the three significant emphases I am using 1n connection with thts point. Ct. The Book of Concord, ed. by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphfa, 1959), p. 30:' Vftfsa"so taught among us ••• that we receive forgiveness of sin and become righteous before God by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith ••• 11

9gSee part II, p. 23.

34

However. this is not the case, as will be shown shortly. The man who

could write with unvarnhhed severity against Eck, Erasmus, Ind Zw1ngli

was quite gentle wi th Bernard.

But does Luther mention Bernard at any time in connection with the

doctrine of justification as later defined in the AugSbu.~ C~n,fess1on.7

One reference in the Oictata is of interest 1n this connection. Commenting

on Psalm 31 (32): 3. Luther refers to two points that the Psalm teaches

here: 1. that all an! in sins and no one 15 blessed; 2. that no one

has the strength to gain remission of s1ns, but that only God remits

freely by not imputing sin. These the world ignores and rejects Christ.

He ends this sentence with the words: '\ •• as Bernard beautifully

meditates in a certain sermon." 1OO The reference is so general that one

can only surmise what sermon Luther had fn mind. But a quotation from

Bernard on The Nati¥1~ could well qualify IS thlt "certain sermonu:

••• for we all offend fn many things, and we haye need of the fountain of mercy. to Wish away the filth of our sins. For all have s1nnedand do MeG the glory of God ••• Tbere­fore. since no one is free from sfn. the fountafn of merey is Mealsary for everyone. and everyone, Hoe, Ilanfe lind Job,. ought to make haste to go to that fountain with the s_ eagerness. IOI

The reference by Luther stresses that forglvene.s must COII1I freely by

grace because IIIn on his part is a • t nner. TM s forgl veness COllIS from

God through Christ. The third point. faith. is not mentioned. 102 Thh

does .. howeYer, soon come In for considerable attention.

lOOWA 3. 175: "Ut pulchre Bernar4"s in quodam .ermone meditatvr. II

lOlSa1nt Bernard, Tbe Nat1v1~ (Chicago. 1959). p. 69.

l02Gordon Rupp, The R1ghtewsness of &od (london, 1953), p. 147 t sbows that luther does st ..... s "on1y fa1tii'"Tn the Dfctata. Thh. however, is not present In connection with this reference to iernard.

35

In hh Ad Roman~s. ep1s.tol.~. Luther makes the specific reference to

Bernardls "Sermon on the Annunciation. ,,103 This is the quotation to

which an uold luan,ll according to Melanchthan. had directed Luther in his

early days at the Erfurt monastery. This same reference is quoted again

in Ad ~ebr.!!l.2.! ephtola. 104 In connection with this reference, Luther

emphasizes not only that sins are freely forgiven through the mercy of

God, but stresses particularly the role of faith. In both citations the

elitphash is on th1s that the individual should believe not only that God

in general forgives sins, but that He has forgiven also his own sins. In

Ad !to!Jl...l!2! epistola Luther quotes Bernard as follows:

For, if you believe that only God can take away your sins, you have the right faith, but from here you must go on to believe, and M ,yourself must belteve ••• that through him you really have the lorglvenii'S"ol'your sins. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts that he says to us: Your sins are forgi van to you. And this is what the apot~~e means when he says that a man is justified by faith •••

To be noted is the stress on faith as the means by which the individual

gains personal assurance, applying the forgiving mercy of God to himself.

On this point luther finds himself in conscious agreement with Bernard.

In 1518 Luther published the ~~jlustana, the proceedings of his

meeting wi til Cajetan. He pointed out that his doctrine of just1 f1catian

by fafth was not a new one. In this connection he refers to lithe holy

l03pauck • p. 234 (WA 56. 369).

l04LW Z9, p. 111 (WA 51, 169).

l05pauck , p. 234. This is a fairly close rendering of Bernard's sermon. The text in PL 183, 383f. reads as follows: Ideoque si credis peccata tua non posse deler1 nisi ab eo cui soli peccasti, et in quem peccatuDI non cadi t. ene faci s: sed adde adhuc ut et hoc cradas. qui a per11psum tfbi peccata donantur. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in corde tuo Spiritus slnctus. dicens: Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua. Sic en1n1 arbitratur Apostolus. gratis just1ficarf hominem per fidem.

36

Virgin li and ulentions that "St. Bernard and the universal church marveled l~ .

it her faith. II He considered Bernard a protagonist of his doctrine.

But what about Bernard's monasticism? As lutherfs theo~ogy developed,

he turned against monastic vows as conflicting wfth justification by grace

through faith. Already fn 1520 he expressed doubts about the monastic

modes of life and warned against a defense that pointed to IISS. Bernard,

Francis, Dominic, and others, who founded or fostered monastic orders.1i

l}f these he says that Iti t is certain that none of them was saved through

hh vows and his 'religious· life; they were saved through fafth alone. 1I107

In the following year Luther came out unequivocally against monastic

vows. Whil. residing at the Wartburg he wrote "The Judgement of Martin

Luther on Monastic Vows. 1I This contains a number of references to Bernard.

However, luther sees a difference between Bernard and the monasticism of

his own time. The saints who made vows "used evil for good." Now "they

all vow the evil itself. Noboqy vows to live in the spirit in which

Bernard lived. 141GB What was that spirit? Bernard's spirit was one of

freedom: he did not live up to the vows 4ibecause the vows compelled him to

do so. but from a free cnoice of spirit ••• "109 or, to put it another

way, "St. Bernard and others kept vows of chastity, obedience, and poverty,

but not because of the vows. Instead. they observed the ancient eXaDlple

of the fathers and the gospel. 11110 The reason Bernard and lHny other monks

106 LW 31, p. 273 (WA Z, 15). 107 LIN 36. p. 77 (WA 6. 540).

l08LW 44. p. 354 (WA 8, 640).

109lW 44, p. 309 (WA 8, 612). luther expresses thh same opinion about Bernard's YOW in a letter to Melanchthon on Sept. 9, 1521, wOr 2, No. 428.

110tW 44, p. 316 (WA 8, 617).

37

were saved was that ufn these cases the poison did them no harm because

of the faith in christ with which they were filled. HIll Although Luther

rejected monastic 'lOWS t he did not condemn Bernard, a rnan deeply involved

in this institution. The reason was that he knew Bernard's sermons, in

which he saw Paul's doctrine of salvation through fafth in the redemption

won by Christ proclaimed. He writes:

I know perfectly well that Sernard and many men like him were upheld by God ••• The sermons which he preached and taught are extant 1n the COdIun1ty 01 brothers. By this one work he restored the old institution of Paul. and saved himself and his brethren wf th nilt1 • • .11112

In fact. Luther saw Bernard, when faced with death, cast aside any

merit he mtght c1a1m on the bash of works, including his monastic works,

and rely solely on the mercy of Chrht. Thts appears in the oft .. quoted

reference to the ~ennone, !n. cantlc,a M. 1l3 Referring to this, luther

writes: "Vou see, these are the words of a great Christian soul, because

he put all Ms fat th in Christ and despaired absolutely of hh own works, n114

I find then that throughout these years Luther ci tes Bernard for the

views he expresses on the forgiveness of sins, or justification. Already

in the ~icta~ this includes two of the three emphases mentioned earlier,

salus ~hristus, and sola grati.!. With the M. Romanos epistola the third

receives considerable attention, the sola fide. Even when luther begins ~--

111 LW 44, p. 289 (WA 8, 601). 112 LW 44. p. 325 (WA 8, 622).

113See page 22 where seyeral versions of it from this perfod are given.

114LW 44. p. Z90 (Wa 8, 601). Denl fle t Luther und Lutherthwll I (Nainz, 1904), pp. 56-63, accuses Luther of dett6irate dlcep£lon 1n the use of this quo ta t1 on from aernard. My concern here, however. 15 not to examine the accuracy of Luther's understanding of Bernard, but his actual views as expressed tn luther's own writings.

38

to reject monasticism. he does not condemn Bemard for his preoccupation

with it. Bernard had embraced monasticism, out according to luther, his

true hope for forgiveness centered in Christ, by grace, through faith.

It is another question, however, whether luther was led to this

doctrine of justification through the active influence of Bernard's

writings. Before attempting any judgw~nt on this, it is well to consider

the second doctrinal area that needs investigation, the sola Scriptura .

principle. Is there any connection between Bernard and luther in this?

aeroard's deep interest in the Holy Scriptures cannot fail to draw

the attention of anyone who reads his works. lt5 The Fathers are seldom

quoted, the Scriptures constantly. When he received his early education,

this interest in Scripture already began. In the Vita Prima Bernardi

William of St. Thierry writes of young 3ernard: K!ie was intent on his books

and studies, for he saw these as a way of coming to know and find out about

God in the Scriptures. 11116 later he has more to say on Bernard's k.nowl­

edge of the Scriptures and their use;

It was hh great delight to pass hours in reading Scripture. He used to read the books straight through fn their proper order, and never had any difficulty in understanding what the words meant. He used to tell us that he found it easier to understand 'the text of Scripture itself than lengthy expla-nations of it ••• And like them (the Fathers) he drank avidly of the one fountain, which is Holy Writ ••• And as he preaches and bases his sermons on scriptural text, he makes the passages so clear and moving that anyone versed at all 1n secular or spiritual learning cannot help marvelling at the words he speaks. 117

115For example. Terence L. Connolly, Saint Bernard on the love of God (New York, 1937). in hh footnotes indicates It least 27nmfCir -­references tn this short treatise.

116St• Bernard of Clatrvaux.: The stea of his life as recorded in the _ Y1ta p.r1~ Bernardt ~ certatn of his conte!!!iQr~eS:-.-:- trans. 6y-­Geoffrey we6b and Adr-ran wa1ieri[wastmtnster, Marylr.!nd, 1960). p. 16f.

117 lbt.d., pp. 42f.

39

Tnere is good evi dance for the judgn.nt of Watkin Wi 111 ams t a 20th century

biographer of Bernard: "What chiefly concerned him as a student was the

Bible; a merely cursory reading of his works reveals no less; he may almost

be said to think in the language of the sacred Scriptures. ullS

Was luther influenced by Bernard in this preoccupation wi th Scripture?

Did Bernard possibly even influence Luther in the direction of sol_!

!_~J~Jr~? When noting Bernardts unusually diligent use of Scripture, his

unmitigated cfting of Scripture as proof that what he says is true, one

might expect to find indications favorable to an affirmative answer to

these questions. However, I find no evidence of such influence from

Luther's references to Bernard during these year'S. There is a close

kinship between Bernard and Luther in their knowledge of Scripture and

their unceasing use of it. But luther nowhere points to Bernard as an

example of this. Luther nowhere credits Bernard with fostering the !!l! !'q'!p'tura fdea.

The point, on the other hands might be made that this was hardly

necessary. from the very beginning of Luther's theological study at

Erfurt, a kind of ~o)~ ~cri2tura principle was a part of the training

Luther received at the university where the tradition of Occam reigned.

Whatever form the !!?l! scrietura principle may have taken and in whatever

ways it ~ have differed from Luther's later views. 119 it did give him

118watkin W. Williams, Studies in St. Bernard of Cla1rvaux (London, 1927), p. 101. . .. - - - ..

U9Scheel , p. 225, writes: flUnd alles an der Autoritlt del" Schrift oder UbernatGrl1chen Offenbarung lU messen war dam occamistiseh (rzogenen ntcht m1nder s.lbstverstindUch all 1rgendeinem anderen Schultheologen. 't He1ko Obenuan, The Harvest of t4ed1eval TheolQ9Y (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 361ff •• contends-lror a difference bitween'the so-called sola scrietura principle of Occam and that of the Reformation. Herman Sasse, too, takes up this difference in "Luther and the Word of God," Accents in Luther's Theolo,il (St. Louis, 1967), pp. 47ff. -

40

a high regard for biblical authority from the inception of his biblical

studies.

tlevertheless, for Luther the prime concern was not one of wilere to

find authoritative teaching. His first questfon was: where can I find

forgiveness of sins? How can I find a gracious God? The Scriptures

ultimately gave MOl the answer. And as Luther recognized ever more clearly

that the Scriptures had the prime purpose 01 proclaiming a forgiving Christ,

his views of the ~ola scr12tura principle deepened, for more was involved

than a basts of authority. For Luther his soul's sa1vation was at stake. 120

Once Luther had arrt ved at thh profounder s1gn1 f1 clnce of the !!l!. scrf e" ~Jtr! principle t he did not hesitate to apply it 1n judging Bernard.

Twice fn tah IITlle Mhuse of the Mass,u wr1tten 1n 1521, Luther mentions

Bernard 1n connection w1th the Scriptures. This is what he writes: tlWe

will not listen to this: lBernard lived and wrote thus'; but only to this:

• He was supposed to 11 ve and WM 1:& accordi n9 to the Serf ptures. I n 121

Later in the same work Luther says that there are those who point to the

Fathers like Gregory t Bernard. Bonaventura, and others as men who consid­

ered the mass a sacrifice. Luther's reply to them is that "nothing is more

dangerous than the works and 11 ves of the lai nu whi ch are not founded

in tne Scr1ptvres. 1I122 What Luther is doing in both of these references

is applying the !!ll! ~erf2tur. principle to Bernard and the other fathers.

He will not let Bernard stand as an authority aside from Scripture.

Whenever the works and lives of saints 11ke Bernard do not find their

120Sasse discusses the relationship of the sola fide to the sola $cril!tura at greater length. pp. 59 ... 73. -- - -

121LW 36. p. 137 (WA 8, 485).

122LW 36, p. 186 (WA 3, 527).

41

basis in Scripture they are dangerous, and the danger Luther has in mind

pertains to man's salvation.

It appears then that Luther was not led to the ~2J..! scriptura

principle by Bernard, but, having arrived at it, he applied it to Bernard's

life and work as a criterion by means of which to judge them correctly.

I now return to the question whether Luther was led to the doctrine

of justification by faith through the active influence of Bernard's

writings. Did Bernard help Luther find a forgiving Christ? This is not

only possible, but very probable. Bernard preached a Christ through whom

there is forgiveness. Luther read this, remembered it, and quoted Bernard

in his lectures to that effect. It would indeed be strange if Luther's

study of Bernard had had no influence on him at all. The question is not

so much one of the probability of influence, but of the extent. Did

Bernard exert a major i nf1 uence on Luther in this area?

In part two I came to the conclusion that Luther's main study of

Bernard occurred in his early years, perhaps between the time of luther's

entrance into the monastery and his biblical lectures. If this is correct,

then his major influence on Luther's developrrent would occur in those years.

Whatever influence Bernard had, would be in evidence from the time of

Luther's earliest lectures.

It was noted that already in the Dictata Luther mentions Bernard in

connection with a consideration of man's forgiveness through Christ. Luther

finds this thought beautifully presented by Bernard. Nevertheless, it

must also be recognized that the reference in the Oictata in which this

is mentioned still speaks of justification in an incomplete manner. The

sol a fide is not mentioned. furthermore, of the nineteen references to

Bernard that I found in the Dictata, only the one cited earlier concerns

itself with forgiveness through Christ. All of this gives little su~port

42

for considering Bernard a major influence in luther-, development. If

Bernard was a factor in leading Luther to justification by grace through

faith, why does thts not become more evident already in the Dicta,ta? Why

is BernaM not mentioned more often by luther in connection with forgiveness

through Christ? Why of all the references to Bernard is there only one

\'1here this is done? Why is the reference he makes to Bernard still incom­

plete, even though later he does quote Bernard also on the subject of the

!9J_'!. f~? In view of these questions, I arrive at the following con­

elusions:

1. Luther's early reading of Bernard's writings, especially his

sennons, brought him into contact with a forgivin9 Christ. That this

had its influence on Luther is to be expected.

2. That Bernard was a major influence in leading luther to his

doctrine of justification by fa1U} through grace is, nowever, questionable.

The evidence in the P'1~.t~ allows for recognizing influence but does not

compel the conclusion that Bernard's influence was a chief factor in

Luther's development.

3. As luther continued to lecture on other books of the Bible,

especially Romans. his doctrinal position became more clearly established.

He is pleased to refer to 8emard l s writings and 11fe as being 1n sub­

stantial agreement with him.

4. As luther matured in his understanding of ~ fiqe, also his

appreciation for the ~o!! ~criRtur.!. principle grew. He began to apply

this principle to the Fathers. including Bernard. One cannot escape the

question whether ultimately we must find the major influence on Luther only

in the Scriptures. It is not the purpose of this thesis to concern itself

with that specific question. This. however, is of interest: Bemard. too,

made the Scriptures h15 major study. Here h a point of contact between

43

The two men that cannot be 1 gnored.

After 1521 Luther conti nued to refer to Bemard wi til about the same

frequency as before. As we proceed to these references, the question is:

do they compel a modification of the above conclusions about the relation­

ship of Bernard and Luther?

In the area of justification by grace through faith for Jesus· sake,

Bernard continues to receive the praises of Luther. He says of Bernard:

"Whenever he begins to speak of Christ, it h a pure pleasure to follow. 11123

Here Luther applies superlatives: uBermlard in his sermons surpasses all

other doctors •.• because he preaches Christ most beautiful1y.u124

Luther mentions Bernard in connection with the wonders of Christ·s

incarnation: "Bernard loved the incarnation of Christ very I'lIUch." 125 He

marvels at the indescribable dignity with which God invests man by this

wonderful union, joining Himself to the human nature. 126 Luther quotes

from a sermon of Bernard to show the comfort the 1 attar derived from the

incarnation: "Now I can see that Go4 fIlY lord is not angry with me; for He

is ~ flesh and blood and sits at the right hand of the heavenly Father

as Lord over all creatures. If he were ill-disposed toward me, He would

not have taken on my flesh an<1 blood ... 127 luther even 15 pleased with

Bernard _len he in_g1nls that til. devil fell because of envy when he knew

123LW 14, p. 38 (WA 31/1. 256).

124WT 3, No. 3370h: "quia pulcherr1me praed1cav1t Chrhtum. 1I

12" ~lW 5, p. 221 (WA 43. 581).

126 LW 5. p. 220 (WA 43. 580).

127lW 22 t p. 105 (wA 46. 627). Luther quotes from the ?~r:uone~ !n. cant1ca XX. PL 183. 792. _. .. '"~ --

44

that God would become man, begrudging Ilman such great dignity. 11 II These

thoughts of Bernard," Luther writes, U are not'unprofitable, for they flow

from admiration for the boundless love and mercy of God. I,128

Most often Luther repeats the reference from the S~f!!!.!!! cant1c~a

XX, praising Bernard for turning to Christ alone in the face of death.

Sometin.s he adds a further reference from the Vita Prima 8ernhardi. 129 --- "",.,--

InQ!.!!!!~ arb1trio the former is used to stress that man has no power

that can apply itself to grace. 130 The latter is used to show that Bernard,

when be WIS in danger of death. found hope in the passion of Christ. In

his !!!. e21sto'~ s. PauH. M Galatas fomme!ltar1us of 1635 Luther combines

the two references. He sees Sernard, lie man so pious, holy, and chaste

that I think he deserves to be put ahead of all other monks,li lay all his

good works and acts of piety aside and take "hold of the blessing of

Christ by faith. saying: 'I have lived dasMably.Hi This is from the

Se!',l!JOnes reference. As Luther continues to quote Bernard, he turns direct­

ly to the Vita reference: tlBut thou. 0 Lord Jesus Christ, nast a double -right to the kingdom of heaven: first. because Thou art the Son of God;

secondly. because Thou hast won it by Thy passion Ind death. The first

Thou dost keep for Thyself by Thy birthright; the latter Thou dost grant

to lue by the right. not of works but of grace. t 1.131 Here all three, solus

~~r'J.!!!!!t !!!!. a~at1a, !Ad sola ftde are in clear evidence and Luther

ascribes all tbree to Bernard. Throughout thf! years to the end of hh

12Btw 5. 221 (WA 43. 581).

129pL 185, 491.

130WA 18, 644.

131LW 26, p. 460 (WA 40/1. 687).

44

that God \"#ou1 d become man, begrudg1 n9 11man such great di !;mity. Ii HThese

thoughts of Bernard. " Luther \'trites. "are no-t unprofitable . for they flow

from admi ration for t he boundless love and mercy of God.H128

:ost often luther repeats the reference from t he ~rmoneS in cantica

~!. praising Bernard for turning to Christ alone in the face of deat ...

Sometimes he adds a further t'aference from the Vita Prima Bernha rdi. 129 --.- --.;,-..;.

In De .serv9. arbi$!.!Q. the fonner is used to s tress that man has no power

that can apply itself to grace. 130 The latter is used to sholtl t hat Bernard,

\'1hen he was in dange r of' death. found hope in the passion of Christ. In

his .!D. ephtolam i. Pauli Ad Slalatas commentarius of 1535 Luther combines

the two references. He sees f3e rnar'd, "a man so pious. hol y, and chaste

that I tM nk he deserves to be put ahe.ad of a 11 other monks. II lay all hi s

good works and acts of piety aside and take "hold of t he blessing of

hrist by faith. saying: I I have li ved da:;mably. Ilt This is from the

~~!'mone's. reference. As Luther continues to quote Bernard t he t urns d1 ract­

ly to the Vita ·reference: UBut t hou . 0 Lord Jesus Christ, hast a double ---.--.

ri gilt to tneki ngeorn of heaven : f1 rs t, because Thou art the Son of God;

secondly. because Thou hast won it by Thy pass ion and death. The first

Thou dos t keep for Thyse 1f by Thy b1 rthr1 ght; the 1 atter Thou dost grant

to llIe by the right. not of works but of grace. 10131 Here all t hree, solus

.Ch r1stus, Sol a gratia, !Jld sola fide af'le in clear evidence and luther

ascribes all three to Bernard. Throughout the years to the end of his

128LW 5. 221 (WA 43, 581).

129pL 185" 491.

130WA 13, 644.

131lW 26" p. 460 (WA 40/ 1. (87) .

45

life Luther nlade use of these references , commending 8ernard. 132

.11 of this l eads Luther to the judgment t hat Bernard Ilhad the best

knov/ledge of re li gion, as hi s \'Jriti ngs 5 hO\\I . ,,13:1 He only was llworthy of

the name 'Father Ber nardI and of being studi ed diligently. 11134

In the years after 152 1 ~ Bernard. however. also is criticized. I

already referred to Luther's moderate criticism of Bernard in 1520 and

1521 because of his monasticism. In t he I1sc~!re~~_ Luther says that

Be rncll~(L pious monk that he was, yet presumed to declare that if someone

failed to remain i n the clo1ster, he \'/ould sure ly meri t damnation . Luther

goes on to say t hat Bernat'd may have been a sincere monk~ yet he set a bad

135 example . .In what did Bernard's poor axampl e consi s t? In the earl y

twenties already Luther v/rote that saints like Jerorile, AU9ustine. and

Bel'nard failed in this tha t t hey Itset up orders and rules of wor ks con­

trary to the purity of faith. 11 136 Luther often poi nted out t hat t he monks

of hi s day no longer were fol1Q't/i ng the spi rft of their founders. However,

even if the reli gion and di scipline of Bernard and the others \'I8re

observed, I\~e would still have to say: I If you have n()thi,ng to set

agai nst the wrath and judgment of God except your sanctity and t he

chas tHy of your 11 ves. you are c1 early sons of the slave woman. who mus t

132For a l onger listing of such references. cf. note 49.

133 , UI 2. p. 269 ( ~JA 42 I 453).

134LW 22. p. 338 (WA 47, l09) .

13\{T 4. No. 4772: "$anct Ber nhard 1st der f r6mmste !'16nch g.ewesen • . doch hat er dtl r fen sagen: [ 5 w::Ire ein 9Qwfsz Ze1chen cler Verdamnisz,

wenn einer nicht 1m Kloste.r bl1ebe •. • Er ist \'101 eill erfahrener unci etlbter M6nch ge\'1esen. aber er hat e i n bas Exempe l geben. "

136LW 9, p. 130 (WA 14 , 648) .

46

be cast out of the kingdom of heaven and condemned. ,,137 Luther's criticism

i s t hat in his monasticism Bernard is not t rue to the purity of faith.

In 1537 be wrote: ul follO't"I him vtherever he preached Ch rist ... But I

will not consent to wearing his cowl , his hair shirt. and his monkish

garb . '1138 Forgiveness from Christ by gracs throu9h faith is pl aced into

the scal e agai nst which Luther vlei ghs Bel-nard's monas tici sm and finds it

~1antin g . Bernard. Augusti ne. and many othe rs ltwould ce rtainly have had

to be condemned (as Wycliffe says) if they had not come to their senses

and been saved by the ri chness of thei r fai t o 1 n the mi dst of unrecogn1 zed

error."13~ for Luther, Be rnard's faith and love for Chris t still out­

wei ghed the errors in which he unwittingly. as Luther thought of it, was

involved.

This same standard tHiS used by Luther to eval uateSernard's life of

abs t1 oanee. Frequent 1 y he makes menti on of the torture 6ernard 1 nfH cted

on his body by not eating . This caused the stench of his breath t o be

H unbear able 'to the rest when the cho1r was assembl ed . " 140 On the o~e

hand , luthe.r does mention that later Bernard "came to his senses and also

tol d his brothers not to hurt the body too mu ch . For he realized t hat he

had made himself unabl e to serve his brothers . .. 141 Neverthe less t he

--- .-'<----- ~~ __ . __ . ___ -----L

137L.W26. p. 459 (WA 40/ 1. (86) . lhis 15 from Luther ls 1535 l ectures on Galatians 4:30 .

136 LW .22. p. 268 (viA 46, 782 ).

13::1LW 9, p. 130 (I.JA 14, 648).

140I_W 5. p. 71 {l4A 43. 477f.}. for additional references to t his inCident, cf. al s o LW 30. p. 27, 40 (WA 12. 282-3) ; LW 4, p . 273 (lrlA 43, 331); \4T 3 , No . 3777 . This incident is taken from t he Vita P}"i ma Bernardi, PL 185-1. 239-40. - --. - . . .

141Uw 30 , p . 27 (WA 12, 2S3).

47

abstinence imposed by St . Bernard's order had to be evaluated accor ding

to the standard of luther's view of justific.at ion . In 1522 he wrHes:

"The orders of St. Benedict, St . Bernard, and Carthus1ans. and ail others,

oppose Chri st \'I/1en they abstain from meat and the like as a ma tter of

necessity and command. as if it t'ioul d be a s in not to abstain . u142 If

fast ing was i mposed as a nece'ss1ty so that fai l ure to abst.ai n became it

si n, t hen it came i nto conflict \"'ith Luther ' s ~o1a gratia j Ustification.

The latter was the criteri on b_1I whi ch Bernard' s fasting had to be judged .

In Luthe r' s lat e r years, Bernard ' 5 Ma ri ol ogy f re<luently call s forth

cr1 ti ci sm from Luther . Th1 s i s to be expected . s i nee Bernard. accordi n9

to Thomas He r ton , "is one of the greates t and most i mportant theolog ians

of ~'1ary 1 n the Catho 11 c Church. " 143 ~1erton goes on to say that before

ernard "t here \~as, strictly speaki ng ~ no s uch thing as a compl etely

deve 1 oped ' ~1ari o 10 •• He quotas another 11modern theologi an" to the

same ef fec t ; lilt is i mpossi bl e to speak or write adequa te ly of Mary

wi thout havi ng first s t udi ed what Sai nt 8e rnard has \4r itteYi about her . 11144

On the sub j ect of '·1ii rl ol ogy. Luther is critical of Bernard.

U e hUls t . howuver, note carefully the reason for the cri ti ci sm, for

Luthe r does al so pr aise Bernard fo r what he says about the Vi rgin Mary_

Refer r lng to 14ary·s response to the angel's announcement t hat she i s t o be

the mother of' Chri s t , Bernard says "that the strength of faith of the

Virgi n \iho coul d beli eve the words of t he angel was no l ess a miracl e

than the incarnati on of the Wort.l i tself . il 145 Luther uses this as an

142 L¥J 35, p . 134 (WA 10/2. 74 ) .

143Mert on, p. 86 .

144Merton quotas G. Roschini . 0.5.11 • • 11 Dottore "lariano (Rome, 1953), p . vi i. - - - " . -

145 LW 5. P . 234 Ov' 43, 590}.

48

xarAple that shows the impo."tance and the power of the words whi ch God

spoke to the saints, cal1ing forth faith. He f11lds no fau l t with Bernard's

comnent about the miracle of Mar'y·s faith.

owever, vlhenever anythi ng Bernard says of Mary conn 1 cts \'11 til Luther" S

doctrine of justi f ication , his criticism is quick to appear. He calls a

picture of Judgment Day. based on St . bernard I s writings. '1shameful and

blasphemous , <t because it sho\tled liSt. J·ohn and Mary intercedi ng for Us at

the Last Judgment . the mothe r show1ng the Son the breasts He had sucked. It

luther decries the fact that "such paintings , • • have been used to

fri ghten people 's consciences ana to make them think that they must fear

and flee from the dear Savior, as tnough He wanted to drive us from Him

and avenge our sins. 11146 He did not f ind t his at all to Bernard's credit.

Simil arly Luther finds fault with Bernard for directing attention to

Cilrist's harsh condemnation of the Pharisees in contrast to ~1ary'$ l<ind~

ness and gentl oness wh i cit permi tted her to utte'r no unfri endly ~Jord.

lutnet quotes Bernard as inferring from this that I'Christ 1s given to

scolding and punishing. but 14ary has nothing but sweetness and love. /.147

Tile result was . according to Lutner, that UChr1st was generally feared ;

we fled from Him and took refuge with t he saints, .• Christ was only the

e)(ecutioner ~ \~h i1 e the sai nts ItJera our mediators. ,, 148 The same Oer'nar d,

tltlO wrote so well about a forgiv i ng Chri st, here ;s blamed for l eading men

to fear anq flee from Christ.

Any thought of t-1ary set"ving as intercessor before her Son was for

- -" --. --------146U4 23. p. 57 OJA 33. 83-4}.

14-'LW 22, p. 377 (WA 47, p. 99-100) .

148LW 22, p, 377 (WA 47. 100).

49

luther a contradlction of the solus Christus i n just'if'i(;ation. 11'1 a sermon --_ ... --------in 1537 he refers to Bernard's t eaching that . one must have ~'ary as i nter-

cessor . when tht! Son sees hls motherls breasts. He wi n become graci ous

and forget hi s \'1r ath . To this Luther responds: "No, breasts ~till not do

t his ; something else i s required . li 149 Shortly before his deat h i n t he

last sermon preached ~t \>littenberg l ut he t' men ti ons Bernard i n connection

with t·1ary . He aSKS; tlAre we t o worshi p orl l y Christ·? Indeed, shoul dn ' t

\'Ie also honor t he holy mother of Christ? She is t he \'loman \1ho bruiSed the

head of t he serpent. Hear us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he

can refuse thee nothing. It Luther answers; llHe re Bernard went too fa r i n

his IHol'llilies on the Gospel Missl!~ est:. AnJ!eJ_£~ .. 1<.150 il1ary was not to come

between the sinner and Christ . She 15 not to be honored at the expense

of the so lU$ ChrisitJs.

1M s same sermon of Bernard 15 manti anad by luther 1 n the Ii schl"1eden .

Lu ther complai,ns t hat Bernard devotes the anti re sermon to jl1ary alone and

has nottling to say about the incarnation,lSI At another time he poi nts

to this senuon as an exampl e of some of the many t hings Bel"nard had

writt en about Nary that are most impious. But then he adds that in the

enu of his H fe Bernard turned alone to Chri st. comb ini ng again reference

to the Semones in cantica XX and to the Vita Prima Bernhardi,152 . ~- ----.. - - -- --------

14~St , L. VII. 913 .

150 ... • t.w 51. p. ~75 (lilA 51, 128).

151WT 1, No. 494: 118ernhardus consumit tatum serrnonem in laudo vir-91n1s Mariae at obliv1scitur rei 90stae ; er uno Anshel rnus haben Nar1am so hoch gahaben. Sed e1n christ lest dhputationes stehn et tractat affectus. Incarnat10nem i g1tur sol man hach hallten . Cr eatura Mari a non potest sntl's l auda ri, sed wenn der creator sel b kompt et fit pretium nostrum. das ist di e f reud.

152HT 1, t-io. 11U.

50

LuthiJr's entire criticism of i3e.~nard 's Narfology is in the interest

o'f preserving the hono r of Christ. l~herever. Bernard somehotv conflicts

\llith Lutl1er's doctrine of justification, criticism of the ~dieva l saint

is not spared. At the same time. Luther cont'lnues to accept the reality

of Bernard ' s personal Christillnity ilnd salvation. But he sees Bernard 's

salvation taki ng plact? according to his own docti'ine of justification.

Bernard 's use of Holy Scripture receives Doth pr aise and criticism

i n the later years of Lut.~er's life. Luther has hi gh praise for Bernard 's

lInders tandin:J of the Psalms. ~1ak1ng the point that the Psal ms must be

lived to be understood, he writes : "I see that St. Bernard was an expert

in this art and drew; from it all the wealth of his l earning. I,153 He

includes Be rnard among the theologians of whom he says: "In public they

i nterpret the Scriptures purely arlO in a dean manner . 11154

For Luther a proper use of Scri pture requi red IJflderstand1 ng of its

tvlO topics : threats and pn:llnises, that is, the law and the Gospel. He

finds support for this when Bernard writes in .De cons'iqeration~: 1\ .

hearts that are neither softened by kindnesses nor improved by blows are

properly c{llled hard. "155

t vennis ~olE!. ~.~rJJltI!L~ prinCiple Luther sees Be rnard supporting.

St . ael~nard had declared that he learned his wisdom from the trees; the

oaks and p1.nes vre re his teachers. This Luther understands to mean that

"he conceived his ideas from Scr1ptureand pondet"ed them ynder the trees ... 156

--------.~... ~.---"-" -"--153LW 14, p. 311 (WA 5. 47) .

154 ( ) Lid 9.; p. 164 vIA 14, 667 •

lS"lW 3. 225 (ViA 43~ 36 )

buLW 41, 20 (~IA 50. 520) .

61

In this connection Bernard also added t he t hought that line regards the

holy fathe rs high l y~ but does not heed all their sayings •.. he would

rather drink from the spring itself than f rom the brook. II Lut her makes

the (:ommentz "Thus Scripture, too. mus t remain mas ter and judge . . . ,,157

In Bemard's preferring t he spri ng~ Scripture, t o the bl"ook, the Fathers,

Lutllel~ with some justification sees his .§ola scri ptura pri nciple expressed .

of/evert i n his iJse of Scripture Ue rnard al so mee ts with Luther ' s

disapproval. Al though Luthe r recogni zed 13ernard's excell ent understanding

of the Psalms . he does not hesitate to say in reference to Psalm 91: 5-6:

"Thi s is 'l'l.Y unders tanding of the passage . I know , of course, that St.

ernard has a dffferent interpretation, wh ich is all right, though i ll my

0\'111 opi n ion, it 5 avors an too strongly of monk i shoess . . . "158

Be rnard is among t he Fathers. who all egori ze a great deal i n their

exposition of Scri pture . This i s not to l ut her! s liking: "The trouble

is that 5inc!: tney spend too much t i me on allegories, they call hearts

awa,Y and mak.e them fl ee from the historical account and f rom faith . .1 159

luthe r salaS Be rnard ' s i gnorance of languages resul t ing in false

in terpre tation . Bernard ~i 9ht be lofty of spiri t and be preferr~d nabove

11 other celebrated teachers both anci ent and modern . " Neverthe l ess, he

often "pl ays with t he Scri ptures and twi sts them out of their true

sense . ,,160 Th is ts t rue especially wtlGn he is cal l ed upon to gi ve response

to SOIile question. Too often he takes "someth ing away from Scripture, U

157LH 41 . 20 (WA 50. 520) .

158LW 35. p. 217 (UA 38, 14) .

159Ul 2. p . 164 (WA 42~ 377).

160LW 45. 363 (WA 15, 41).

161 and does "violence to the words of God,"

52

An examination of the quota tions from the years after 1521 leads to

some observati ons that need to be recorded here. To what extent they add

to .or modify concl usions previous l y stated \>dl l bo the concer n .of the

final part of t his thesis .

1. In the yeo r s aftel' 1521 Luther continues his high ora'lse of

e mard. Thel"C is, hOHcver . more frequent criticism than before. The

criticism also i s mot'E! seve re , although it rema ins unus ually mild fo r

man accus tomed to expressing hi mself i n l anguage that to twentieth century

ears 1 s harsh.

2 . Luthe r's doctrine of justificati on is t he chi e f criterion used

i n hi s judgnlent 'Of Bernard. Thi s also detennines t he doctrines in wh ich

criticism is expressed: monasticism, asceticism. Itariology. Where these

conflict witt! Lutherl s salus Christus~ sola grati a~ sola fide. Luther 'is .~-- _._._- - .- - ~-, .... - ... _.

not slow to express criticism. This even carries over lnto his criticism

of Be rnard ' s i nterpretati on o·f Scripture , \-/hen Luther, for example. finds

Bernard i nfl uenced by hi s monk1 shness .

3. In these l ater years luther frequently draws attention to what he

considers contradictory vi ewS in Bern.ard. Bernard lived a strict, asceti c

life, yet in tl1~ end hi s hope was in Ch r1st alone . He praised works .

yet he t urned to Christ in faith. He coul d \1rite beautiful expositions

of Scripture, yet he fail ed to follow Scr-ip'ture in his treatises. When

Bernard lets Scripture in its simple meaning stand, when Bernard speaks

from Scri pturo , Luther prai ses hi m hi gh ly. Hhat this rea lly means i s tha t

when Bernard "las; i n effect, following luther!g sola scriptura principle.

161 lW 9, p. 164 (WA 14. 667).

53

Luther found hi mself in agreement with Be rna rd . When Be rnard departed

f r om th i s princi pl e, and t his Luthe r saw happening particula rl y in

Be rnard 's treati ses, Luther found hi m contradicting hi mself and erl~ing .

4 . In spite of t hi s, the overall vieltl t ha t Luthe r has of Be rna rd is

still a favorabl e one . The errors he sees in Bernard he considers e rrors

i gnoran tly espo usea . Bernard di d not cling to t hem with soul -destroyi ng

tenacity . Unwi t t i ng 1 y he ga ve them up when he l ooked upon eh ri st . They

diu no t ove rthrovJ hi s si mpl e faith in Ch rist . The latte r was so evi dent

in Bernay·d ' s wri ti ngs that it far outwei ghed vlh ateve r Luthe r found to

reject in Be rnard .

IV. SUMMARY 08SERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

rt is my put'pose in this final part to dr aw together by Nay of

SUMmcwy observations and conclusions t he points that have bee 11 made :in

the preceding sections. These conclusions make no pretense at being

definitiv.c ; more e~(tensive research would be requiJ'£ld for that . I recog­

nize that they are based on research that is still incomplete, for the

rel ati onshi p betwoen Bernard and luther, although often Y'ecogni zed as

s i gnificant. has not received extensive study . Neve rtheless, the fol1o\'lw

ing conclusions, though less compel ling than one mi $;Jil t wish. seem vali d

at this point .

1. Luther occupied h'imself with a study of Bernard's writings,

especially his sel1!10ns, early in his monastic career. I see no reason to

uestion Melanchthon's account of the aged monk who directed Luther's

attention to one of Bernard's sennons . Scheel IS doubt that Luther in his

early Erfurt years read Bernard 's writings I do not find supported.

lt~ough Melanchthon does not specifically include Bernard as an author

with wnool luther concerned himself in his ·early years. the evidence

frOf" Luther's Oilln \'iritings leads to this conclusion . ~1hen Luther began

his l ectures on the Psalms, he studied v/ith care the ava1lable cOlnmentaries

on them, which do not include any t/ritten by Bernar d. His refer'~nces to

ernard at this time are not so frequent that they poi nt to a deep pra­

occupat1on with hi nt. On the other hand. they are suffiCien t ly extensive

to indicate considerable familiarity with Bernard's works . I therefore

conclude that he must have read Bernard in the earlier monastic years.

2. Luther appears to have gained an extensive knowl edge of Be rnard' s

writings ill those earl y years. He could quote Bernard. apparently from

54

55

loomory. on a wi de vari ety of subjects. even frequently nam'i ng the sout'ce.

Since the quotations generally are not exact·, one may conclude that Luther

had Ii i;:nowledge of Bernard that permitted such free quoting without the

need each time to turn directly to his source . If t he la tter had been

ecessary, one ',/ould expect the citillg to be verbatim. There i s little

cnanCie in the fr~qllency or breCiath of reference over the years . Th; s

supports the clai m fo r un early and extensi ve knowledge of Bernard on

the part of Lutl'ler.

3. This early ana extensive knowledge of 8ernard's writings Hill

not have fai led to influence Luther in his fo rmative years. Particularly

>t:rnard ' s sennons are quoted by lu ther with approval. Even in his later

years he speaks of them with praise, \,/hile he is criti cal of Bernard's

reatises. These sermons contain many refet'ences t hat direc t the indivi­

dual to Christ for forgiveness, comfort~ and peace . In his sennons Ber­

nara frequently expoundS Script~re in a simple manner wi th no effort to

force his exposHion into a specific theological framework. By selective

use of quotations from Bernard" one can show him to have he l d Lu t her l s

doctrine of .Justification. 16.. There are statements by Bernard that at

times express the principles of soll,Js Christus. soh gratia, and sola fide. __ ~-...:-.- ____ ~ ___ .a:-_. _ _ ~

162Theo • Dierks in liThe Doctri ne of Justification According to Bernard of Chi rvaux, 11 Concordi~ Theologi cal Nonthly, VIII (Oct .• 1937). 748-753, lises select quotations from Bernard 'to$how the similarity between his doctri ne of j.ustification and that of Luthe r. The references i ndicate that Be rnard at times expresses himself in a way that luther coul d not but approve. The question still remains whether these select quotations present the total picture of 8ernard l s theology. Ther~ is also the questi on whether Bernard \Iith expressions that are si milar to those of luther was us i ng them in the same way and with the same meaning. Die rks does . how/ever, also refe r in 'lis introduction to selections from Bernard _ that sho ... J Be rnard's Catholic views on merit. He $ however, consi de rs the former the "real oe r'nord. \,

56

If , as I'Je concl uded, luther's attention was drawn to Bernard 's se rmons

in the earl y years at Erfurt , their infl uence on luther' in t he critical

time of his li fe can hard ly be completely rejected.

4 . Nevertheless , i3e r nard alone woul d not have l ed Luthe r to his

doctri ne of justification. Berna rd's total theolof;Y cannot be. identi f ied

vlith Luther's.163 Bernard's monas t1 c1sm~ as cet1ci sr.1~ and l1ariolo9.Y fi nd

stmnQ expression i n his rlr itings and al'e recognized by l uther' i n hi s l at e r

years as conflicting \<!ith h1s own doct rine of j ustifica tion. 1,Ihen Luthe r

menti ons t hat Bernard soneti mes praisQd !4ary wi th t he resul t that Christ

was fe ared as an avenger of sin ~ thi s may well des cri be some of his own

reactions to thos~ parts of Bernard in his ea r ly y.ears . Thi s woul d have

1 essened Be rn ard is i nfl uence . That the 1 flfl uenee of Bernar d was not ~~jor

is borne out by the limi ted re fe rence t o Oe rnard i n t he Dictata~ and the

othe r early l ectures i n connection with po ints re l ated to the doctrine of

jus tification . 1 concl ude therefore t hat, although Be t'nardfs i nfluence on

Lut her 's development cannot be denied. 'Its pl ace in the to t al pi cture is

a H mi ted one .

5 . Scheel's COtnIllent t ha t the Reformer does not pl ace Bernard among

t hose who led hi m to the Gospel is ali ar gument from s il ence and in itself

is not conc1us1ve . It does . however. l end some support to t he conclus i on

163Rohnd t,1ousnier, "Saint Bernard and Martin Luther, " The J\merican Benedi ctioe Revi ew. XIV (Sept.,1963)' 448-462, says. on the one hand ;t'i'}at ernard hid the-:'greatest influence on Luther afte r St. Augusti ,ne. tlever­

the less , after noting several pOi nts of si mil arity betwean t he two , t40usnier takes up t he differences and comes to t he concl usion t hat Be rna rd was not a sour ce of Luther' s i deas . rathe r , that Luther' di d not really unders tand Be rnard. Mousni e r v(an ts to view Bernard 's theology as a unit and f inds Luther's disti nction bet \veen Be rnard i n t he serwons and in the _ treatises invali d. He assumes that a man must be consistent with himself. which tnay not a'hJays he the case.

57

of l1m'Hed influence i n vi ew of t he fact t :lat t iler.: are others whom Lutne r

uoes call his mas ters, elther positi ve ly or negatively . Ll.ither ~ for t:x­

afaple. calls Occam tliag is~ .meIJm164 and !L1e in 1ieJ;s ter. ne1 st et . 165 In a

more complc to sense $taupi tz N cei ves credit from Luther for l eadi ng hi m

to Cll rist . l 66 On tho oth~r !land. of Er asmus LutMr says: Ex t:raslI)o ni hi 1 -....... --.--. ........... - - -!!~~O .167 Si nce Llltnsr di d mention sOllie who were hi s masters) the omiss ion

of any loont i on of Bernard i n tni s rol e is support i ng evi dei1ce , i f not

conclusive, t hat B~rnarJ' s influence on lutiler was not of s i gnificant

i1agn1 tude.

The fi;lct remains. nev~rtheless, t hat lutner me nti ons H,ernard with

words of hi gtl praise . In the early years ~ Bernard is si mply quoted ~lith

approval . In the l a ter years s although Luther critici zes Bernard f or

some of hi s views , hi s words of commendation for t he monk's sennol1s con-

t int/e . If there are reasons for not speaking of a ~!!J9L JnflJ1ens'tt of

Bernard on Luther. the re is eve ry reason to speak of ~ons'ideraDls.. appre­

illlion, Oil the part of Luther for Bernard .

7. The conscious point of contact where l ut her found hi mself at one

11 ttl Bernard is theil" view of Chr -jst. This finds repeated e xpress10n in

Lut he r. Another point of contact , not consciously mentioned by Luther,

yet the basis fo r the former, :is their high esteem for Scripture and its

consequent authoritativE! lise. It is when Bernard in simple terms e xpounds

------------~----------------~~--------------------------.----~--~--164WT 2. No. 2544.

165WA 30/2, 300.

16" u~H 1. No. 526: "Sed .staupicius tneus d1cebat: Man mllsz den !Han ansetlen, d~ 1" da heys t Ch ristus . St aupicius hat di e doct rinam angefangen.!'

167HT 1, f'lo . 173 . Here he also refers agai n t o Staup'ftz : ulch habe all me1n ding von Doctor Staupitt ; der hatt m1r occas i onem geben . "

porti ons of Scri ptut'e that lie at the center of Luther's t heology that

tlie tHO mee t i n tiloi r thinking. 1S8

58

Thi s fi na 1 observati on is intended t o record a gen01'a 1 tmprt~SS i (In

gained f rom t ha study of 8e rnard and Lt.lti'ler i n relation to one another.

Ther'€! are many bl~oad si i'lilarities oot\:.:~er. the tv/o 50 that it is not sur­

prhing to f i nd luti1a" attl'act..:ad to Uernard . 169 For :"oth. l'eligion \'IllS

a deeDl), inward matter of the heart . Both were profoundly c{)ncernedabout

the removal of s i n and about salvat i on. Both f ound the ulti mate answer

in Ch r ist as revealed in the Scriptures . 80th ~Iere zeal ous agai nst error

that rai Qh t unden1ii ne the trut h as t hey had come to know i t . Both we re

prailcners who i ns pi red and i nf l uenced their hearers bey.ond meaSUt'8.

Both 'flere fea rless in purs ui ng whatever course their convi ctions led them

to. Each became in his own way t he miln of his cent ury. The filet that

.one champi oned t he papacy to t he end of his life~ the other f i nal ly saw

i n i t the Antichrist does not nullify the si mil ariti es between t he two

men, separated by four centuries of history .

168Kar1 Holl . Ges ammel te Aufs~tze I (7th ed . • TUb1ngen. 1948) . p. 28. correctly sees tl'H~ uTtTmate f nf'l uence on Lut her i n Paul, and that means. i n Scripture . In footnote 2~ he comments : "All e ande ren Einfl l.1sse, di e sons t i n dieser Zeit auf Lut her 9Cl\'ii rk t haben ••• sind l uletzt fUr Lu t her nur sowei t ltl1cht1 g geworden, al s si e i hn ZLI Paulus hinfUl1rten. " The closer anyone ~vas to SCY'ipture and to Paul , t lie greater ~!as Luther's appreci a t ion of him . This is true. also of Luther's appreciation for erilal'd .

16SRichar d Friedenthal, luther~ Sein LeLen und seine Zeit {Nun1ch, 1967} , p,. 79 . refers to theaffin1 ty of teii"ij,iiramintsTetween Luther and OerMrd; nEs gi bt Aff1 ni t1I t en de r Temperament e: Augusti n war schon aus di esem Gr l{nde Luther naher (al s Thomas ) . oder 8uch Bernard von Cl a irvaux, in dem er den groszen Pr~di ger and Vol ksmann SCtJa t l t e . '1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Sources and Translations

ernard

Barnard of Cl airvaux. Letters. Trans. bv Br uno Scott James. London, 1953. ------ . The .. Nativit:t. Chicago. 1959.

P"~tro lIillL~..9. cursl"! com.F-l~ ..• SBr1 e~~ Lati na_. Paris. 1857 ... 1904,

St . Bernard. Senllons for the §oason~ .0110 Pt'incipal ~~~11. 9'f !he Year', Trans . by a prif!s t of t40unt ~je ll€lray. 3 vo'fS:" Westminster , Md.:-ITsO.

~~lnt Berna rd: ~. T"'/~lve uegree s of !!!:!!111.1ity and ?.ride . Trans . by Barton R. V. t4il1s. Now York, 1929.

~_t.. ~£r!lard 21 '1 ai rvi.lUx: !lli; Storj' Qf Hi slife as_ £(ecorded .ill. the yita Prima Bernardi . Trans. oy GeOffrey Wel>1'>and Adri an Wal ker. West~ mlnster ~ N([-,-1960 .

~! .. _BQ!:,EJlrd P.! Clairvaux S~!! I~rou~ .t!j.~ Sel ~cted Lette rs . Ttans. by Bruno Scott James . Ctllcaqo,1953 .

Trans. and ed . by a rel i gi ous of

Saint Bernard on the Love of God . Trans. by Terrence L. Connoll y. New - - .. --.-'i7'\~ - --- - -York . b37 .

Sain t ~rl'lard, 9.P- !h~ ~.2!!.'l Q.f Songs.: ~!! rmones .:!D. fanticaCanti (~g rwn. Trans. and ed . by a rel i gious of C. S. N.V. NeH Yorl" H52 .

Saint t:lernard ls Treatise iJe Consideratione . Trans. by a pt'ies t of Mount -·--'e11eray. DubHn:--l92l.-

Sancli ~ernardi . Y..ee ra . 4 vols. Rome, 1957 .

Some Lettars of Saint 8ernard~ Abbot of Cli;Iirvallx. Se lected by Frand -- aGasqu'a"t: Londoii-; 1904. -- - - - .

Jhe Steps of HumilitYt Py Berna rd , Abb.Q1 of flai rva~. Trans. by George Hosl/iorth Burch . carob ri dQe. 1940.

The_ T1:eati5~ Qf St. l3erna r~. 8~~ot of C la!r~, Concerni!l..9..~Crace _an~ Free Wlll . Trans. by Watl<.ln ii. 'iITl1anls. Ne\,1 YOrk. 1::120. ----

60

B. Luthe r

D. fla rtin Luther s Herk::!, Kritisch~ Gesamtausgabc . tterke. 58 '101s . Brief­-wecilsel,l3-lIo1s. TlSch-re<!en.-1) vols . Ueutsche Bibel, 12 vo15 . , (" ,,: -..----...-- -

~Jelr.1ar. IdS <-

Dr . r'iartin Luther's S3nuntli che Schl"iften. Ed . iJy J. G. I'Jalch. 2nd ed • . -- -"2:fvols-:--st. lotiTs:!WO-1910.-

Luther:: Ea~1t.. IheoloQi calWorks . Vol. XVI of JM ,hitwar.l !If S!'L.!.!11an S:_!assic_~. Ed. and tt'ans . by James Atk inson . Phnadelphla, 1962 •

. Lut.~~I-' lectu~_~ 2!l Roman§.. Vol. XV of The Li b r~r.1.. p!_ fl1risti afl Clas.~. Trans. and ed . by Wilhel m Pauck. pmadel phla ~ 19:"9 .

. ~.ther : Letters of _~.E1ritl.lal_ Cou!!..sel_. Vol. XVIII of The ~r(r\ of ~nri stian ( l USS 1CS. [d. ana trans . by T. T~~pert. Phl a e phla, 1955 . ----- -

!:_~_~~ I S CorresR.onde~e .and Oth.!t f..e!ltep:!20rar.z lt~tte rs. Ed . and trans. ty Preserved 5mltn."2" vullo. prnadelphia~13-1n.

Luther's Works_. Ed. by Jaros 1 av Pe 11 kan and He l raut T. Lehmann. 35 of 56 V015 . compl eted . St. Louis and Philade l ph i a. 1955-

t-Ia rtin Luthe r on The Sondage of t he Wil1. Trans . by J . I. Packer and ---0. ~ . Jonnston-.- -Tondon.li)5/. --- ~-

Standard Edition of luther's WorKs . Ed . by John Nicholas Lenker. 13 vots . ---HlnneapOfis,l-903·-191O. - .- ---

I/lorks of !4artin Luther . Ed . by H. E. Jacobs . 6 vols . Philadel phia, -- 191"5:-1932 . --

C. Other

Corp~ Befol'}!~t.9!um. Halle > BraunschtJei g. Her1in, Lei pz i g, 1834. Reprint, ke\,IYOrl< and london. 1953.

II . Secondary Sources

~ . Bi bli ographical Ai ds

Aland . Kurt. Hllfsbuch zum Lutnerstudiw,.. Glltc rsl oh. 1957. ' .. ..,-~~~-- - .......... .' ._-

ainton. >Rol and. «Survey of Periodical Literature 'in the United States. 1945-195 1. " J\rchiY. fOr Refomationsgaschichte. XLI II (1952 ) , 88~106 ..

6

~ib1iq£wafh i'l ~-i-"l~ Blf~rrre .• J450-16.1!! .Q~ges 2ar~ de Ei4Q.! 1955. () vo s. Leloen, · 9 8·1967.

Bouton, Jean de 1 a Croix . Bi~lio9raphie bernadine, lS9~1~57... Paris. 1958.

Oillenberger . John. "Literature in Luther Studies, 1950-55." Church Hi~..l' XXV (1956 ). 160-77. .

. ;'i4ajor Volumes and Selected Periodical Li terature in Luther StUdies. 1956-69. n Q1urch History xxx (l9tH), 61-87 .

Grimm. Harol d J. "Luther Research since 1920 . " Journal of ~1odern H1st.Q!2, XXXII (l9to). 105-1B. ..--.- - -----

!~,dex t~ .r~JJ'.£i.o~! feri2.sii9ll hHeratt,tre. Published by the Ameri can Theolo!}fcal Library j\ssoci atlon since 1949. Chicago .

Janauschek. Leopol d. ~ibli o~lrapi1}lt beroar£.t'1.i!.' Hildeshe1m. 1959.

"Di e luthe.'fonchung in Deutschland seit dem 2. t4elt­ec .• 195G). 706-715.

"Luther Resea Since 1945. " lutheran ~lorl d, XIII (196G), Mo. 3. - '----" p.auck. Wi l helm. "The Hi storiography Of. the Glltrmnn Reformation in tbe

Past TI>i€mty Years. " ChurchH1story , IX (1940), 305-40.

Reu. f1 . Th1rty~Jtv_e Years .Qf!-uther B..~ch . Ch1ca90.1917 .

SChotten l0her_. Karl. _ ~iplip~r;eh i e !H!. .~leut~'hen G(~i .cht~ iEl Zeitalte!, . .f4er· ?.l.£'~Densspaltul~~ 1._.-iiffi'5. 6 vo15 . Leipzig. 1933 .. "39 . Vol. VII . Oas Sci'll" -tum .~1l1938~196p. Stuttgat't. 1962 .

Vajta . V1 1ntOs • • ed. ~uth&l·-Forschuf!S. tieute. Serlin, 1958.

1-101 f. ,Gustav. ~ue~lenkunde ~qr deutsch.en ~eformationsg~~chichte. Gotha, 191 -2 .

3 vols .

B. Books and Arti cles

Adam. Karl . The I\oots of toe Re formation. New York . 1951-• __ ... . _ • • __ _ .. 4" ~ --"'J." _____ ... __ ...

II lthaus. Paul. ID!~ InCOlf9l gf f~arti n b~~. irans. by Robert C. Schultz. PhlladeTi>h a, 196b .

i-\rtz . Frederick B. Th~ tilDE. ~ ~hePfddle A9.~. 3rd edition. New York ; 19&9 .

AtkinsRcmi, .Jall;'11~:"" The .§!1tat U \Jht: huther ~.!!!!. the Refonr.a tion. Grand

ap os, l1bo .

fiu Hm , tiustaf E. ri . Chr istus Victor : i-lJl Hi storical Study of th~ Three ~a1n TJpes 2!.. th~ fde_~.91 th~Atoneme_nt . Trans. bv A. rH85erf. i4ew York. 1:.131 . .,

0((

a i flton, Ro 'l and

--~-...........

iJere I Stand: A Li fe of 14arti n Luther. __ ~ ...... _ ... ____ _ _ . __ __ ~...o;.- _~_

ThO. Ref o lJ.l:la t..12!!. ,of ,~h~ Si xteenth Cet'J!ury .

ashville, 1950.

aston, 1952.

!3eara . Cllarl es. I!l~ i<e.fQrma~1~!! of ~l)e ~.!3..i~~,nth Cent~.!.X., 5th ed. London, 1907.

i3eisser. Friedrich. Cl_a rita~ 2cri pt ur ae bei, !>Iart1'n_ Lu~er . Gtlttingen, 1~66 .

iJizer , Ernst . .fJ_das., ~~. 1:!ud it~.! £i!l .. ~ Unte r$uc~~ ~ !!ie En;tdeckung de~ !!ar~i!'ti PS~j'! Gott~! ifu ~<:!~ rarti!l Luthe r. ITanllstadt . l<)SB, 3rd. e' t on . 1966.

131 aney, Ida ~ia 1 z. l~~_ 8~ of tuther; ,Ths §.E1d.!. of Renai , sance-Humanism ~nd .~hl!, R.eformat1oll' !'few YorK. 1%7.

Bluhm , Heinz . f4arti n l uthe r : Creative Trans l ator. St . louis , 1965. --- -~- - --_. ---oanme r , He i nr ich. i<oad t o Reformation: Marti n Luther to the Year 152l.

Trans. by John ~J .-5o!;)berstein-ana-rheodore G. Tap"perC--PFiffade:Tj)hia, 1946.

The Book of Concord. Trans. and ad , by Theodore G. Tapper t . Philadel ph i a. - '-1959-. ,-.. ~--

tior nkamm . lIei nrich . Yhe Bea!'t of Heformation fa i t il! The Fundamental Axioms of £vannen carFafth-:- ~'trans. by ,)ol)n W. Dobberstei n. New YorK,1%5-.~-'='--- -. . -~~

".:-r--;-;-:-_.~~tryer l_~, Worl d Qf Th~ht. Trans. by Hartin H. Ber tra",. ~t . L.OU1S. llhtt .

Borflkamm~ Karin . ~uthel"S. Aus l egungen de~ Galaterb ri ef~ ~I'I 1519 lind 1631. rlin . 1963. ..

Sutler$ Cuthbert. ~jestern ~yst~. New York . 1966 reprint.

lwdwick , O~/en. Thtt. Raformattorl_, Grand Rapi ds ~ 196.4.

I!:!.Et Chu r<;h . t!xs Uci$m. ?(m_~ t!.tfcatfon ~d ~he ~tural .!E. Luther' ,S .Though t. V. f)_Y Ivar Ashei m. P1111adaipnTa , 1907.

oples ton. Frede rick. i~dieval Pni losoph'y_ NaN'J York. 1952 .

aniel ... Rops . Henry. Be rnard of Clai rnux. . TraM. by C11zabeth Abbott. _ New York. 1964 . - - --~

. The Protestant Reformation. Trans . by John ~Ja rr'1 ngton. 'tondon;I9Gl . -- - . - . ~-~~- '--

Denifle. Heinri ch. Lut her _und Luth~ t"thum 1. f·1ainz . 1904.

lJi erks, Theo. "The Doct ri ne of J us tification accordi ng to Bu r nar d of

7c41ai ryaux. lI Concot'dia .Theological ~nJ.f!li:. VIII (Oct .• 1937) ,

8-703.

63

Dol an, John P. Il1 stoJ.::.!: of t he Reforma tion : A Conciliator.¥. ASS~S 5fl1A:nt of ~P2osit~. Y1ews. l'Iew Yorlt,--i96iC--- - -- _ . -.-

umontier, P. --' .. ..,. ~ d h 3 i b l~. Paris , 195 ....

Ebeli ng, Gerhard. Evanqeli,schE!. E'.l..!.n_G.elh:naus legu.!.1i1.: E~ne Untersucnung ~ .~itil~ t~crmoncuti k . · Darmst'ldt, 1962 .

LutJ!!!'.! Ei nftlrun.£l in §ein Den ken.. TUb i ngen. 1964.

lert . Herner . The Structure of l utheranism. Trans . by l~alter A. Hansen. - 7 ,-------... - - - ' I '- --St. Louis , 1902 .

-He, Robe.rt H~rndon . . y'oun;J L ~ther.: Th~ Inte ll ectual ~d Re1i 9 iou~. ~velopmcnt ~f Marti 1!. Lu~ to 11)18. New YOrk; 1928 .

. The Hevolt of t~a.rtin Luther. New Yor k, 195 •• ----_. __ . , --, - .-- ... -- -'"'- -~-- -Friedefltilal, Richar d. !-utl1er: ~ein Leben ~nd se i~ Zea . Hunich. 1967.

Gerrjsh~ Bri an A1ber t . 5ir;ace ~B.!I_ ~j;s 0f!.: !1 Study .!D. tile Jl1cp l ogy of luthf!r . Oxford. 196r.----------_ .....

_-,,,-_ .• _ llHartin Luther. It The En£,Ycloped1a ~f Philosophy. flew YOI'k, 1967 ~ V ~ 109~1l3.

Gil son, Etienne. T~£. !1l!.stie~l T..!Joo1oSl. pf Saint Be t"nJlrd. H. C. Bmmes. New YorK . 1940.

Trans. by A.

Gogart~n , fr1c dri<;h . Di e yerkl.l ndi 9t!!!9.~. fh ristt . Hei del berg , 1949.

Gri mll1~ Harold J . The Heformqtiorl l:.ra, 1500 .. 1650. New York~ 19.65 • ... -- '. -,~.--.... -,-.- ... - - -

Grisar. Hartmann. r1art1n luther's Leben und sein ~Serk . Freiburg i rn 1J 1'Oi 5 1J(lU. 192t:---~ _ . -~. -- ---- ---- .. ~ .

Hacqgl un~ , Sengt . Hist<rr..'!. o! Theol_qu. Trans . by Gene J . Lund . St. LOlHS 1966 .

--'--._ . ' The2..~1e .1:!1l<! Philosoeh1a ~~ Luther !,nd in ~ Occ3mi .... stisChen Tradmon. L una. !95"!). ------ -~-----

llaQao, Kunnct h G. '~Changes in the unders t andi .ng of Luther : The Cevelop­mentQf' the Young Luther. " Theologjcal Studies, XXIX (Sept. ,1968), 472,,496 . . --~-- - --

64

Harbison . £. Harris. The Aqe of Re fonnation. Ithaca. New York~ 1955. -- -,- - ------- ... -~

.--.-~~...,....- . The Ch ri st1an Scholar in the Aqe of the Heformation. 'e~~ York , 19s1i-:- ' - --~ - -- -

Headley, J . 11. ~_~-,=15 Yiet! of Chl!!:f.~. Higory. r;£::\1 Haven . :1.St63.

Hermann. Rudolf. luther~. !he.pJogie . GOtting£:n, 1967.

He rold, n. "i3cl'lldrd of Clairvaux . " !he. tl!!\J. Scl~aff-!~!:.~.2.9.. incydopedia .of /teligious Kno\lledge . Grand Rapids. 1963 rcprlnt. I , 62-(,6.

Hirsch. Emanue1. ll!th~~di €!1!.. 2 vols . GUtersloh, 195 ....

BolbOrn, Hajo. !l Mi stor.!. of. tloderll. ,Ge~I}1.: The. rs.~f~~i on. rfuw York. r~-

011, Ittl eo; ti on .

Hyma, Al bert. Luthel"s }heolo9ic~!.. P.~J op.!nan~ ftJ?!!l ~rfu r_~ !2. Au~t.lUrg. I~Ci'l York. '19£:8 .

_ £l_tergr~t i nQ buther's b~ac;:y . td . by Fred H. t·leuse.' and Stanley O • .. c neT4fer. ',11 nneapol1 s. 1969 .

hJand. Hans Joachim. !lechtfarti gunQs 1 ehre unci end s tusgl aub'!: t 1 ne Unter­l,;uct:!.uoll ?Ur SystematiJ cler ~ecll tferti gungs@nre Luthe rs in. jhren ~Ef~ng~n. leipzig, 1930 .

James, 8runo S. Saill~ Bernard of Clair~. London, 1957 .

Kadai. Ha;no O. ~n'~.!!!. l,u,!:her'.s 111001091.. St. louis. 1967.

Katzenbach~ fri edrich Wilhel m. ~1al·ti n buthe r unt! di~ Anfange 1er Re forma-'!:i on.. Ctitersloh. 1966 .

Ker,', Hugh Thomas, Jr . • ed . ~ COJ!!P~ of h.!!.th:eri Theolo~lY . Phi l adel­phia, 1943 .

Kidd. B. J . • cd . Documents Illustrative of t he Continent al Reforll1d tion. Oxfo r d, 191 1. . _ ' - --- - - - -- .

Kt1owles. Davi d. IIBe rnard of Cla1 rvaux . 11 Jha En~cloped.i.a of PhilosoJilll' llt:\'~ York, 1967 . I. 305-3J6 .

----.---~

Koestlin , Jll l 1US. nd edition.

The ~volu!.i9'!!' of }'1edi eval Thought. aHi more; 1!)62 .

f.lartin Lltther : Seln Leben und Seil1G Schriften . Berffi1; TIRJs-:-' -- --- -- -_.

___ . _ .. ___ • Th~ Theol oJll(. pf lu~~r !!l_ i ts_ ~J S!Qf~ ca 1 Oev~lopme~t Q./lS.lnLHlr Harmony. Tt'an!.. by Charfes E. Hay . Pi'11 1adeTpn1.l , 1897 .

65

~oo i ltlar •• Jiln 11i11 effi. pas altkirchl.lche. Dogma 1!! ~I~ Re formiltijln . Munich. 1955 .

_, _______ • L~_ther ~nd !he Bi ble_. Trans. by John Schmidt .

Kui per, Sa,rend Kl ass. 193J.

'4al"tin Luther: The Format'ive Years . --- ~ -- ~----- --' - Grand Rapi ds •

Li.iU, Fr-anz. !-~~Il~. Trans. by RO!Jert H. Fischer . Philadelp[lia. 1963.

Li ndsa.,v, T. f't jJ\ Hi!; rorl of L New York. 1906 .

vols. i n!Jurgh and

Link. Uilhel m., Pl!~ Ringen Luti:ers ,~:die Frei heli (fer:. Theo.!2nie von ~er ni l I 1 f " h 'I) .. ' .dL..91.QP~. .lume, .\.,,~'!:i.

Loase, Bt l'nhard , ~(lt.if.!.~!'£ [iass,: £!!!£. :In,tc r~uchung llber die rati!? ill ~el~ Theel 09; e, lu ther2..G(Jtti ngen. 1958.

Lortz, J5?sePh~ i3d . ~!E!d ~ Cla.:!rvau~: r18nc!!. und H,Ysti ker . WiesbadeTl~ u :.>.

. The HeTJrmation i n (,ermanl..' 2 vol s . Trans . by Ronald "-~-tla 1 "15":'" Londonand1lel'1 York t 196s.-'

Luddy* Ai l be J. Life and Teaching.Q.f. St . ~ernard . Duhli n.1927.

~lcKi nnon . James. Luther and t he Re.formation . 4 vols. London. 1925-30. --- - -- ------McSorley, H"r.ry J . LU~ler: Ri ght pr Wr§n9? !l.n.. fcumen i cal:'Iheologi cal

~t:ud~ ot luther's M~jQr Work.'1hg, --.2fodagp_ of the Will.. New York and 111 nneapo 1 i .G. l~J69 .

Manns> Peter'. Lu.tllerforsch_ung ileum: ~. lind Auft ruc~ . Wi e:sbacen. 1967.

NCi ssinaer, Y-arl AUflust . De r ka t ho lische Lut he r. i1unlch. 1952. - ------,-- "'"-"---.....

~1e rton, Thomas. nu~ Las t of the Fathers: Sai nt Bernard of Cl a1 rvaux and the Enc,Yclic.alLctt e r:--OOctor UeUJfl uus~ 'hew York-, 1954 . -

1ousni er, Rol and . "Sai nt Bel~nard and t1artin Luther. " The American cnedicti ne Rev1 €M, XIV (Sept. ) 1963). 448 .. 4G2 . -- --'- ' -- --- --- ----

luehl haupt. ErHi n. fl.' Hartin .!-uthers Psalt1'len-~usle£ung. Gottingen. 1959 •

.. ucl"lct' • .1.. V. Luthcrs ~1e rdeq~ng his zum TUnT:e rl ebni.s . Gotha. 1920 .

t1urray , Ji l bert Victor . f~~JBr..s!. and ~. belIl~!d: ~. Stm5y t~. nilelfth ~ell~~ "t1oderni sm .1

' rievJ YorK . 1967 .

~~he New faliib..!.i§~ t1oderl'l. H1story, J1., The ~e..fo rmation. New York. 1959.

Oben:lan. l1eiko J\ugus ti.nus . Jhe liarvest 121 1,1ed1eval Tryeolog,t. (i..and Rap i ds " 1967. '

66

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Luther tIle Expositor: Introduction to the Refonller's LxegE:ti~i!l.lritings. St. Louis, 1958.

Pinornaa, Lennart . Faith Victorious: I-In Introduction to Luther's TneoloQ',. Philadel ph i a, 1963. ~-

i,unk8. Leopold von. iiistor* of tilt:! t,erormation. Trans. by Saran Austill. 3 vols. London, IJ4~- 7.

The "cfonllation: ,{cvival or Revolution? i:.d . by ~. Stanford Reict. Nevi York, 1Y6t:. ----

\eu, J. 1'1 • .!-utner and tne Scriptures . Col umbus, lcJ44.

,"(itter, Ge rHard. Luther: nis Life ~nd worK. Trans. by Jofm Ricil€s .

l{UPP. bordon. LuLllerls Pr..2.9,.ress to thE: ~)iet. of ItJonus . Chicago, 1951.

Th£ i~ighteousness of God. London. 1:153 .

Saarnivaara, Uuras. Lutner Loiscovers the Gospel .: !'lew light upon ~uther's ~~a1. frail hedieval Cati10l icism to E.vanqel ical Faith . St . Louis, 19:51.

Sdlaff, Ph il ip. Ttl,- 'Je rHan I{e fonnation. tile Chri sti aril':hurc!1. 2no editi on.

01. VII of SCllaff's ;~istor.v of Grand Rapids, 1010 .

SCllecl , Otto. Ookull;ente ~ Luthers t.rtwicklung bis 1':;19. TUiJingen, IJ2~. '

~ ______ Ji~ cnt\,11 cklLmC1 Lutllers ois ~Ufll t\oscnl uss de r vorles.ling Uber den t{dme rbri €f. Vol. XXV II of Schriftcn des Vereins fUr I\cfor-inaffonsgescnici~.t~. Leipzig. 1~lO . - -- ---

Lutners .Ste 11 ung zur :lei 1 i gen Scnrift: nli:li nQ~n, 1::.102.

,Iartln Luther: VORl Katl10lizismus zur I\cforlliati on. 2 vo rs~.- ---:rrQ edition. TUoi nqe n. 1~21-30 .

Scnlink, t:dmulld. ]"oeoloQY of tne Luthera 'l Confess ions. Trans. by Palil F. i\oellneke ana He rilert J . A. dOUlIlan. Philaaelphia,1961.

Sch .... arz, ke inharCl. Iiocs, .?pes und sari tas bei,a junq.:m .Luttler unt~r oesonaerer berllcilsichti gung de r mittelalterlichen Traaition. l.lerl-in, 1)62 . - - --

Scnwi cl.)e rt, c. G. Lutllcr ilnd His 11rnes_. St. Louis, lJ!>O .

Set:berg, Ericl1- Lutners Tneo'iogie. 2 vo ls. Stuttgart, lS2:'-40.

Simon, Edith. Luther Aliv~: r'larti n Luthe r .and the haking o~ the kefor­ltlati on. Garaen l. i tv, :L Y . , 1968 .

Smalley, Beryl. Tlte Stuay of tne Bible .:!..!!.. the Hiad l e Ares. Oxford, 19Ji.

~illitn. Preserved . fne Age of tile ii.etonTlution. l.e~1 York, 1920.

67

Life and Letters of Luther. Boston and New York, 1911.

Stange. Carl. Die Anf~nge der Theologie Luthers. Berl in, 1957.

Stracke, Ernst. Luthers grosses Selbstzeugnis 1545 tiber sein~ Entwicklung ZUlli Refonllator. Lei pzi g, 1926.

Tappert, Theodore G., Kooiman, ~Jil lem J., and Green, Lowell C. The ~iature Luther. Decorah, Iowa. 1959 .

Taylor, H. O. The Hedieval ~1ind. 2 vols. 4th edition. NevI York, 1925.

Thiel, Rudolf . Luther. Serlin. 1933.

Todd, John t4urray. ~jartin Luther: ~ Biographical Study. t~estminster. I4cJ.. 1964.

Vajta. Vilmos, ed. Luther and Melanchthon. Philadelphia. 1960.

Vogelsang. Erich. Die Anf~nge von Luthers Christologie nach der ersten Psalmenvorlesung,- insbesonCie're in ihren exegetisch-en undSystematischen Zusanmenhgngen mit Augustin und der Scholastik dargesWlt. Leipzig, 1929.

__ ....---,---;-_ . "Luther und die I~ystik. II Luther-Jahrbuch 1937. 32-54 . Amsterdam; 19b7 reprint. --

Watson. Pnili p Saville . Let God ~ i3od_! An Interpretation of the Theology of ~1artln Luther. Philadelphla. 1948.

Hilliams, Watkin. The Hysticism of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. London, 1931.

St . Bernard: The Nan and His r1essage. I''lanchester, 1944.

Saint Oernard of Clairvaux. westminster. Hd . , 1952 .

Stuaies in St. Bernard of Clairvaux. London, 1927. --

::".

",

......

·0

...

'"0

t"u

~

{i\

v

<

C" :L