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 Re­ quirements 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 1tse 1f 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 . . 4 I. r1elanchthon's Hioqraphical Reference 7

II. Luther' s Kno~/l edge of Bernard 15

III. Luther's Views of Bernard .. · 32

IV. Su~nary Observations and Conclusions • 54 Bibliography ••.•....•••.... · 59

2 3

ABBf\EVIATIJj~S

U~ Luther's Works, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. louis and Philadelphia, 1955- ). PL Patrologiae ,fursus fompletus ••. Series latina, (Paris, 18Si-1904) •

St. L. Or. Martin Luthers S~mmtliche Schriften, ed. by J. G. Walcn {2nd edition~ St. Louis, lSao-19l]0. WA O. Martin Luthers Werke. Krit1sche Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar, --1883- ) . ---

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

WT 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

1I 0ne 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~ Enclclope­ dia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids,-r96~print), 1t,6 . 2Thomas Merton, The Last of the Fathers (New York, 1954). This con­ tains 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 1psum 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 1anchthon 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 19 1n Erfurt." 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. 12

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 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 1nterpre­ tatus 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 commone­ factum 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 1ar 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 1I 0 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 1nf1 uenee was there and shou 1d 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 36 and adds the treatise, De consideration~, as a source of reference. 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 sennons 37 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. 32 WA 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

40 sermons. 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*, Rein­ hard 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 !.

43 1n 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

1i 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 47 is from the Semones -in cantica -XX. 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 Psalmen­ vorl.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 1ibraries 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*. 22 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 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. From Resolution,!! !!!!2utat10n,!JIR 2! fndu'ifnt1arum virtute, 1518. 62 8, 601. WA 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 23

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 1ug~ 1e1" "No,tI he says, "It is all lost and belongs to the devi1." 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: 66 et ubi inc1pimus .

Luther quotes twice in Ad Romano;s ~pistol

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 sdlo1 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 1ater 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.WA 3. 82. 198,• WA 56. 13 7 , 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." 72 For 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. - - 25 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. 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 letely 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 a150 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 76 for EUgene. 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 ~F'De servo arbi trio. since the latter wrote a treatise _Oe 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

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

OOWA 3, 417. 81 WA 4, 198. 82 WA 3, 110; WA 4, 364. 83WA 4, 331. &4 WA 56, 19, 192. 85 WA 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. 89 WA 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 k. bI w Martini'__ .. , , , Lutheri 1udicium. The former is a 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

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

98 and $ola f1de. 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

u Bernard on The Nati¥1~ could well qualify IS thlt "certain sermon : ••• 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 ••• Tbere­ fore. 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 104 in Ad ~ebr.!!l.2.! ephtola. 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 11116 God in the Scriptures. 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 1gnored. 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 1attar 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. 129 Sometin.s he adds a further reference from the ---Vita Prima 8ernhardi."",.,-- 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 the boundless love and mercy of God.H128

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

~!. praising Bernard for turning to Ch rist alone in the face of deat ... Someti mes he adds a further t'aference from the Vita Prima Be rnha rdi. 129 --.- --.;,-..;. In De .serv9. arbi$!.!Q. the fonner is used to stress that man has no power that can apply itself to grace. 130 The latter is used to sholtl t hat Be rnard,

\'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 comb ines 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 d1ract­ ly to the ---.--.Vita ·reference: UB ut 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 passion and death. The first

Thou dos t keep for Thyse 1f by Thy b1 rthr1 ght; the 1atter Thou dost grant to llIe by the right. not of works but of grace. 10131 Here all three, solus .Ch r1stus, Sol a gratia, !Jld sola fide af'le in clear evidence and luthe r 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 leads Luther to the judgment t hat Bernard Ilhad the best knov/ledge of re ligion, as hi s \'Jritings 5 hO\\I . ,,13:1 He only was llworthy of the name 'Father Be r 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 mode rate 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 surely meri t damnation . Luther goes on to say t hat Bernat'd may have been a sincere monk~ yet he set a bad example . 135 .In what did Bernard's poor axampl e consi s t? In the early twenties already Luthe r v/ rote that saints like Jerorile, AU9us tine. and

Bel'nard failed in this that t hey It set up orders an d rules of wo r ks con­ trary to the pu rity of faith. 11 136 Luther often poi nted out t hat t he monks of hi s day no longer we re fol1Q't/i ng the spi rft of their founders. However, even if the religion and di scipline of Be rnard 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). 134LW22. 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 Ver damnisz, wenn einer nicht 1m Kloste.r bl1ebe •. • Er ist \'101 eill erfahrener unci etlbter M6nch ge\'1esen. aber er hat ei 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 wh ich Luther vleighs Be l-nard's monastici sm and finds it

~1ant in g . Bernard. Augustine. and many othe rs ltwould ce rtainly have had to be condemned (as Wyc liffe 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 e rror ."13~ for Luther, Be rnard's faith and love for Christ still out­ weighed the errors in which he unwittingly. as Luther thought of it, was involved.

This same standard tHiS used by Luther to evaluateSernard's life of abs t1 oanee. Frequent1 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 140 H unbear able 'to the rest when the cho1r was assembl ed . " On the o~e hand , luthe.r does mention that later Bernard "came to his senses an d 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 Nevertheless the

--- .-'<----- ~~ __. __ . ___ -----L 137L.W26. p. 459 ( WA 40/ 1. (86) . lhis 15 from Lutherls 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 Be rnardi, PL 185-1. 239-40. - --. - . . .

141Uw 30 , p. 27 (WA 12, 2S3 ). 47 abstinen ce 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'iould be a s in not to abstain. u142 If fasting was i mposed as a nece'ss1ty so that fai l ure to abst.ain became it sin, t hen it came i nto con flict \"'ith Luther' s ~o1a gratia j Ustification. The latter was the criterion b_1I wh i ch Bernard' s fasting had to be judged .

In Luthe r' s lat er years, Bernard' 5 Ma riol ogy f re

ernard "t here \~ a s, strictly speak i n g ~ no s uch thing as a comp l etely deve 1oped ' ~1 ari o 10 •• He quotas another 11modern theologi an" to the same ef fect ; lilt is i mpossi bl e to speak or write adequa tely of Mary wi thout havi ng first st udied what Sai nt 8ernard has \4 r itteYi about her . 11144 On the sub ject of '·1ii rlol ogy. Luther is critical of Bernard.

U e hUls t . howuver, note carefully the reason for the cri ticism, for

Luthe r does al so pr aise Bernard for what he says about the Vi rgin Mary_

Refe r rlng to 14ary·s response to the angel's announcement t hat she i s t o be the mothe r of' Ch ris t , Bernard says "that the strength of faith of the

Virgi n \iho coul d be lieve the words of t he angel was no l ess a miracle than the incarnati on of the Wort.l i tself. il 145 Luthe r uses this as an

142 L¥J 35, p. 134 (WA 10/2. 74 ) . 143Merton, 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 faul t with Bernard's comnent about the miracle of Ma r'y·s faith.

owever, vlhenever anythi ng Bernard says of Ma ry conn 1cts \'11 til Luther" S doctrine of justif ication , his criticism is quick to appear. He calls a

1 picture of Judgment Day. based on St. bernard I s writings. ' shameful and blasphemous ,

Cil rist's harsh condemnation of the Pharisees in contrast to ~1 ary'$ llittenberg l ut he t' men tions Be rnard i n connection with t·1ary. He aSKS; tlAre we t o worshi p orl ly Christ·? Indeed, shoul dn ' t

\'Ie also honor t he holy mother of Ch rist? She is the \'loman \1ho bruiSed the head of t he serpent. Hea r us, Mary, for thy Son so honors thee that he can refuse thee nothing. It Luther answers; llHe re Be rnard went too far i n his IHol'llilies on the Gospel M issl!~ 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 Be rnard 15 manti anad by luther 1 n the Ii schl"1eden .

Lu ther complai,ns t hat Be rnard de votes 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 written about Nary that are most impious. But then he adds that in the enu of his H fe Be rnard turned alone to Ch rist. comb ining again reference to the Semones in cantica XX and to the Vita Prima Be rnhardi,152 . ~- -- --.. ------

14~St , L. VII. 913 . 150 ... • t.w 51. p. ~ 7 5 (lilA 51, 128). 151WT 1, No. 494: 118ernhardus consumit tatum serrnonem in laudo vir- 91n1s Mariae at obliv1scitur rei 90stae; er uno Anshel rnu s haben Nar1am so hoch gahaben. Sed e1n christ lest dhputationes stehn et tractat affectus. Incarnat10nem i g1tur sol man hach ha llten. Creatura Maria non potest sntl's l auda ri, sed wenn der creator selb kompt et fit pretium nostrum. das ist di e freud. 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 in the later years of Lut.~er's life. Luther has hi gh praise for Bernard 's lInde rs 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 Lu ther a proper use of Scri pture requi red IJflde rstand1 ng of its tvlO topics : threats and pn:llnises, that is, the law and the Gospe l. He finds support for this when Be rnard writes in .De cons'iqeration~: 1\ . hearts that are neither softened by kindnesses nor imp roved 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 ynde r 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 Be rnard also added t he t hought that line regards the holy fathers 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 rema in mas ter and judge . . . ,,157

In Be mard's preferring t he sp ri ng~ Scripture, to the bl"ook, the Fathers,

Lutllel~ with some justification sees his .§ola scriptura pri nciple expressed. of/evert i n his iJse of Scripture Ue rnard also mee ts with Luther' s disapproval. Al though Luther recognized 13ernard's excellent understanding of the Psalms . he does not hesitate to say in reference to Psalm 91: 5-6:

"Th i s is 'l'l.Y understanding 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 allegori ze a great deal i n their exposition of Scripture. 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 flee from the historical account and f rom faith . .1 159

luther salaS Be rnard' s i gnorance of languages resul t ing in false interpretation . Bernard ~ i 9h t be lofty of spirit and be prefer r~d nabove

11 other celebrated teachers both anci ent and modern . " Ne verthe less, he often "pl ays with t he Sc riptures and twists them out of the ir true sense . ,,160 Th is ts t rue especially wtlGn he is cal led 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 4 2~ 377). 160LW 45. 363 (WA 15, 41). 52

and does "violence to the wo rds of God," 161

An examination of the quotations from the years after 1521 leads to some observations that need to be recorded here. To what extent they add

to .or modify concl usions previousl y stated \>dl l bo the concer n .of the final part of t his thesis. 1. In the yeo rs 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! severe, although it rema ins unus ua lly mild for man accus tomed to expressing himself i n l anguage that to twentieth century ears 1s harsh.

2. Luthe r's doctrine of justificati on is t he chi e f criterion used

i n hi s judgnlent 'Of Be rnard. Th i s also detennines t he doctrines in wh ich criticism is expressed: monasticism, asceticism. Ita riology. Where these conflict witt! Lutherl s salus Christus~ sola g rati 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 monk1sh ness . 3. In these l ater years luther frequently draws attention to what he considers contradictory vi ewS in Be rn.ard. Bernard lived a strict, ascetic

life, yet in t l1~ 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 failed to follow Scr-ip'ture in his treatises. When Be rnard lets Scripture in its simple me aning stand, when Bernard speaks from Scri pturo, Luther praises him hi gh ly. Hhat this really means i s that when Be rnard "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 rnard. Whe n Be rnard departed

f r om thi s princi pl e, an d t his Luthe r saw happening particularly in

Be rnard 's treatises, Luther found hi m contradicting hi mself and erl~ing .

4. In spite of t hi s, the overall vieltl t hat Luther has of Be rna rd is still a favorabl e one . Th e errors he sees in Bernard he considers e rrors

i gn oran tly espousea . Bernard di d not cling to t hem with soul -destroyi ng

tenacity. Unwi t t i ng 1y he ga ve them up whe n 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 foun d 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 wou ld 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'eco gni 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 valid at this point.

1. Luther occupied h'imself with a study of Be rnard'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 Be rnard'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 himse lf in his ·early years. the evidence frOf" Luther's Oilln \'iritings leads to this conclusion . ~1he n 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'~nce s 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 suffiCient ly extensive to indicate considerable familiarity with Be rnard's works . I therefore conclude that he must have read Be rnard 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 latter had been ecessary, one ',/ould expect the citillg to be verbatim. There i s little cnan Cie in the fr~ qllen cy or breCiath of reference over the years . Th; s supports the claim for un early and extensi ve knowledge of Be rnard on the part of Lutl'ler. 3. This early ana extensive knowledge of 8e rnard's writings Hill not have fai led to influence Luther in his formative years. Particularly >t:rnard ' s sennons are quoted by luther 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 direct the indivi­ dual to Christ for forgiveness, comfort~ and peace. In his sennons Ber­ nara frequently expoundS Sc ript~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 ld Lu t her l s doctrine of .Justification.16.. There are statements by Be rnard that at times express the principles of __soll,Js~-...:-.- ____Christus.~ soh___ .a:-_gratia,. and _sola_ ~fide.

162Theo • Dierks in li The Doctrine of Justification According to Bernard of Chi rvaux, 11 Concordi~ Theologi cal Nonthly, VIII (Oct .• 1937). 748-753, lises select quotations from Be rnard 'to$how the similarity between his doctrine of j.ustification and that of Luthe r. The references i ndicate that Be rnard at times expresses himself in a way that luther could not but approve. The question still rema ins whether these sele ct quotations present the total picture of 8ernard l s theology. Ther~ is also the question whether Be rnard \Iith expressions that are similar to those of luther was us i ng them in the same way and with the same meaning. Die rks does . how/ever, also refer in 'lis introduction to selections from Be rnard _ that sho ...J Be rnard's Catholic views on merit. He $ however, consi de rs the former the "real oer'nord. \, 56

If, as I'Je concl uded, luther's attention was drawn to Be rnard's sermons

in the early years at Erfurt, their influence on luther' in t he critical time of his life can hardly be completely rejected.

4. Nevertheless , i3e r nard alone woul d not have l ed Luthe r to his doctrine of justification. Be rna rd's total theolof;Y cannot be. identi fied vlith Luther's.163 Bernard's mona s t1 c 1s m~ as ce t1ci sr.1~ and l1ariolo9.Y fi nd stmnQ expression i n his rl r itings and al'e recognized by l uther' i n his l ate r years as conflicting \

1e ssened Be rnard is i nfl uence . That the 1flf l uenee of Bernard was not ~~jor is borne out by the limi ted reference t o Oe rnard i n t he D ict at a~ and the other early lectures i n connection with po ints rel ated to the doctrine of justification . 1 concl ude therefore t hat, although Be t'nardfs i nfluence on

Lut her 's development cannot be de nied. 'Its pl ace in the tot al pi cture is a H mi ted one .

5 . Scheel's COtnIllent t ha t the Reformer does not pl ace Be rnard among

t hose who led him to the Gospel is ali ar gument from silen ce an d in itself

is not conc1us1ve . It does . howeve r. l end some support to t he conclusi on

163Rohnd t,1ousnier, "Saint Be rnard and Martin Luther," The J\merican Benedi ctioe Re vi 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 theless , after noting several pOi nts of simil arity betwean t he two , t40usnier takes up t he differences and comes to t he conclusion t hat Be rna rd was not a sou rce of Luther' s i deas . rather , that Luther' di d not really understand Be rnard. Mousni er v(an ts to view Be rnard's theology as a unit and finds Luther's distinction bet \veen Be rnard i n t he serwons and in the _ treatises invalid. He assumes that a man must be consistent with himse lf. 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 Lutner uoes call his mas ters, elther positive ly or negatively . Ll.ith er ~ for t:x­ afaple. calls Occam tliag i s~ .me IJm164 and !L1e in 1ieJ;s ter. ne1s t et . 165 In a more complcto sense $taupi tz Ncei ves credit from Luther for leadi ng hi m l 66 to Cllrist. On tho oth~r !land. of Er asmus LutMr says: Ex t:raslI)o ni hi 1 -...... --.--...... - - - !!~~O .1 67 Si nce Llltnsr di d mention sOllie wh o were hi s masters) the omission of any loon t ion of Bernard i n tni s role is supporti 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 mentions H,e rnard with words of higtl praise. In the early years ~ Bernard is simpl y quoted ~lith approval . In the l ater years s although Luther criticizes Bernard f or some of his 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

Be rnard on Luther. there is every 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 express10n in

Lu t he r. Another point of contact, not consciously mentioned by Luthe r, yet the basis for the forme r, :is their high esteem for Scripture and its consequent authoritativE! lise. It is when Bernard in simple terms expounds

------~------~~------.----~--~-- 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 angefan gen.!'

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 . " 58 porti ons of Sc riptut'e that lie at the center of Luther's t heology that 1S8 tlie tHO mee t i n tiloi r thinking.

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 8ernard and Lt.lti'ler i n relation to one another.

Ther'€! are many bl~oad sii'lilarities oot\:.:~er. the tv/o 50 that it is not sur­ 169 prhing to f i nd luti1a" attl'act..:ad to Uernard. For :"oth. l'eligion \'IllS a deeDl), inwa rd matter of the heart. Both we re profoundly c{)ncernedabout the removal of si n and about salvat i on. Both found the ultimate 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 wh o i ns pi red and i nf l uenced their hearers bey.ond meaSUt'8. Both 'flere fearless in pu rs 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 championed 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 nu llify the simil arities 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 Pa ul, and that me ans. i n Scripture . In footnote 2~ he comme nts : "All e anderen Einfl l.1 sse, di e sons t i n dieser Zeit auf Lut her 9Cl\'ii rkt haben ••• sind l uletzt fU r Lu t her nur sowei t ltl1cht1 g geworden, al s sie ihn ZLI Paulus hinfUl1 rten. " The closer anyone ~vas to SC Y'ipture and to Paul , tlie greater ~!a s Luther's appreciat ion of him . This is true. also of Luther's appreciation for erilal'd. 16SRichar d Fri edenthal, lu the r~ Sein LeLen und seine Zeit {Nun 1ch, 196 7} , p,. 79 . refers to theaffin1 ty of teii"ij,iiramintsTetween Luther and OerMrd; nEs gi bt Aff1 ni t1I t en de r Tempe ramente: Augusti n wa r schon aus di esem Gr l{n de Lu ther naher (al s Th omas ) . oder 8uch Bernard von Cl a irvaux, in dem er den groszen P r~d i ge r and Vo l ksmann SCtJa t l te. '1 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Sources and Translations ernard Barnard of Cl airvaux. -Letters.----- Trans. bv. Br uno Scott James. London, 1953. The.. Nat ivit:t. Chicago. 1959.

P"~tro lIillL~..9. cursl"! com.F-l~ ..• SB r1 e~~ Lati na_. Paris. 1857 ... 1904,

St. Bernard. Senllons for the §oas on~ .0110 Pt'incipal ~~~11. 9'f !he Year', Trans . by a prif!st of t40unt ~je ll€lray. 3 vo'fS:" Westminster , Md.:-ITsO.

~~lnt Be rna rd: ~. T"'/~lve uegree s of !!!:!!111.1ity and ?.ride . Trans . by Barton R. V. t4il1s. Now York, 1929.

~_t. . ~£ r!la r d 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 Wa l ke r. West~ mlnste r ~ N([-,-1960 .

~! .._ BQ!:,EJlrd P.! Clairvaux S~!! I~rou~ .t!j.~ Se l ~ cted Letters . 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 Te rrence L. Connolly. New - - .. --.-'i7'\~ ------York . b37.

Saint ~rl'lar d, 9.P- !h~ ~.2!!.'l Q.f Songs.: ~!! rmone s .:!D. fanticaCanti (~g rwn. Trans. and ed. by a rel i gious of C. S. N.V. NeH Yorl" H52 .

Saint t:le rnard ls Treatise iJe Consideratione. Trans. by a pt'iest of Mount -·--'e11eray. DubHn:--l92l.-

Sancli ~ ernard i . Y..ee ra. 4 vols. Rome, 1957 .

Some Lettars of Saint 8e rnard~ Abbot of Cli;Iirvallx. Se lected by Frand --aGasqu'a"t: Londoii-; 1904 . --- - - .

Jhe Steps of Hum ilitYt Py Bernard , Abb.Q1 of flai rv a~. Trans. by George Hosl/iorth Burch . carob ri dQe. 1940.

The_ T1:ea ti5~ Qf St. l3e r na r~. 8~~ot of C la!r~, Conce rn i!l..9..~C race _an~ ----Free Wlll . Trans. by Watl<.ln ii. 'iITl1anls. Ne\,1 YOrk. 1::120. 60

B. Luthe r

D. fla rtin Luther s He rk::!, K ritisch~ Gesamtausgabc . tterke. 58 '101s . Brief­ -wecilsel,l3-lIo1s. TlSch-re

Dr . r'iartin Luther's S3nuntli che Schl"iften. Ed . iJy J. G. I'J alch. 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- ' l ec t u~_~ 2!l Roman §.. Vo l. XV of The Li b r ~r.1.. p!_ fl1risti afl Clas.~. Trans. and ed. by Wilhel m Pauck. pmadel ph la ~ 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 ~~pe rt. Ph l 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. prnade lphia~13 -1n.

Luther's Works_. Ed. by Jaros 1av Pe 11 kan and He lraut T. Lehmann. 35 of 56 V015 . comp l eted . St. Lou is an d 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/l orks of !4artin Luther. Ed . by H. E. Jacobs . 6 vols . Philadel phia, -- 191"5:-1932 . --

C. Other

C orp~ Be fo l'}!~t.9!um. Halle> BraunschtJei g. Her1in, Lei pzi g, 1834. Reprint, ke\,IYOrl< and london. 1953.

II . Secondary Sou rces

~ . Bi bliographical Ai ds

Aland . Ku rt. Hllfsbuch zum Lutnerstudiw,.. Glltc rsloh. 1957 . '.. ..,-~~~-- - ...... ' ._- ainton. >Ro l and. «Su rvey of Periodical Literature 'in the United States. 1945-195 1." J\rchiY. fOr Refomationsgaschichte. XLI II (1952 ) , 88~106 .. 6

~ib 1iq£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 . B i~lio9raphie bernadine, lS9~1~57... Paris. 1958. Oillenberger. John. "Literature in Luther Studies, 1950-55." Chu rch 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. ..--.------

!~,de x t~ .r~JJ'.£i .o~! feri2.sii9ll hHeratt,tre. Published by the Ameri can Theolo!}fcal Library j\ssoci atlon since 1949. Chicago.

Janauschek. Leopold. ~ib li o~lrapi1}lt beroar£.t'1.i!.' Hildeshe1m. 1959.

"Di e luthe.'fonchung in Deutschland seit dem 2. t4elt­ ec .• 195G). 706-715. "Luther Re sea Since 1945. " -lutheran '--~lo rl--"d, XIII (196G), Mo. 3. p.auck. Wi lhelm. "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.

SChottenl0he r_. Karl. _~ip lip~r;eh i e !H!. .~leut~'hen G(~i .cht~ iEl Zeitalte!,. .f4er· ?.l.£'~Den ss paltul~~ 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.

1-10 1f. ,Gustav. ~ue~lenkunde ~qr deutsch.en ~eforma tio nsg~~ chic hte. 3 vols . Gotha, 191 -2 .

B. Books and Arti cles

Ad am. Karl . •The __... . _I\oots • • __ _ .. 4of" ~ --"'toeJ." ___Re formation.__ ... __... New York . 1951-

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 .

AtkinsRcm , .Jall;'11 ~:"" The .§!1tat U \Jht: huther ~.!!!!. the Refonr.ation. Grand ap i os, l1bo . 0(( fiu Hm , tiustaf E. ri. Christus Victor : i-lJl Hi storical Study of th~ Three ~a 1n TJpes 2!.. th~ fde_~.91 th~Atoneme_nt . Trans. bv A. rH85erf. i4ew York. 1:.131 . .,

ai flton, Ro 'l and __iJe re~ ...... _I ...Stand: ____ A_ _Li. __ fe __of ~...o;.-14artin _~_Luther. ashville, 1950 .

ThO. Refo lJ.l: la t..12!!. ,of , ~h~ Si xteenth Cet'J!ury . aston, 1952. - -~-...... !3eara . Cll arles. I!l~ iIart1'n_ Lu~er . Gtlttingen, 1~66 . iJizer , Ernst. .fJ_das., ~~ . 1:!ud it~ . ! £i!l.. ~ U nte r $uc~~ ~ !!ie En;tdeckung de ~ !!a r~ i!'ti PS~j'! Go tt~! ifu ~<:!~ rarti!l Luther. ITa nllstadt. l<)SB, 3rd. e' t on . 1966.

13 1aney, Ida ~i a 1z. l~~_ 8~ of tuther; ,Ths §.E1d.!. of Renai , sance-Humanism ~nd .~hl! , R.eformat1oll' !'few YorK. 1%7. Bluhm , Heinz. f4 arti n l uther : Creative Trans l ator. St. louis , 1965. --- -~- - --_. --- oanme r , He i nrich. i

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 fai t il! The Fundamental Axioms of £vannencarFafth-:- ~ ' t rans. by ,)ol)n W. Dobberstein. New Y o rK,1 %5-.~-'='--- -. .-~ ~

".:-r--;-;-:-_.~~ t ryer l _~, World Qf Th~ht. Trans. by Hartin H. Be r tra",. ~t . L.OU1S. llhtt.

B orflkamm~ Karin. ~uthel"S . Aus l egungen de~ Galaterb ri ef~ ~I'I 1519 lind 1631. rlin . 1963. ..

Sutler$ Cuthbert. ~je ste rn ~y st~. New Yo rk . 1966 reprint.

lwdwick , O~/en. Th tt. Ra formattorl_, Grand Rapids ~ 196.4 .

I!:!.Et Chu r<;h . t!xs Uci$m. ?(m_~ t!.tfc at fon ~d ~he ~t u r a l .!E. Luther',S .Though t. V. f)_Y Ivar Ashe i m. P1111adaipnTa , 190 7.

op les 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 Yo rk. 1964 . - - --~

. The Protestant Reformation. Trans . by John ~Ja rr'1 ng ton. 'tondon;I9Gl. -- - . - . ~-~~ - '-- 63

Denifle. Heinri ch. Lut her _und L u th~ t "th um 1. f·1ainz. 1904. lJi erks, Theo. "The Doct rine of J us tification accordi ng to Bu rnar d of c41ai ryaux. lI Concot'dia .Theological ~nJ.f!li:. VIII (Oct .• 1937) , 7 8-703.

Dol an, John P. Il1 stoJ.::.!: of the Reforma tion: A Conciliator.¥. ASS~S 5 fl1A:nt of ~ P2osit~. Y1ews. l'Iew Yorlt,--i96iC------_ . -.-

umontier, P. --' .. ..,. ~ d h 3 i b l ~ . Paris , 195 ....

Ebe ling, Gerhard. Evanqeli,schE!. E'.l..!.n_G.elh:nauslegu.!.1i1.: E ~n e Untersucn ung ~ .~itil~ t~crmoncut i k . · Darmst'ldt, 1962 . LutJ!!!'.! Ei nftlrun.£l in §ein Denken. . TUb i ngen. 1964.

lert. Herner. The Structure of l utheranism. Trans . by l~ alte r A. Hansen. St. Louis , -19027 ,------. ... - - - ' I '- --

-He, Robe.rt H~r n don . .y'oun;J L ~ the r.: Th ~ Intellectual ~d Re 1i 9 io u~. ~velopmcnt ~f Marti 1!. L u~ to 11)18. New YOrk; 1928 .

. The Hevolt of t~ a.rtin Luthe r. New Yor k, 195 •• ----_.__ ., --,- .-- ... -- -'"'- -~-- - Friedefltilal, Richar d. !-utl1er: ~ein Leben ~nd s e i ~ Zea . Hunich. 1967.

Ger rjs h~ Bri an A1ber t . 5ir;ace ~B.!I_ ~j; s 0 f!.: !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.

Gilson, Etienne. T~£. !1l!.st ie~l T..!Joo1oSl. pf Saint Be t"nJl rd. Trans. by A. H. C. Bmmes. New YorK . 1940 .

Go g art~ n , fr1cdri<;h . Di e ye rkl.l n d i 9 t!!!9.~. fhristt . Heidel berg , 1949.

G ri mll1~ Harold J . The Heformqtiorl l:.ra, 1500 .. 1650. New York~ 19.6 5 • ... -- '. -, ~.--.... -,-.- ... - - - Grisar. Ha rtmann. r1a rt1n luther's Leben und sein ~Serk . Freiburg i rn 1J 1'Oi 5 1J(lU. 1 92 t:- --~ _ . - ~. ------.. ~ .

Hacqg l u n ~ , Seng t . Hist

--'--._ . ' Th e2..~1e .1:!1l

Harbison . £. Harris. The Aqe of Re fonnation. Ithaca. New York~ 1955. ---,------...-~ .--.-~~...,....- . The Ch rist1an Scholar in the Aqe of the He formation. 'e~~ York , 19s1i-:- ' - -- ~ - -- -

Head ley, J . 11. ~_~-,=15 Yiet! of Chl!!:f.~. Higory. r; £::\1 Ha ven . :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~~d i €!1!.. 2 vols . GU tersloh, 195 ....

Bo lbOrn, 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 }heo lo9 ic~!.. P.~J op.!nan~ ftJ?!!l ~rfu r_~ !2. Au~t.lU rg. I~Ci'l York. '19£:8 .

_ £l_terg r~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 1eh re unci end s tusgl aub'!: t 1ne Unter­ l,;uct:!.uoll ?Ur SystematiJ cler ~e c ll tfe rti gungs@n re Luthers in. jhren ~Ef~ng~ n. leipzig, 1930 .

James, 8runo S. Saill~ Be rnard of Cla ir~ . London, 1957 .

Kadai. Ha;no O. ~n'~.!!!. l,u,!:her'.s 111001091.. St. louis. 1967.

Katzenba ch~ fri edrich Wilhelm. ~1al·ti n buther unt! d i~ Anfange 1er Re forma- '!:i on.. Ctitersloh. 1966 .

Ker ,', Hugh Thomas, Jr . • ed. ~ C OJ!!P~ of h.!!.th:eri Theo lo ~lY . Phi l adel­ phia, 1943 .

Kidd. B. J . • cd . Documents Illustrative of t he Continent al Re forll1d tion. Oxfor d, 191 1. . _ ' ------.

Kt1owles. Davi d. IIBe rnard of Cla1 rvaux . 11 Jha En~ clop ed.i.a of PhilosoJilll' llt:\'~ York, 1967 . I. 305-3J6.

The ~volu!.i9'!!' of }'1edi eval Thought. aHi more; 1!)62 . ----.---~ Koestlin , Jlll 1US. f.la rtin Lltther : Seln Leben und Seil1G Sch riften . nd edition. Berffi1; TIRJs-:-' ------_.

___. _ .. ___• Th~ Theol oJll(. pf lu~~r !!l_ i ts_ ~J S!Qf ~ ca 1 Oe v~lopme~t Q./lS.lnLHlr Harmony . Tt'an!.. by Charfes E. Hay . Pi'11 1adeTpn1.l , 1897 . 65

~oo i ltlar •• Jiln 11 i11 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. '4a l"tin Luther: The Format'ive Years . Grand Rapi ds • 193J. --- ~ -- ~------' -

Li.iU, Fr-an z. !-~~Il~. Trans. by RO!Jert H. Fischer. Philadelp[lia. 1963.

Li ndsa.,v, T. f't jJ\ Hi!; rorl of L vols. i n!Jurgh and New York. 1906 .

Link. Uilhelm., Pl!~ Ringen Luti:ers ,~:d ie Frei heli (fer:. Theo.!2nie von ~er .dL..91.QP~ni l I 1 . f.lume," h 'I).\.,,~'!:i. .. '

Loase, Bt l'nhard , ~(lt.if.!.~!'£ [iass,: £!!!£. :In,tc r~uchung llber die rati!? ill ~e l~ Theel 09; e, lu ther2..G(Jtti ngen. 1958.

Lortz, J5?sePh~ i3d . ~!E!d ~ C la.:!rvau~: r18nc!!. und H,Ysti ker. W ies badeTl~ u :.>.

. The HeTJrmation i n (,e rmanl..' 2 vo l s . Trans . by Ronald "-~-tl a 1"15":'" Londonand1lel'1 York t 196s.-'

Luddy* Ai l be J. Life and Teaching.Q.f. St. ~e rnard . Duh lin.1927. ~lcK i nn o n . 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~jQ r Work.'1hg, --.2fodagp_ of the Will.. New York and 111nneapo 1i .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. i1un lch. 1952. ------,-- "'"-"---..... ~1e rto n, Thomas. nu~ Last of the Fathers: Sai nt Be rnard of Cl a1 rvaux and the Enc,Y clic.alLctt er:--OOctor Ue UJfl uus~ 'hew York-,1 954 . -

1ousnier, Rol and . "Sai nt Bel~n ar d and t1artin Luther. " The American -cned---icti---ne ----Re v1 €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 rlebni.s . Gotha. 1920 . t1urray , Ji l bert Victor. f~~JBr..s!. and ~. belIl~!d: ~. Stm5y t~. nilelfth 1 ~ell~~ "t1oderni sm . ' rievJ YorK . 1967 .

~~he New faliib..!.i§~ t1oderl'l. H1story, J1., The ~e..fo rmation. New York. 1959. Obe n: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 vo ls. 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~ighteous n ess 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. 01. VII of SCllaff's ;~istor.v of tile Chri sti aril':hurc!1. 2n o editi on. Grand Rapids, 1010 .

SCllecl , Otto. Ookull;ente ~ Luthers t.rtwicklung bis 1':;19. TUiJingen, IJ2~. '

~ ______J i~ cnt\,11 cklLmC1 Lutllers ois ~U fll t\oscnl uss de r vorles.ling Uber den t{dme rbri €f. Vol. XXV II of Schriftcn des Vereins fUr I\cfor- inaffonsgescnic i~.t~. Leipzig. 1~lO . ------

Lutners .Ste 11 ung zur :lei 1i gen Scnrift: nli:li nQ~n, 1::.102.

,Iartln Luther: VORl Katl10lizismus zur I\cforlliati on. 2 vo rs~.- ---:rrQ edition. TU oi 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. dOUlIla n. 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 A liv~: r'l arti n Lu ther .and the haking o~ the kefor­ ltlati on. Garaen l. i tv, :L Y. , 1968 .

Smalley, Beryl. Tlte Stuay of tne Bible .:!..!!.. the Hiad le 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 t4 urray. ~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 de r 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 ~1a rtln 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