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.