1
Article Title: Spanish Neo-Scholasticism / Contributor: Wim Decock
Forthcoming in: Strawn B., Witte J. [Eds.], Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, Oxford – New
York: Oxford University Press, 2013
1. Spanish Neo-scholasticism: Background
1.1. The Renaissance of Thomism
Sixteenth century Spanish universities witnessed a remarkable revival of Thomistic
philosophy across the faculties of arts, theology and law which is often referred to as ‘Spanish neoscholasticism’, but is also known under such diverse names as ‘late scholasticism’, ‘Baroque
scholasticism’, ‘second scholasticism’, ‘early modern scholasticism’ or even ‘Renaissance
Aristotelianism’. As the sheer names of those alternative denominators indicate, the renewed Spanish
interest in Thomas Aquinas, certainly in his Summa Theologiae, was part of a broader revival of both
Thomistic and Aristotelian studies at universities across Europe starting from the second half of the
fifteenth century onwards. A case in point is the neo-scholastic work of the German theologian Conrad
Summenhart von Calw (1455-1502), who taught at the University of Tübingen and is most famous for
his treatise De contractibus (On contracts). Summenhart’s work already displays the ‘hybrid’ nature
of neo-scholastic thought: it combined Thomism with nominalistic strands of thought such as Scotism.
This rather flexible and eclectic approach towards Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic tradition
remained typical of the writings of most of the sixteenth and seventeenth century scholastics. As a
matter of fact, medieval as well as modern nominalist philosophers such as Duns Scotus, Jacques
Almain and John Mair (1467-1550) were frequently cited by the Spanish doctors. There is absolutely
no indication that they felt obliged to adhere to Thomas’ standpoints. Moreover, important academic
centres in Spain, such as Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares taught both Thomistic as Scotist
philosophy.
1.2. From Paris to Salamanca?
A watershed moment in the revival of Thomistic studies was a reform of the educational
program in the faculty of theology at the University of Paris by Peter Crockaert (c. 1450-1514), a
Dominican theologian from Brussels. He substituted Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae for Peter
Lombard’s (1095-1160) Libri Sententiarum (Book of Sentences) as a textbook of theology. Francisco
de Vitoria (1483/1492-1546), his pupil, made the same choice when he started teaching at Salamanca
in 1526. Therefore, Vitoria is commonly remembered as having introduced the new vogue of
Thomism at the University of Salamanca. However, scholarship by Horacio Santiago-Otero, Klaus
Reinhardt (1987, p. 30) and Juan Belda Plans (2000, p. 64-73) rightly recalls that Thomistic currents
of thought were already present at Salamanca much earlier, for instance in the work of theologians
such as Alonso Fernández de Madrigal (El Tostado) (c. 1410-1455), Pedro Martínez de Osma (c.
1420-1480), Diego de Deza (1443-1523) and Matías de Paz (c. 1468-1519). Against a wider European
background, which saw a renaissance of Thomas Aquinas at several universities around 1500, this
need not be surprising. In addition, it should be remembered that Thomism had been promoted at other
centers of learning across Spain, for instance in Valladolid, Alcalá, Siguënza and Sevilla, at least two
decennia before Vitoria started his teaching career at Salamanca. So the origins of Spanish neoScholasticism cannot be reduced to the pioneering work of Vitoria at the University of Salamanca
alone. But it is a well-established fact that Vitoria had such a heavy impact on subsequent scholastic
thought in Spain and abroad that it remains safe to claim that he was the founder of a particularly
influential strand of Spanish neo-scholasticism, centered at the University of Salamanca, which has
become known as the ‘School of Salamanca’.
1.3. The ‘School of Salamanca’ and its Reception
Besides Francisco de Vitoria, its founder, famous representatives of the so-called ‘School of
Salamanca’ include the theologians Domingo de Soto (1495-1560), Melchor Cano (1509-1560), Luis
2
de León (1527-1591), Domingo de Báñez (1528-1604), Tomás de Mercado (c. 1530-1575) and Pedro
de Aragón (c. 1546-1592) as well as the canon lawyers Martín de Azpilcueta (Dr. Navarrus) (14921586) and Diego de Covarruvias y Leyva (1512-1577). As far as the Dominican theologians are
concerned, they were mostly based at the Colegio San Estebán, the famous Dominican convent in
Salamanca. Importantly, the neo-scholastic movement was not confined to just one religious order,
particularly the Dominicans. Jesuit theologians such as Francisco de Toledo (1532-1596), Luis de
Molina (1535-1600), Juan de Mariana (1536-1623) and Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) fully
contributed to the buoyant, but not necessarily orthodox revival of Thomas Aquinas. Many of them
were exposed to the teachings of the Salamancans during their studies, not only in Salamanca, but also
in Alcalá de Henares, and they handed down the teachings of Vitoria, Soto and other theologians from
Salamanca at the Collegio Romano, the central Jesuit University in Rome, and elsewhere. The Jesuits
thus contributed in no small measure to the reception of Spanish neo-scholasticism all around the
world. The influence of Spanish neo-scholasticism can be seen in the writings of theologians and
canonists working in regions within and outside the Spanish empire, such as Argentina, e.g. Pedro de
Oñate (1568-1646), Bohemia, e.g. Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz (1606-1682), the Low Countries, e.g.
Leonardus Lessius (1554-1623) and the Philippines, e.g. Pedro Murillo Velarde (1696-1753). It is
influence also stretches beyond disciplinary boundaries, as the indelible imprint left by the
Salamancan theologians on jurists such as Antonio Gomez (1501-1561), Arias Piñel (1515-1563) and
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) clearly shows.
2. The Bible and Law in Spanish Neo-scholastics
2.1. Moral Theologians and Biblical Exegets
Scholarship by the Spanish neo-scholastics covered a vast array of theological studies, ranging
from ethics to Biblical exegesis. Domingo de Soto’s œuvre provides a good case to illustrate the
encyclopedic nature of early modern Spanish theology (Beltrán de Heredia 1960). While Soto is most
often remembered for his dogmatic work On nature and grace (De natura et gratia, 1547), for his
moral theological treatise On justice and right (De iustitia et iure, 1554), and for his commentary on
Peter Lombard’s Sentences (In quartum Sententiarum, 1558-1560), he also engaged in Biblical
exegesis of the finest quality. Most famously, Soto wrote a voluminous commentary on Paul’s Letter
to the Romans (Commentarii in Epistolam ad Romanos, 1550) – after the model of Thomas Aquinas,
but with special attention to Luther’s allegedly erroneous interpretation of Paul’s famous letter. For a
short period of time (1552-1553), Soto was even commissioned to review the Lutheran Bibles
introduced into Spain. Shortly afterwards, he published his critical remarks on the Commentaries on
the Gospel of John by Juan Wild, a Franciscan accused of Lutheran fallacies (Adnotationes in
Commentarium Ioannis Feri super Evangelium Ioannis, 1554). Sadly, Soto’s commentaries on the
Gospel of Matthew (In Mathaei Evangelium commentarii) got lost for posterity, just as his work on
the promulgation of the Gospel (De ratione promulgandi Evangelium), but his exposition on the
meanings of the Sacred Scriptures (De sensibus Sacrae Scripturae, 1538) was preserved. Apart from a
preoccupation with exegetical questions, Soto’s writings reflect a major interest in practical theology.
His treatises on secrets (De ratione tegendi et detegendi secreta, 1541), poverty (Deliberatio in causa
pauperum, 1545) and oaths (De cavendo iuramentorum abusu, 1551) show the growing need for the
autonomous treatment of concrete moral problems against a background of great social, economic and
political upheaval. The combination of in-depth scholarship in both moral theology and Biblical
exegesis, not to mention dogmatics, was not the exclusive domain of Soto. It is a recurrent feature in
the work of the neo-scholastic theologians in general throughout the sixteenth century. For example,
Tomasso da Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), an Italian Dominican, is not only remembered for his magnificent
Commentaries (1508-1523) on Thomas’ Summa Theologiae, in which he mainly dealt with dogmatic
and moral issues, but also for his outstanding qualities as a Biblical scholar (Wicks 2007). Along with
Jewish scholars, he prepared a new Latin edition of the Old Testament. Cajetan also published
commentaries on the Psalms and the New Testament. Examples of Spanish neo-scholastics combining
Biblical scholarship and moral theological interests are rife. For example, Luis de León is equally
famous for his commentary on the Song of Songs (In Cantica Canticorum, 1580), based on his close
reading of the original Hebrew version, as for his lectures De legibus (On Laws, 1570-1571).
3
2.2. Law in Spanish Neo-scholasticism
Soto’s De iustita et iure (On justice and right), which grew out of a commentary on just a tiny
part of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, namely the second part of the second volume (Secunda
Secundae), stands at the beginning of the development towards an autonomous science of moral
theology. In his De iustitia et iure, Soto dealt with a variety of moral and legal issues through the
combined use of Aristotelian-Thomistic virtue ethics and the juristic framework offered by the Roman
and canon legal traditions. The tendency to put the legal tradition to the service of moral theology was
even strengthened by Jesuits such as Luís de Molina and Leonardus Lessius, who both wrote
influential treatises De iustitia et iure. This new literary genre marks the emergence of moral theology
as an autonomous discipline in the course of the sixteenth century. The first decennium of the
seventeenth century saw the birth of the Institutiones morales (Moral Institutes) by Juan Azor (15351603), a Jesuit theologian. It was a basic manual for moral theologians written after the model of
Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria (end of 1st century C.E.) and Emperor Justinian’s Institutiones (533
C.E.). The full title of Azor’s work is telling of the attempt at comprehensiveness made by the
theologians of his time (Institutiones morales, in quibus universae quaestiones ad conscientiam recte
aut prave factorum pertinentes breviter tractantur. Omnia sunt vel ex theologica doctrina vel ex iure
canonico vel civili, vel ex probata rerum narratione desumpta et confirmata vel testimoniis
theologorum vel iuris canonici aut civilis interpretum vel summistarum vel denique historicorum). The
Moral Institutes were meant to resolve all cases of conscience through the use of a vast amount of the
Western intellectual heritage: theology, canon law, civil law, manuals for confessors and history. The
reason why theologians thought that the study of law, in particular, was necessary for solving cases of
conscience has to do with their view of the relationship between sin, law and salvation of the soul. For
example, according to Soto, law teaches us what sin is, since laws are not just arbitrary orders by the
authorities, but rules of reason of divine origin which orient man’s behavior to the will of God
(Commentarii in Epistolam ad Romanos, 1550, p. 103). By the same token, Suárez held in the
prologue to his famous treatise De legibus et legislatore Deo (On the Laws and God the Lawmaker,
1612) that the righteousness of conscience depended on its accordance with the laws, so that the study
of law was indispensable for guiding souls on their earthly pilgrimage to God. In the eyes of the
Spanish theologians, the Bible constituted just one particular form of positive law, namely divine law.
Divine law was thought to be changeable by God – as the very transition from the Old Testament (lex
vetus) to the New Testament (lex nova) proved – except for those rules of divine law which were
considered to express natural law principles, such as the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule.
2.3. Biblical Scholarship in Spanish Neo-Scholasticism
The Spanish scholastics were living in a time of great upheaval in Biblical scholarship.
Theologians had to cope with new challenges brought about not in the least by the application of
philological criticism to the study of the Bible, which was introduced by humanists such as Desiderius
Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), and the increasing success of vernacular translations of the Bible, which were
promoted by protestants such as Martin Luther (1483-1546). In the Spanish empire, in particular, the
fruits of Biblical humanism became tangible with the publication of two very famous polyglot Bibles
which offered Greek, Latin and oriental versions of the Scriptures: 1) the Polyglot Bible of Alcalá or
Complutensian Bible, the first in its genre, which was commissioned by Cardinal Francisco Ximénez
de Cisneros (1436-1517), an adamant opponent of vernacular translations, and published in 1520 with
the sanction of Pope Leo X; 2) the Polyglot Bible of Antwerp, edited by Benito Arias Montano (15271598), published by Plantin in eight volumes between 1569 and 1573, and also known as the Biblia
regia, because it was mandated by King Philip II. Against this background, the discussions among the
Spanish neo-scholastics were dominated by two concerns: firstly, the authority of the Vulgate, the late
fourth century version of the Bible based on Saint Jerome’s Latin translation, and, secondly, the nature
of Biblical inspiration. The last issue was relatively unproblematical. The Spanish theologians were
unanimous about the inspired character of the Bible. For example, Pedro de Sotomayor (c. 15111564), a Dominican theologian from Salamanca, expressly said that the authors of the Holy Scriptures
had been directly steered by the Holy Spirit, so that they could be considered as the writings pens of
4
the Holy Spirit (Jericó Bermejo, 2002, p. 115, n. 94). The Spanish neo-scholastics constantly warned
against Erasmus’ proposition that some passages (e.g. Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 7:10) were of merely human
origin and that the authors of the Scriptures had sometimes made human mistakes. Later theologians
who stood in the tradition of the School of Salamanca were less strict in their view about the divine
origins of the Scriptures. For example, Leonardus Lessius tried to integrate Erasmus’ historical
criticism into the Spanish scholastics’ doctrine of inspiration.
The more controversial subject, though, already among the Spanish scholastics themselves,
was the issue of the Vulgate edition of the Bible. It needs to be recalled that, certainly in the first half
of the sixteenth century, Greek and Hebrew language studies were actively promoted in Spain as ways
to gaining a better understanding of the original texts of the Bible. The Complutensian Polyglot, which
tried to emendate the Latin Vulgate by going back to original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible,
is just one remarkable result of that favorable attitude towards Biblical humanism in Spain. However,
a radical shift in the minds of the theologians occurred right after the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
During the fourth session of the Council on 8 April 1546 a decree was issued stating that only the
Vulgate must be considered as the authentic edition of the Scriptures (ipsa vetus et vulgata editio pro
authentica habeatur). Melchor Cano, a Dominican theologian famous for his Loci Theologici
(Theological Sources, 1563), a systematic work on the hierarchy of the sources of authority in
theological science, argued that the right interpretation of the Bible cannot depend on Greek and
Hebrew sources. Conflicts of interpretation have to be resolved on the basis of the Vulgate edition
alone. He nevertheless admitted that he did not want to condemn the academic study of Greek and
Hebrew entirely, if only because even the Vulgate contained some words in Greek and Hebrew which
had not been rendered into Latin. At the university of Salamanca, the new, highly conservative attitude
towards Biblical humanism soon resulted in serious enmities between so-called hebraístos and
vulgatistas. The hostilities led to the imprisonment of several famous exegetes, including Luis de
León, after Domingo Bañez and Bartolomé de Medina, Dominican theologians and students of Cano,
had alerted inquisitors in Madrid about the existence of anti-vulgatistas in Salamanca. It should be
noted that, a couple of years later, Bañez regretted the rigorous attitude which had led him to denounce
the hebraístos. He finally became a fine scholar of the Hebrew versions of the Bible himself.
3. The Neo-Scholastics’ Use of Scripture as a Legal Argument
3.1. Scripture and the Scholastic Method
The new ideas which were circulated by influential reformers such as Erasmus and Luther did
not merely question traditional Biblical scholarship. They undermined the enterprise of scholastic
theologians as a whole. Particularly, the reformers’ emphasis on the personal relationship between the
individual Christian and God, nourished by the individual reading of the Holy Scriptures, cast serious
doubts on the usefulness of the scholastic tradition. According to scholastic theology, the Bible is the
necessary foundation of theology, but not a sufficient guide for showing the road to salvation. In their
multiple attacks against the followers of Erasmus and Luther, whom they called ‘the grammarians and
the heretics’, Spanish neo-scholastics such as Vitoria and Soto strongly insisted on the respect that
Christians owed to such scholastic doctors as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and John Mair. Although
both Salamancan theologians recognized that the medieval scholastic tradition needed to be purified
and reformed, they refused to simply do away with the scholastic teachings. They agreed to promote
the study of the Biblical languages and called for a renewed engagement of clerics with the Bible, but
they affirmed that the teachings of all the doctors, including the later scholastics, provided
indispensable knowledge about the truly Christian way of living and organizing society. As Vitoria
explained, it is necessary for the salvation of man that he does not only contemplate the Sacred
Scriptures and the old doctors, namely St Augustine and St Jerome, but also studies the work of
younger scholastic doctors (Belda Plans 2000, p. 362, n. 183 and p. 364, n. 187). In his standard work
on the theological method, Melchor Cano showed that even history, Greco-Roman philosophy, Roman
law and canon law were indispensable sources of moral guidelines for Christians.
3.2. Scripture as One Legal Source Among Many
5
The scholastic doctors claimed that their expertise was necessary for delivering authoritative
interpretations of the Bible and give adequate guidance in moral and legal affairs through combining
these interpretations of the Scriptures with many other sources of legal rules. Soto objected against
Luther that faith is not sufficient for salvation. For example, from a reading of the letters to Romans
and Titus (Rom. 13; Tit. 3) combined with rational analysis the doctors, Soto inferred that princes
could make laws which are binding in conscience (Belda Plans 2000, p. 438, n. 119). In other words,
knowledge of the Old Testament (lex vetus) and the New Testament (lex nova) is important but not
sufficient to determine what course of action a person should take in a particular circumstance in order
to save his soul. Other sources of laws, for instance human positive laws, need to be the subject of
expert knowledge as well. The scholastic theologians claimed that having this knowledge was the
privilege of doctors and not of simple believers. According to a commonplace among Spanish neoscholastics, one cannot even claim to be a good moral theologian unless one possesses a good
understanding of civil and canon law. Consequently, Scripture could certainly be used as an argument
in moral decision-making, but in the scholastics’ view it was not the only type of normative argument
that needed to be taken into account. As a matter of fact, the neo-scholastics’ discussions on moral and
legal issues in their treatises On Justice and Right, On Laws, On Contracts, On Restitution, etc.
contain relatively few references to the Bible as an argument. Typically, publishers of scholastic
treatises mostly did not even think it necessary to add an index with all passages from Scripture
discussed in the work, while they did include very long indices with lists of references to canon law
and civil law. A good example is the index to Tomas Sánchez (1550-1610), a major Jesuit theologian
from Cordoba, his De matrimonii sacramento (On the Sacrament of Marriage, Genova, 1602). Even
so, reference to argument from Scripture remained frequent in Sánchez and in many other neoscholastic treatises on marriage contracts, such as Basilio Ponce de León’s (1570-1629) De
sacramento matrimonii.
3.3. Argument from Scripture: Examples
The Spanish neo-scholastics’ appeal to Scriptural evidence was relatively scarce in
comparison with their frequent citations of natural law or the law of reason, the Romano-canon legal
tradition, and scholastic authorities, but arguments taken from the Bible remained nevertheless
important Most instances of Biblical passages being cited as an argument in their solution of cases of
conscience can be traced back to the their original use in the medieval canon law tradition, particularly
in Gratian’s Decretum (c. 1140), or in the work of Thomas Aquinas. Examples include discussions on
the prohibition of charging interest in money-loans (e.g. Deut. 23:19, Lc. 6:34), the legitimation of
speculative business activities through the example of Joseph buying grain at cheap prices and selling
them dear in times of scarcity (Gen. 41-42), a prostitute’s right to retain the money received for her
services after the example of Tamar who had slept with Judah, her unknowing father-in-law, and still
been allowed to keep the price paid by him (Gen. 38). Of special importance for the elaboration of a
general law of contract were Jesus’ admonition to let our ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and or ‘no’ be ‘no’ (Matt.
5:37), along with the image of God motif taken from Genesis (Gen. 1:27). In discussions on marriage
contracts, quotations from Biblical passages (e.g. Gen. 1:27-28, 2:24, Lev. 18, Matt. 19, 1 Cor. 7,
Ephes. 5) were standard. Generally speaking, references to Holy Scriptures were not definitive or
irrefutable. For example, the story of Saul’s tyrannical rule being tolerated by God and David (1
Samuel 16-17) was a classical argument against the legitimacy of tyrannicide. Yet, in his book De
rege et regis institutione (On the King and the Institution of the King) Juan de Mariana deconstructed
the normative value of this story through a historical, contextual interpretation of it (Reinhardt, 2007,
p. 291). Only those normative precepts derived from the Holy Scripture which were thought to express
natural law were considered to be absolute, for instance the Decalogue. In fact, the Ten
Commandments were increasingly used by neo-scholastics as a principle to organize the material. For
instance, the structure of Dr. Navarrus’ famous Enchiridion sive manuale confessariorum et
poenitentium (Manual for Confessors and Penitents, first Latin edition in 1557) followed the Ten
Commandments.
4. Assessment
6
The Spanish neo-scholastics were active as both Biblical scholars and moral theologians. While they
recognized the importance of the study of Biblical languages and the purification of the scholastic
method, they expressly opposed reformist ideas by Erasmus and Luther, relying on such traditional
scholastic doctors as Thomas Aquinas instead. They considered the Bible as a particular type of law
from which precepts could be derived that, subsequently, had to be weighed against the opinion of the
scholastic authorities as well as other types of laws, such as civil, canon, natural, and statutory laws. It
is hardly surprising, then, to find a Lutheran moral theologian such as Friedrich Balduin (1575-1627)
criticizing the Spanish neo-scholastics for relying on ‘their own scholastic pool’ rather than on the
‘pure, limpid fountains of Israel’ (Decock, 2013, p. 47).
5. Bibliography
Artola, Antonio M. “La doctrina inspiracionista de Lessio a la luz de sus lecciones inéditas De
Scriptura.” Lumen 23, no. 5 (1974): 413-421.
Augusto Rodrigues, Manuel. “Ecos da exegese judaica medieval nas obras bíblicas de Fr. Luis de
León, Fr. Luís de Sotomaior e Fr. Heitor Pinto.” In Pensamiento medieval hispano: homenaje a
Horacio Santiago-Otero, edited by J. M. Soto Rábanos, vol. 2, pp. 1383-1445. Madrid –
Zamora, 1998.
Belda Plans, Juan. La Escuela de Salamanca y la renovación de la teología en el siglo XVI. Madrid:
Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos Maior, 2000.
Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente. Domingo de Soto: Estudio biográfico documentado. Madrid: Ed. Cultura
Hispánica, 1961.
Burns, James Henderson. “Scholasticism: Survival and Revival.” In The Cambridge History of
Political Thought: 1450-1700, edited by J.H. Burns – M. Goldie, pp. 132-155. Cambridge:
CUP, 1991.
Decock, Wim. Theologians and Contract Law: The Moral Transformation of the Ius Commune.
Leiden-Boston: Nijhoff/Brill, 2013.
Delville, Jean-Pierre. “L’évolution des vulgates et la composition de nouvelles versions latines de la
Bible au XVIe siècle.” In Biblia. Les Bibles en latin au temps des Réformes, edited by M.-C.
Gomez-Géraud, pp. 71-106. Paris: PUPS, 2008.
Duve, Thomas. “Katholisches Kirchenrecht und Moraltheologie im 16. Jahrhundert. Eine globale
normative Ordnung im Schatten schwacher Staatlichkeit.” In Recht ohne Staat? Zur
Normativität nichtstaatlicher Rechtsetzung, edited by Stefan Kadelbach and Klaus Günther, pp.
147-174. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2011.
François, Wim, and August den Hollander. Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants: The Bible for
the Laity and Theologians in Late Medieval and Early Modern Era. Leuven: Peeters, 2012.
Grice-Hutchinson, Marjorie. “The Concept of the School of Salamanca: Its Origins and
Development.” In Economic Thought in Spain, Selected Essays of Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson,
edited by L.S. Moss, C.K. Ryan, pp. 23-29. Cambridge: E. Elgar, 1993.
Grunert, Frank, and Kurt Seelmann, eds. Die Ordnung der Praxis, Neue Studien zur Spanischen
Spätscholastik. Tübingen: De Gruyter, 2001.
Helmholz, Richard H. “The Bible in the Service of Canon Law.” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 70
(1995): 1557-1581.
Horst, Ulrich. “Melchior Cano und Dominicus Báñez über die Autorität der Vulgata. Zur Deutung des
Trienter Vulgatadekrets.” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 51, no. 4 (2000): 331-351.
Jericó Bermejo, José Ignacio. “Las expresiones de la Sagrada Escritura y las declaraciones de la
Iglesia. Su autoridad en la enseñanza de la Escuela de Salamanca (1526-1584) (I).”, Communio
35 (2002): 79-152.
Jericó Bermejo, José Ignacio. “Las expresiones de la Sagrada Escritura y las declaraciones de la
Iglesia. Su autoridad en la enseñanza de la Escuela de Salamanca (1526-1584) (II).” Communio
35 (2002): 359-396.
Pena González, Miguel Anxo. La Escuela de Salamanca de la Monarquía hispánica al Orbe católico.
Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos Maior, 2009.
Prodi, Paolo. Una storia della giustizia: dal pluralismo dei fori al moderno dualismo fra diritto e
coscienza. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000.
7
Reinhardt, Klaus. Bibelkommentare spanischer Autoren (1500-1700). Band I: Autoren A-Ll. Madrid:
CSIC, Centro de Estudios Históricos, 1990.
Reinhardt, Klaus. Bibelkommentare spanischer Autoren (1500-1700). Band II. Autoren M-Z. Madrid:
CSIC, Centro de Estudios Históricos, 1999.
Reinhardt, Nicole. “Juan de Mariana: Bibelexegese und Tyrannenmord.” In Die Bibel als politisches
Argument. Voraussetzungen und Folgen biblizistischer Herrschaftslegitimation in der
Vormoderne, edited by Andreas Pečar and Kai Trampedach, pp. 273-294. München:
Oldenbourg, 2007.
Schmutz, Jacob. “Bulletin de scolastique moderne (1).” Revue thomiste 100, no. 2 (2000): 270-341.
Tierney, Brian. “Sola scripura and the Canonists”, Studia Gratiana 11 (1967): 347-366.
Witte Jr., John. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 20122.