Author: Antonio Gerace
Part of: Theology at Coimbra (coord. by Lidia Lanza and Marco Toste)
Peer-Reviewed: Yes
Published: January, 24th, 2025
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14730839

The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Gerace, Antonio, “Biblical Exegesis”, Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = “10.5281/zenodo.14730839”, URL = “https://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/biblical-exegesis-coimbra”, latest revision: January, 24th, 2025.

Introduction

The early sixteenth century witnessed a rise in biblical studies in Portugal, mirroring a trend seen across Christian Europe. This stemmed from a confluence of factors with roots in the previous century: the rise of Humanism, with its emphasis on studying ancient sources, led to a more thorough examination of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew works, including the scriptures; the invention of the printing press facilitated the widespread dissemination of biblical texts, making them more readily available for study; and finally, the Protestant Reformation’s focus on the Bible, following from Luther’s principle of sola scriptura, triggered a Catholic response that also emphasized scriptural authority.

Historical Background

In Portugal, the rise of biblical studies cannot be separated from the development of university theology. As in Spain, Portugal’s colonial empire required an increasingly bureaucratic elite with juridical and theological training. This, in turn, led to the significant expansion of its universities, where theology was of paramount importance. Moreover, theology played a pivotal role in the encounter with other religions and confessions. From the beginning, Portuguese conquest and exploration of the North African Atlantic coast was linked to ideals of crusade, and the Holy See provided its approval by issuing the bulls Dum Universas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Inter Caetera (1456).

Exploration was accompanied by a climate of intellectual curiosity, prompting theological debates on the status of the indigenous peoples encountered, including Christians with distinct yet ancient traditions, such as the Syrian Christians of India. In addition, the search for the lands of the legendary ‘Prester John’, soon identified with the Negus, the Christian Emperor of Ethiopia, posed another theological challenge for Portuguese scholars. The arrival of Ethiopian Church members at the Council of Florence in 1440 and Zär’a Ya‘ǝqob’s embassy to Alfonso V of Aragon strengthened European interest in Sub-Saharan Christians, leading to reciprocal diplomatic missions. In particular, the embassy of Francisco Álvares (1520-1527) brought Sagga Za Ab to visit Portugal as official envoy of the Negus. However, once in Lisbon, he was compelled to defend the traditional practices of his homeland against the attacks of court theologians, who accused Ethiopians of being overly influenced by Jewish customs, such as circumcision (Martinez d’Alos Moner 2005: 34-37). Despite the strong anti-Jewish sentiments in Iberia, the use of Hebrew sources and medieval Jewish exegesis by Portuguese theologians had a substantial impact on their interpretation of the scriptures. This is evident from an analysis of the first incunabula issued in Portugal until the expulsion of Jews in 1496: the majority of these works were written in Hebrew, as the Universal Short Title Catalogue shows. Out of 53 works printed, 30 were in Hebrew, 13 in Portuguese, 9 in Latin, and one is in Spanish. Regarding the Hebrew sources, most of them were commentaries on prayers, such as David ben Yosef Abudarham’s Perush Seder Tefillot, and commentaries on the Bible or specific biblical books. The cities of Lisbon, Porto, and Lerida shared the monopoly on printing Hebrew sources, though most of them – 17 out of 30 – were issued by Elizer Toledano in Lisbon (see Rodrigues 1984; Del Barco 2015; see also Cardetas Beato 2020).

Motivated by a desire to defend the Bible – and its Catholic interpretation – from what they saw as the Masoretic ‘corruption’ of Hebrew sources and the Reformation(s)’ ‘misinterpretations’ of the Bible, theologians in Portugal, especially in Coimbra, commented on the scriptures by following the humanistic emphasis on the original sources (ad fontes).

Exegesis and University

In sixteenth-century Portugal, the output of biblical exegetical literature was largely tied to university teaching, particularly in Coimbra and, after 1559, in Évora as well. After the relocation of the university from Lisbon to Coimbra and its permanent establishment there, in 1537, the Faculty of Theology had one major chair for the study of the Bible – against two major chairs for scholastic theology. A few years later, in 1545, a second major chair related to biblical interpretation was created. This expansion was formalized in the 1559 university statutes, which made clear that, from that point on, one chair would be dedicated to the New Testament, called the Terça Chair, and another chair to the Old Testament, called the Noa Chair. This second chair, however, was vacant for two extended periods, from 1562 and 1576 and again from 1580 through 1587. A third chair of scripture was established on an indeterminate date; however, like the chairs of Durand, Scotus, and Gabriel Biel, this was a minor chair and thus not mandatory for the students (Taveira da Fonseca 1997: 782-783). The Bible chairs were considered less prestigious than those dedicated to scholastic theology, which was reflected by their associated salaries: the holders of the Bible chairs earned less than half the income of their counterparts in scholastic theology (Rodrigues 2007: 210).

More varied exegetical approaches to the Bible can be found in Coimbra than in other Iberian universities. This is arguably because the professors there belonged to different religious orders and had received their training in various universities. This entry explores such doctrinal variety by focusing exclusively on Bible commentators who also taught in in Coimbra. The bulk of the commentators analyzed below held either the Terça or Noa Chair: Jerónimo de Azambuja, O.P., known as Oleaster; Francisco Foreiro, O.P.; Pablo de Palacio y Salazar; Luís de Sotomaior, O.P.; Heitor Pinto, O.S.H.; Gabriel da Costa; and Pedro de Figueiró, O.S.A. Despite their differing approaches, these biblical commentators all aimed to defend Catholic dogma against the growing Protestant challenge. To illustrate how these theologians approached the Bible, I focus specifically on the doctrine of justification and the relation between grace and human free will in the economy of salvation – two of the most frequently discussed topics in the commentaries. Some Portuguese theologians concentrated primarily on the biblical text itself, drawing directly on Hebrew and Greek sources to interpret the Latin Vulgate and thereby establish its original, ‘philological’ meaning. Others, however, favored a more traditional approach, making use of patristic writings, scholastic theology, and Church canons to uphold Catholic interpretations.

Literature Review

In the second half of the twentieth century, scholars began to highlight the significant contributions of sixteenth-century Portuguese biblical exegesis, often focusing on specific authors, most of whom were active at the University of Coimbra. The most relevant historiographic contributions are summarized in this paragraph. The first major work is Friedrich Stegmüller’s 1959 volume, which provided a list chairholders in the Faculties of Theology of Coimbra and Évora between 1537 and the two first decades of the seventeenth century, and identified the scholarly output of each theologian, in both print and manuscript form. Stegmüller identified numerous manuscripts preserved in Lisbon, Coimbra, Évora, Braga, and Porto, as well as in international libraries such as those in London and Rome, which attests to the fact that Portuguese commentaries circulated beyond Portugal. Over a decade later, José Nunes Carreira turned his attention to biblical exegesis, publishing a monograph on Francisco Foreiro’s philology and textual criticism (1973), which was followed by several articles on Heitor Pinto and Pablo de Palacio y Salazar (1976), Luís de Sotomaior (1979), and Jerónimo de Azambuja (1995). Nunes Carreira also examined the reception of the Council of Trent’s decree Insuper (1546) in Portugal and the participation of the Portuguese theological delegation at the Council’s later sessions (1997). Other notable contributions include António Augusto Martins Marques’ articles on Oleaster’s exegesis (1966a; 1996b) and his involvement with the Portuguese Inquisition (1964-66), and Manuel Augusto Rodrigues’ numerous articles, including studies on Oleaster’s exegetical work (1976; 1977a), Pedro de Figueiró (1975a), Luís de Sotomaior (1985), and Heitor Pinto (1998). Notably, Rodrigues’ research (1977a) highlighted the influence of medieval Jewish biblical interpretations on Coimbra commentators, underscoring the importance of Hebrew studies at Coimbra (1984). Rodrigues’ monographs remain perhaps the most significant works in this field, which trace the development of biblical studies in Coimbra by focusing on the Bible chairs from 1537 to 1640 (Rodrigues 1974a), the impact of Oriental studies on Biblical exegesis (Rodrigues 1974b), and provide a more general overview on biblical exegesis in Portugal (1984).

Scope of This Entry

The overview provided here is not meant to be exhaustive. First, this entry deals exclusively with printed commentaries. It is important to note, however, that a number of biblical commentaries survive only in manuscript form and still await research. In fact, in the case of Luís de Sotomaior and Gabriel da Costa, the number of their unpublished commentaries exceeds those that were issued during their lifetime (see Stegmüller 1959: 22-25). Second, this entry covers only theologians whose career is somehow related to the University of Coimbra and its preceding institute in Lisbon. It thus excludes the commentary on the Psalms written by Bartholomew of Braga (Bartolomeu dos Mártires) while he was in Trent, and the Augustinian Sebastião Toscano’s commentary on the Book of Jonah, printed in Venice in 1573. Bartholomew received his theological training at the Dominican convent of Batalha, while Toscano studied at Salamanca and lectured in Bologna.

Finally, this entry analyzes how these authors addressed the Insuper decree (1546) regarding the Vulgate. However, since it focuses exclusively on biblical commentators, it will not discuss how other Portuguese theologians faced the same issue, for instance, in commentaries on the Summa theologiae IIa-IIae, q. 1, or in theological treatises. For this reason, the theologian Diogo de Paiva de Andrade (1528-1575), who, as a substitute at Coimbra in the academic year 1557-58, read on the Bible and dedicated Book IV of his Defensio Tridentinae Fidei (1578) to the question of the authority of the Vulgate, is not considered here (see Rodrigues 1975b and 1977b). It should be noted, however, that the reception of the Insuper decree in Portugal was less contentious than in Salamanca, as evidenced by the inquisitorial process carried out in the 1570s, which led to the arrests of professors Luis de León, Gaspar de Grajal, and Martín Martínez de Cantalapiedra.

Jerónimo de Azambuja, O.P., known as Oleaster (c. 1503-1563)

Jerónimo de Azambuja joined the Dominican Order in 1520 and enrolled in the university college of St. Thomas in Lisbon in 1525 (the college would move to Coimbra only in 1539). He continued his studies at the University of Louvain in 1536 and after returning to Portugal, King John III sent him to the Council of Trent, where he attended the sessions of the first period (1545-49). Back in Portugal, he worked for the Inquisition, compiling the Index of Prohibited Books (1547, cf. Martins Marques 1964-66; see also Sobral Coelho 2013).

Three biblical commentaries by Oleaster have survived: one on the Psalms, which survives only in manuscript form (Coimbra, Biblioteca Geral, Ms. 1022; see Martins Marques 1966), one on the Pentateuch (1556; see below), and a commentary on Isaiah, which was published posthumously in Paris in 1622 and reissued in 1656 (Nunes Carreira 1995).

Despite his role in the Inquisition, Oleaster’s own work came to be included in the Index due to his editorial choices: in his commentary on the Pentateuch (1556), he preferred to draw on Sante Pagnini’s Latin translation, which was made from Hebrew. This was a clear breach of Trent’s decree Insuper (1546), which determined the Latin Vulgate to be the authentic text of the Bible for the Catholic Church and the only possible version to be used «in public readings, debates, sermons, and explanations» (Tanner & Alberigo 1990: II.664-665). Furthermore, his commentary was seen as overly reliant on the Hebraica veritas. This brought his commentary to the attention of the Inquisition, which included it in the Index et catalogus librorum prohibitorum (1583), issued by Gaspar de Quiroga y Vela, the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. After a careful emendation of the preface, and in agreement with the requests made by the Inquisition, Oleaster published a second edition of his commentary on the Pentateuch in 1585, printed in Lyon by Pierre Landry. This commentary was reissued in 1586, 1588, and in 1589, evincing the impact of his work outside Portugal. A comparison of the two prefaces illuminates the reason behind the inclusion of his work in the Index. In the first preface, Oleaster rejects the notion that the Jews had corrupted the scriptures, arguing that there are important differences between the Hebrew and Latin versions of the Bible – and even among the various Latin versions – that are not related to Christological issues. To support his view, Oleaster refers to specific passages of the Pentateuch (Gn. 8 and Gn. 48). However, in the second preface, Oleaster eliminates the long section of the text where he mentioned those passages and aligns himself with the Tridentine decree, declaring that there are no errors in the translation itself, though errors were introduced by scribes over the centuries – indeed, it was precisely on account of those errors that the Council demanded the emendation of the Latin Bible.

Oleaster’s work is heavily indebted to the Hebrew Bible. In almost each verse he comments on, Oleaster mentions Hebrew words and expressions, transliterated into Latin characters, to provide the most faithful and philologically accurate meaning of the scriptures. He also shows his openness to Hebrew exegesis, drawing on the work of medieval rabbis such as David Kimhi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Rashi (Rodrigues 1978: 184).

Throughout his work, Oleaster criticizes the ‘insane’ Luther for having denied human free will (Hieronymus ab Oleastro, CPb: 585A). He argues that Luther did not acknowledge that the human being acquires Christ’s justice not only by faith, but also by charity (idem, CPb: 82B-83A) – a teaching that is all the more absurd given that Luther himself stressed the importance of abiding by God’s commandments despite maintaining that good works are useless for salvation (idem, CPb: 574B). Oleaster expresses concern over the organizational effectiveness of the Lutherans, who he sees as capable of ‘perverting’ the younger generations and leading them to embrace heretical ideas from the cradle. Moreover, Lutherans had success in converting others because of their intense preaching activity. Oleaster blames Catholics for not adopting a similar approach, noting that very few wish to become preachers. Finally, Oleaster condemns the presence of ‘superstitions’ among Catholics, something that, in his view, the Church has failed to adequately address (idem, CPb: 600B).

In his commentary on Isaiah, Oleaster reiterates his criticism of Luther as an ‘enemy’ of human free will (Hieronymus ab Oleastro, CIP: 252) and for viewing good works as sinful (idem, CIP: 1093, 1249 and 1255). Oleaster also claims that, out of self-preservation, Luther opposed the killing of ‘heretics’ and argued that similar leniency should be applied to murderers, thieves, and other ‘enemies of the state’. Based on Rm. 13:4, Oleaster refutes this view, maintaining the legitimacy of coercive power for such cases (idem, CIP: 265).

Francisco Foreiro, O.P. (c. 1522-1581)

A native of Lisbon, Francisco Foreiro embodied the intellectual spirit fostered by the Portuguese nobility. In the context of King John III’s cultural policy, Foreiro was one of seventy students awarded a scholarship to study abroad. Foreiro went to Paris, where he received a solid training in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He furthered his education at Salamanca before returning to Lisbon in 1539, where he joined the Dominican Order. His scholarly reputation quickly grew, for Foreiro held important positions in Lisbon: he became preceptor of António, Prior of Crato, and served the Inquisition as a censor of books. His expertise was further recognized by a number of prestigious appointments, including being named the preacher of King John III in 1555 and being selected as the royal theologian at the Council of Trent in 1561 (Nunes Carreira 1974: 4-22 and 2006). This latter role paved the way for his inclusion in the Roman Committee for the Index of Prohibited Books in 1564. Significantly, he contributed to the preface of this crucial document. Foreiro also collaborated on the revision of the Roman Missal and Breviary. After returning to Lisbon in 1566, Foreiro became the prior provincial of Portugal in 1568. There is limited information regarding the last decade of his life; whether he was appointed professor of theology at the University of Coimbra remains a subject of scholarly debate (Nunes Carreira 1973: 21).

Foreiro published an annotated edition of Isaiah in 1563, dedicating it to Prince Henry of Portugal, Archbishop of Évora and later King of Portugal. There, addressing the clerics gathered in Trent, he declared his intention – never fulfilled – to publish a commentary on «all the books of Prophets, Job, David, and Salomon». Foreiro comments on Isaiah sentence by sentence, presenting both the ‘old’ (i.e. Vulgate) translation and his own, ‘new’ Latin translation based on the Hebrew text. His purpose was to reveal the original meaning of the text against the ‘perverse’ interpretations of the heretics, Luther above all (Forerius, CI: aiiiv-aivr). For this reason, each chapter presents the two Latin translations in two columns, followed by a thorough philological analysis. Against the backdrop of the decree Insuper on the ‘authenticity’ of the Vulgate, in his preface Foreiro underlines that he changed some elements (quaedam) which were mistakenly handed down due to the scribes’ negligence (librariorum negligentia), maintaining that no errors can be ascribed to the translator, Jerome (Forerius, CI; see Nunes Carreira 1973: 95-108 and 1997: 78-80). As Nunes Carreira (1973) maintains, Foreiro applies a philological approach to the scriptures, conducting an in-depth analysis of Hebrew words and idioms. However, he does not draw on Jewish exegesis because, in his view, the rabbis had purposefully altered the text to avoid any possible Christological interpretation, which obscured the meaning of the scriptures. For Foreiro, this ‘corruption’ of the Old Testament, due principally to the introduction of vowel signs by the Masoretes, can be validated by textual variations found in the Septuagint and Vulgate, which differ from the Hebrew text (Nunes Carreira 1973: 90). This, Foreiro maintains, serves as strong evidence of the Jewish corruption of the Old Testament. Given his approach focused primarily on philology, Foreiro also refers to the translations by Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila of Sinope, which predate the Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew text, to construct the most faithful readings of the scriptures. Additionally, Foreiro carefully drew on recent scholarship, in particular François Vatable’s 1539 edition of the Hebrew text of Isaiah, and Sante Pagnini’s Latin translation.

Foreiro’s is not overtly polemical; he engages minimally with confessional disputes against specific authors and scarcely mentions the Church Fathers, apart from Augustine, and he criticizes only once the doctrine of grace alone. Foreiro emphasizes the responsibility that any person has in the economy of salvation. Against the Protestants’ claims, Foreiro argues that everyone must act well in order to atone for ones’ sins and to acquire merits necessary for eternal life (Forerius, CI: 136v).

The central aim behind Foreiro’s commentary is seemingly to demonstrate – in opposition to Jewish scholarship – that Isaiah prophesied the arrival of Jesus Christ. He reinforces this position by cross-referencing passages from the New Testament, particularly Paul’s epistles.

Pablo de Palacio y Salazar (d. 1582)

Born in Granada, Pablo de Palacio y Salazar was the brother of the Salamancan theologian Miguel de Palacio y Salazar. After studying philosophy in Salamanca, Palacio moved to Portugal in 1525, where he earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Évora in June 1560. Shortly after, he was appointed to the Noa Chair at Coimbra. In 1563, he came to hold the Terça Chair (Rodrigues 1974a: 131-156).

The lion’s share of Palacio’s output is related to biblical exegesis, though he also translated Cajetan’s Summa de peccatis into Castilian. He published several biblical commentaries: on the Gospel of Matthew (1564), the Book of Isaiah (1572), the Gospel of John (1581), the Canonical Epistles (1581), Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews (1590), and the Twelve Prophets (1592).

Palacio’s exegetical approach is greatly indebted to scholastic philosophy, Aquinas being his main reference. By contrast, he rarely mentions the Church Fathers. In his first published commentary, on Matthew, Palacio often mentions Luther and even Thomas Münster by name, with clauses such as «Luther omits» (… taceat Lutherus) or «Luther lies, by saying …» (… Lutherus mentiatur, dicens …). In such passages, Palacio provides synopses of Protestant teachings in an attempt to demonstrate their doctrinal inconsistencies with recourse to scripture.

On the issue of the sola gratia principle, Pablo de Palacio rejects the idea that human cooperation is unnecessary in the economy of salvation (Palacio, EM: 392). Of course, grace is the «source of salvation» (fons salutis), but the individual’s deeds are sustained by the gratia adiuvans, and they cooperate to effect an individual’s salvation (operatio nostra per gratiam adiuta saluti cooperatur). Justification is the most discussed doctrine throughout the commentaries, and Palacio does not hesitate to defend the Catholic view, in accordance with Trent’s decree on justification (1547), against Luther’s doctrine (idem, EM: 724).

To defend the Catholic interpretation of justification, Palacio does not turn to the Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, who stressed the role of good works – authors Luther had chosen not to cite. Instead, he consistently returns to those Biblical passages which, for him, indicate that human cooperation is necessary in the economy of salvation. While commenting on Mt. 15:25, specifically regarding the woman’s words ‘help me’ (adiuva me), Palacio explicitly references Luther while availing himself of philosophical categories to argue that grace and good works hold an ontological reciprocity: good works can be interpreted as matter, while grace is the form, pre-existent in God. This stands in clear opposition to Luther’s sola gratia (idem, EM: 543).

Pablo de Palacio also rejects the Protestant idea of universal priesthood, which implies that even lay people can offer the eucharist. Against this argument, the Spanish theologian argues that Christ first gave bread to the disciples – His ministers – and only after that did they distribute it (idem, EM: 548). Finally, he strongly affirms the existence of the purgatory and the suffering to which its souls are subject, holding that those who have sinned in this earthly life must be tortured in the afterlife and cry out for indulgence (idem, EM: 368).

Luís de Sotomaior, O.P. (1526-1610)

A Portuguese noble by birth, Luís de Sotomaior joined the Dominican Order in Lisbon in 1543. He studied philosophy there, leaving Portugal in 1549 to complete his education at Leuven, both at the Faculty of Theology, under the guidance of John Henten – editor of the Louvain Vulgate (1547) – and at the Collegium trilingue. He earned his bachelor’s degree at the General Chapter of the Dominicans in Rome in 1558 and his master’s degree three years later. Afterward, he taught the New Testament at the University of Coimbra starting in 1566 (Stegmüller 1959: 22), holding the Terça chair for more than twenty years, through 1589.

Sotomaior produced two commentaries on the Song of Songs: a comprehensive, two-volume version in 1599-1601, and a shorter edition that was issued posthumously in 1611. In the first commentary, Sotomaior avoids mentioning his main targets, Luther and Calvin, explicitly. He limits himself to presenting Catholic doctrine through exegesis of the scriptures and by the Church Fathers, above all Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory of Nissa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. He also draws on medieval authors such as Bede, Richard of St. Victor, and Bernard of Clairvaux, and also on medieval Jewish exegetes, for example, Abraham ibn Ezra and Rashi (see Rodrigues 1998: 1418 and 1979). He also refers to Latin and Greek authors (Moreira Mendes & Simões Rodrigues 1994).

In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Sotomaior emphasizes the necessity of confession to attain the ‘fullness of grace’ and thereby be freed from the slavery of sin (Sotomaior, CCI: I.603A). Notwithstanding the importance of good works, Sotomaior maintains that grace is sufficient in the economy of salvation, citing 2 Cor. 12:9: «My grace is sufficient for thee» (ibidem: 648A). Sotomaior insists on the primacy of grace at several instances, consistently drawing on the Doctor gratiae, Augustine, to argue that grace precedes and enables human freedom rather than being its result (ibidem: 87A; cf. De correptione et gratia 8,17). Nevertheless, remaining grounded in Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio, chap. 5), Sotomaior totally rejects the Lutheran doctrine of grace alone. Commenting on 1 Cor. 15:10 («Not I, but the grace of God is with me»), Sotomaior posits a reciprocal relation between grace and humankind, where grace in collaboration with the human will leads human beings to salvation. This process begins with God’s ‘most efficacious call’ which converts man’s mind. Indeed, before God’s intervention through grace, human beings are only capable of acting badly (Sotomaior, CCI: II.814A); all human merit follows from God’s grace (cf. ibidem: 885B and 953A). Thus, while human salvation depends entirely on God’s absolute will, this does not negate human freedom or the dignity of free will (ibidem: 954A). In accordance with Augustine, Sotomaior explains that God’s grace does not eliminate human will; rather, His intervention frees human beings from evil (ibidem: 885B). Sotomaior’s view carries a political implication: just like God bestows an efficacious grace upon the human being but leaves the human will unaltered, so too the Church – and the state – must not force people to convert, thereby erasing their will. Sotomaior goes so far as to claim that any temporal and/or spiritual authority should not «correct, punish, even kill and burn heretics and similar people», but rather seek to promote «discipline, justice and piety» (ibidem: 954B). This stance would appear to criticize the policy of forced conversion imposed upon the Jews, Muslims, and Indigenous peoples of the Americas that occurred in Spain and Portugal and in their colonial empires, thus distancing Sotomaior from some of his fellow Portuguese theologians.

Sotomaior’s commentary on Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus, published in 1610, is another of his significant works. Here, he once again affirms the importance of human involvement in the economy of salvation and, in clear opposition to the Protestants, maintains that human beings have the ability to act well (ad incipiendum bonum), although God’s help is required to effectively act well (ad perficiendum bonum) (Sotomaior, CP: 135). Sotomaior states that Augustine himself maintained that human beings are intrinsically free in their will and therefore have the ability to act well or badly (ibidem: 2066). Sotomaior also points to intra-confessional divisions among the ‘sectarians’ (sectatores): for him, the ‘heretic’ Luther almost dies «from his own sword» by labelling Zwingli and Oecolampadius heresiarchs and claiming that heresy is so great a sin that it is very difficult to return to the right path (ibidem: 2016). Sotomaior does not specify the context of the debate among the ‘heresiarchs’, since his motivation is to underscore Protestantism’s ideological fragmentation, in opposition to the solidity – and orthodoxy – of Catholic doctrine, which relies on both the scripture and tradition. However, it is quite clear that he is referring to the Marburg Colloquy (1529), where Protestant leaders debated the real presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist.

Sotomaior criticizes Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination, though he does not mention Calvin by name. For the Portuguese theologian, Calvin’s doctrine is unable to explain the relation between free will and God’s efficacious grace; indeed, it de facto nullifies human free will, in that it is up to God to choose who will be saved and who will be damned. Against this view, Sotomaior maintains that God wants all human beings to be saved; for this reason, He provided them with His law to prohibit them from sinning. At the same time, God predestined human beings to act according to their own will, even if their will acts against God’s prohibitions. For this reason, even when human beings freely act against God’s will, they also act in accordance with God’s foreknowledge and will to create a specific world, since He is the cause of all contingent beings (ibidem: 264-283).

Heitor Pinto, O.S.H. (1528-1584)

The Hieronymite friar Heitor Pinto, born in Covilhã, is regarded as the most important exegete in Coimbra and one of the most authoritative in sixteenth-century Portugal (Rodrigues 1974a: 285). He held the Noa Chair at Coimbra between 1576 and 1580. Despite his relevance, his tenure was short lived; he was removed from the chair due to his opposition to the Iberian Union. Before his professorship in Coimbra, he taught for some years at the Hieronymite College of Salamanca. He was, however, educated in Coimbra. Heitor Pinto benefited from a solid knowledge of Greek and Hebrew; he also demonstrated a deep familiarity with the numerous works of the Church Fathers as well as Hebrew exegetes. His linguistic and theological proficiency enabled him to interpret the scriptures in a very faithful way – even identifying the Hebraisms in Paul’s Greek – to refute Protestant views. Unlike Sotomaior, Pinto frequently and quite harshly refers to his Protestant adversaries to demonstrate the inconsistencies of their theological speculations. He published a number of commentaries on the prophets: Isaiah (1561), Ezekiel (1568), Daniel, Nahum, and Jeremiah (1579), which were later compiled in his Opera Omnia (1584). Each volume begins with a comprehensive, three-column list of his sources: Church Fathers and rabbis, but also Latin and Greek authors – philosophers, literates, historians, geographers, and poets – translators of the Bible, both ancient (LXX, Theodotion, Symmachus, Aquila) and contemporary (Sante Pagnini), and academic colleagues like Oleaster.

Throughout his works, Pinto persistently condemns Lutheran doctrine. In his commentary on Isaiah, for example, he states on several occasions that Luther and Calvin are the expression of Epicurus’ lascivious doctrine (Pintus, OO: I.79a and 152a) and, what is more, they are «Venus’ soldiers» and «Baccus’ worshippers» (ibidem: 345b and 288b). While commenting on Is. 2:3, Pinto stresses that no salvation is possible outside the Catholic Church (according to the principle extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). For him, this was an occasion to attack Luther, along with Melanchthon, as an «impious man», a «detestable heretic[s]», who were «born for sedition», for these two men paved the way for a schism within the Church by suggesting another path to salvation that would, in fact, lead to eternal death. In Pinto’s commentary on Is. 48:12, Luther is once again strongly criticized for the role he assigns to human beings in the process of salvation. If humans are powerless to contribute to their own salvation – as the sola fide and the sola gratia principles suggest – then God would not ask them to repent. Finally, while commenting on Ez. 2:1-4, Pinto claims that individuals’ capacity to do good is not affected by sin, including mortal sins; on the contrary, whoever has sinned must prepare oneself to receive God’s grace by acting well, for virtuous actions dispose the human mind (animus) toward God’s justice (Pintus, OO: II.60A).

Gabriel da Costa (1556-1616)

Not to be confused with the homonymous Gabriel da Costa (1585-1640), more commonly known as Uriel da Costa, Gabriel da Costa was born in Torres Vedras. After enrolling in the College of St. Peter of the University of Coimbra in 1582, he completed a doctorate in theology in 1587. A disciple of Heitor Pinto, he succeeded Luís de Sotomaior in the Terça chair, holding it until 1615, just prior to his death in 1616.

Costa produced extensive commentaries on both the Old and New Testaments, including, among others, works on Psalms 57 and 109, Hosea 1-2, and the gospels of Mark and John (see Stegmüller 1959: 23-25). These commentaries survive only in manuscript form. However, in 1641, a few decades after Costa’s death, a posthumous collection of his commentaries on select Old Testament books was published in Lyon. This volume is divided into five parts, with each part focused on a chapter or book of the Old Testament: Genesis 49, the Book of Ruth, the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Jonah, and the Book of Malachi.

Costa’s commentaries reflect his great erudition, advancing a sound interpretation of specific elements of the Catholic faith. He prefers not to engage with Protestants on their own terms – in other words, by using the scriptures alone – but rather demonstrates the importance of drawing on multiple sources to unveil the meanings of scripture: he frequently cites Latin and Greek Church Fathers (principally Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Theophylact of Ohrid, and Jerome), Latin and Greek authors, medieval Jewish exegetes, medieval scholastic authors (Anselm, Aquinas, and Duns Scotus), and contemporary authors like Bellarmine. Moreover, to affirm the Catholic foundation of his interpretations, he often references conciliar sources, especially from the Council of Trent (Rodrigues 1974a: 363-368). For example, Costa defends, against Luther and Theodor Beza, the sacramental value of the Catholic marriage (Costa, CVT: 149) by referring to the scriptures and Church Fathers, before turning to conciliar sources, including canons from the Council of Agde (506), the Council of Elvira (306), and the Synod of Arles (314).

In his interpretation of Gn. 49, Gabriel da Costa outlines a methodology for biblical exegesis, by explaining the senses in which the scriptures can be interpreted. Here, his categorizations align with tradition. The first sense in which the Bible can be interpreted is the ‘literal’ one, often defined as ‘historical’, but Costa shows that this category can be applied properly only to the historical books of the Bible – not to the prophetic or doctrinal books. Given these specificities, the theologian further divides the literal sense into ‘simple’ (simplex) – related to the proper meaning (propria significatio) of the words – and ‘figurative’ (figuratus) – the metaphorical meaning (metaphorica significatio). The allegorical, or mystical, sense provides a further level of interpretation, concerning concealed references to Christ or the Church in the Old Testament. The mystical sense, in its turn, can be divided into three different senses: simple allegory, tropological allegory, and anagogic allegory (Costa, CVT: 31-32; see Rodrigues 1974a: 361-362).

Costa’s approach to biblical exegesis seeks first to explain the literal sense of the scriptures, followed by the mystical one. He uses the Latin Vulgate as his primary reference text, while also consulting the Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion’s, Aquila’s, and Symmachus’). His ultimate purpose is to defend the normative power of the Church, against the attacks of the ‘reformers’ (reformatores) – chiefly Luther, though Costa also mentions Melanchthon and Calvin, who denied that the Council and the Pope can define dogmas of faith. For Costa, it is the Pope who holds primacy in declaring the truth of faith, and the scriptures corroborates this: Moses foreshadows the archetype of the Pontiff, while Christ explicitly bestows the power to define dogma onto Peter, by giving him the Keys of Heaven (Mt. 16:19). In that moment, Peter became the Supreme Pontiff of the Church (Costa, CVT: 221).

Pedro de Figueiró, O.S.A. (1523-1592)

Born in Figueiró dos Vinhos, Pedro de Figueiró moved to the nearby town of Coimbra to pursue his higher education. There, he mastered semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic) before becoming a lecturer in sacred scriptures at the Augustinian monastery of the Holy Cross in Coimbra, where he remained the rest of his life. Figueiró was asked to replace Sotomaior – who had revised and approved Figueiró’s commentaries – at the Terça chair, but he declined, preferring instead to stay at the monastery (Rodrigues 1975b: 134). After his death, his commentary on the books of Jeremiah and Malachi was published in Lyon in 1596. Twenty years later, in 1616, his Opera Omnia was published in Lyon in two volumes: the first contained his commentary on the first 25 Psalms, the Book of Jeremiah, and the Book of Lamentations, while the second was entirely devoted to the Minor Prophets. Two manuscripts in the Biblioteca Geral of Coimbra (1728 and 1729) contain adnotationes on a number of Old Testament books (Rodrigues 1975a: 142). Like his fellow Coimbra theologians, Figueiró grounded his analysis of the scriptures in Patristic writings and medieval Jewish commentaries. He also follows the approach of returning to the original sources (ad fontes), consistently referencing both the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible.

Protestants are frequently the object of his critiques, though he does not typically mention them explicitly. The sole exception is Luther, whom he mentions only once, in a passage where Figueiró defends the Catholic doctrine of justification by both grace and works (Figueiro, Op.: I.144A). Here, he upholds the necessity of human free will. Without mentioning Luther by name, he maintains that justification needs both God and the individual’s willing consent to God’s help (ibidem: 318A). He also holds that the claim that even good works are sinful is false (ibidem: 99AB). At times, Figueiró condemns ‘heretics’ broadly without specifying who his target(s) might be. He holds that the danger posed by the ‘heretics’ comes from their ability to blend true and false teachings to confuse the faithful (ibidem: 291). By converting people to false teachings, ‘heretics’ irreparably damage the souls of believers, ‘killing’ them spiritually (spiritualiter), since apostates distance themselves from the path leading to salvation. When they are unable to convert others to their cause, these ‘heretics’ resort to physically (corporaliter) obliterating those who resist them (ibidem: 272B).

Elsewhere, Figueiró condemns the cuius regio, eius religio principle established at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. He argues that this principle wrongly extends temporal rulers’ supreme authority over spiritual matters (ibidem: 94A).

Conclusion

The preceding overview analyzes a variety of exegetical approaches carried out by authors from different religious orders. However, a common thread unites these commentaries: their authors understand Luther and the Protestant Reformation as their opponents, and this forms the background of their biblical exegesis. Among the most influential Portuguese biblical interpreters of the sixteenth century, Foreiro entirely rejected Jewish exegesis, while promoting a philological approach to the scriptures that prioritized the ‘original’ language. Other authoritative theologians, such as Luís de Sotomaior and Heitor Pinto (Rodrigues 1998), however, drew heavily on medieval Jewish exegesis in their works, using it as a key to unlock the meaning of the scriptures. Throughout his commentaries, Pinto consistently defends the necessity of human free will and good works in the economy of salvation, reiterating that an individual’s actions are meritorious before God. In doing so, he harshly criticized Luther and Melanchthon, even to the point of demonizing and insulting them. By contrast, Sotomaior takes a quite different approach, aiming to convert rather than attack the authors he sees as opponents. Crucially, he never mentions these opponents by name, and their doctrines are not openly condemned. The only ‘heretics’ he cites are the Pelagians. Sotomaior, perhaps by virtue of his theological education at Leuven, where he became acquainted with Michael Baius’ thought, is greatly indebted to Augustine’s theology.

Gabriel Costa stresses the importance of Patristics and medieval authors for biblical exegesis as well as papal supremacy, while Pedro de Figueiró underscores the dangers posed by the Lutherans, who, he warns, can lead people to apostasy and spiritual damnation. Furthermore, he warns that if Lutherans fail to convert Catholics, they will kill those who remain faithful to the Church. This perceived threat explains the need to teach solid doctrine and thereby prevent the spread of Protestant ideas in Catholic territories. Finally, although Oleaster condemned Lutherans for distorting the meaning of the scriptures, he was also forced to recognize that, compared to Catholics, Protestants were more highly organized in their efforts to convert people through preaching and educating the younger generations through catechesis. Oleaster’s exegetical work is, therefore, an attempt to counter the Lutherans, by providing commentaries intended to unveil the ‘real’ meaning of the scriptures against ‘false’ interpretations.

Although the polemical target of the commentaries remained the ‘Lutherans’ – an umbrella term used to indicate all those confessions which arose in Europe during the Reformation – the specific character of biblical exegesis at Coimbra was even more shaped by its problematic relationship with the Jewish tradition. This tradition could be rejected or accepted, but every biblical scholar had to confront it to some extent. This approach likely reflects a broader trend of fiercely defending Catholicism in Portugal, which had its beginning with the expulsion of Jews and Muslims in 1496-97. That approach was later extended toward other forms of Christianity with which Portugal had come into contact through overseas exploration. This is evident in Portugal’s diplomatic relations with Ethiopian Christians, who were criticized for being too closely aligned with the Jewish tradition, and with Syrian Christians in Malabar, who became subjects of the Estado da Índia and whose texts were ordered to be burned at the Synod of Diamper in 1599 (Perczel 2006).

In this way, biblical scholarship reflected local theological needs, just as it did in other regions with different confessional landscapes, such as the Habsburg Netherlands. There, the Reformation(s) posed a more urgent threat, for it was seen as capable of destroying the integrity of the state, which was eventually split into the Catholic Spanish Netherlands in the south and the Calvinist Dutch Republic in the north. Because their country was a Catholic ‘wedge’ between the Holy Roman Empire, Huguenot France, and England, biblical scholars in the Netherlands employed various theological strategies to defended Catholicism against specific ‘heresies’ – more precisely identified than in Coimbra – «covering all the possible tonalities of the exegetical spectrum» (Gerace 2019: 260). In this respect, they deployed anti-Pelagian Augustinianism to defend Catholicism from Luther – a position which even led to Baianism – and Molinism to counter Calvinism. Nothing of this kind is found in the biblical commentaries produced at Coimbra, where the threat of Protestant views was felt less urgently than in other European universities.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • Gabriel da Costa, Commentaria quinque in totidem libros Veteris Testamenti, Lugduni: sumptibus haeredum G. Boissat & L. Anisson, 1641 [= CVT]
  • Hieronymus ab Oleastro, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosi, Olysipponae: apud I. Barrerium, 1556 [= CPa]
  • Hieronymus ab Oleastro, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosi, Lugduni: apud P. Landry, 1589 [= CPb]
  • Hieronymus ab Oleastro, In Isaiam Prophetam Commentarii, Lutetiae Parisiorum, Sumptibus Sebastiani Cramoisy [= CIP]
  • Franciscus Forerius, Iesaiae prophetae vetus & nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commentario, in quo utriusque ratio redditur, vulgatus interpres a plurimorum calumniis vindicator, Venetiis: ex officina I. Zileti (sic), 1563 [= CI]
  • Hector Pintus, Frater, Opera omnia latina, Lugduni: apud S. Michaelem, 1584, tomo I, tomo II, tomo III/1, tomo III/2 [= OO]
  • Lodovicus Sotomaior, Cantici canticorum Salomonis interpretatio, Olysipponae: excudebat P. Crasbeeck, 1599-1601, t. I-II [= CCI]
  • Lodovicus Sotomaior, Ad Canticum Canticorum notae posteriores et breviores, Parisiis: apud M. Sonnium, 1611 [= CCN]
  • Lodovicus Sotomaior, Commentarius in priorem ac posteriorem Pauli Apostoli epistolam ad Timothaeum; et item in epistolam ejusdem ad Titum, Parisiis: apud M. Sonnium, 1610 [= CP]
  • Paulus de Palacio, In Ecclesiasticum commentarius, Coloniae: apud G. Calenium, 1593 [= CE]
  • Paulus de Palacio, Enarrationes in sacrosanctum Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Constantiae: sumptibus N. Kalt, 1613 [= EM]
  • Petrus a Figueiro, Operum tomi duo, Lugduni: sumptibus H. Cardon, 1611 [= Op.]

Secondary Literature

  • Berbara, Maria, and Karl A.E. Enenkel. 2012. “Introduction: Transoceanic Crossroads – Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters.” In Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters, 120-68. Leiden: Brill.
  • Cardetas Beato, Sofia. 2020. “O Ensino Do Hebraico Em Portugal e o Seu Lugar Na Humanitas Universitária.” Revista de História Da Sociedade e Da Cultura 20: 381–96. https://doi.org/10.14195/1645-2259_20_18.
  • Del Barco, Javier. 2015. The Late Medieval Hebrew Book in the Western Mediterranean: Hebrew Manuscripts and Incunabula in Context. Leiden: Brill.
  • Gerace, Antonio. 2019. Biblical Scholarship in Louvain in the ‘Golden’ Sixteenth Century. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Lowe, Kate. 2008. “‘Representing’ Africa: Ambassadors and Princes From Christian Africa to Renaissance Italy and Portugal, 1402-1608.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 17: 101–28.
  • Martinez d’Alos Moner, Andreu. 2005. “Paul and the Other: The Portuguese Debate on Circumcision of the Ethiopians.” In Ethiopia and the Missions: Historical and Anthropological Insights, by Verena Böll, Steven Kaplan, and Andreu Martinez d’Alos Moner, 31–52. Munster: LIT Verlag.
  • Martins Marques, António Augusto. 1964–1966. “Frei Jerónimo de Azambuja e a sua actividade inquisitorial.” Lusitania Sacra 7: 193–216. https://doi.org/10.34632/lusitaniasacra.1964.8295.
  • Martins Marques, António Augusto. 1966a. “A Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja. I. Breve Comparação Dos Comentários.” Theologica 1 (2): 123–50. https://doi.org/10.34632/theologica.1966.13616.
  • Martins Marques, António Augusto. 1966b. “A Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja. II. A Obra de Oleastro e a Exegese  Do Seu Tempo.” Theologica 1 (3): 293–327. https://doi.org/10.34632/theologica.1966.13616.
  • Moreida Mendes, Ana Maria, and Nuno Simões Rodrigues. 1994. “O Uso Dos Clássicos No Comentário de Frei Luís de Sotomaior a Cant. 4, 1 a.” Cadmo: Revista Do Instituto Oriental  Universidade de Lisboa 4/5: 95–120.
  • Nunes Carreira, José. 1974. Filologia e Crítica de Isaías No Comentário de Francisco Foreiro (1522?-1581): Subsídios Para a História Da Exegese Quinhentista. Coimbra: s.n.
  • Nunes Carreira, José. 1976. “Dois Mestres de Antigo Testamento Em Coimbra Frei Heitor Pinto e Paulo de Palácios e Salazar.” Didaskalia 6: 381–94.
  • Nunes Carreira, José. 1979. “Tradição e Inovação No Comentário de Frei Luís de Sotomaior Ao Cântico Dos Cânticos.” Didaskalia 9: 155–208.
  • Nunes Carreira, José. 1995. “Frei Jerónimo de Azambuja: Exegeta e Hebraísta Português.” Mare Liberum 10:407–22.
  • Nunes Carreira, José. 1997. “Trento e o Triunfo Da Vulgata Em Portugal.” Clio. Revista Do Centro de História Da Universidade de Lisboa 2: 75–84.
  • Nunes Carreira, José. 2006. “Sermão de Frei Francisco Foreiro Aos Padres Conciliares de Trento.” Didaskalia 36 (1): 253–68.
  • Perczel, István. 2006. “Have the Flames of Diamper Destroyed All the Old Manuscripts of the Saint Thomas Christians?” The Harp, 20: 87–104.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1974a. A Cátedra de Sagrada Escritura Na Universidade de Coimbra de 1537 a 1640. Coimbra: Instituto de Estudos Históricos Doutor António de Vasconcelos.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1974b. Exegese Bíblica e Antiguidade Oriental. Coimbra: Faculdade de Letras de Coimbra.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1975a. “D. Pedro de Figueiró e a Sua Obra Exegética.” Didaskalia 5 (1): 133–53. https://doi.org/10.34632/didaskalia.1975.726.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1975b. “Algumas notas sobre a vida e a obra de Diogo de Paiva de Andrade.” Revista Portuguesa de História 15: 301–327.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1976. “Dois Mestres de Antigo Testamento Em Coimbra: Frei Heitor Pinto e Paulo de Palácios e Salazar.” Didaskalia 6 (1): 381–94. https://doi.org/10.34632/didaskalia.1976.747.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1977a. “Alguns aspectos da obra exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja (Oleastro), O.P.” Revista Portuguesa de História 17: 25–36. https://ap1.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316.2/46601.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1977b. “Diogo de Paiva de Andrade. IV centenário da sua morte.” Revista de História das Ideias 1: 237–286. https://ap1.sib.uc.pt/handle/10316.2/43976.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1978a. “A Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja (Oleastro), O.P. Os Cânones Bíblicos e o Prefácio Ao Pentateuco.” Biblos 183: 183–95.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1978b. Alguns Aspectos Da Obra Exegética de Fr. Jerónimo de Azambuja (Oleastro), O.P. Coimbra: Instituto de História Económica e Social.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1983. Subsídios Para a História Da Exegese Bíblica Em Portugal: Escrituras e Suas Obras. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1984. “Les Études Hébraiques à l’Université de Coimbre.” In L’humanisme Portugais et l’Europe, 111–60. Paris: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1985. “Influências Da Exegese Judaica Medieval Nos Comentadores Bíblicos Portugueses Do Século XVI: O Comentário Ao Cântico Dos Cânticos de Luis de Sotomaior.” In Jews and Conversos. Studies in Society and the Inquisition. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies Held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, August 16-21, 1981, 179–96. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1990. “Le Commentaire Sur Le Pentateuque de Fr. Jeronimo de Azambuja (Oleastro).” In Théorie et Pratique de l’exégèse. Actes Du Troisième Colloque International Sur l’historie de l’exégèse Biblique Au XVIe Siècle (Genève, 31 Aout-2 Septembre 1988), 231–41. Genève: Droz.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 1998. “Ecos Da Exegese Judaica Medieval Nas Obras Biblicas de Fr. Luis de Leon, Fr. Luis de Sotomayor e Fr. Heitor Pinto.” In Pensamiento Medieval Hispano: Homenaje a Horacio Santiago-Otero, 2: 1383–1445. Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientificas.
  • Rodrigues, Manuel Augusto. 2007. “Os professores da Universidade de Coimbra entre 1290 e 1772. Notas ao livro ‘Memoria Professorum Universitatis Conimbrigensis, vol. I’.” In Id., A Universidade de Coimbra: figuras e factos da sua história. Volume I, 171–229. Porto: Campo das Letras.
  • Sobral Coelho, Ilda. 2013. “Frei Jerónimo de Azambuja: Exegeta e Hebraísta Português.” Cadmo: Revista Do Instituto Oriental  Universidade de Lisboa 11: 101–21.
  • Stegmüller, Friedrich. 1959. Filosofia e Teologia Nas Universidades de Coimbra e Évora No Século XVI. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.
  • Tanner, Norman, and Giuseppe Alberigo. 1990. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols., London–Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward–Georgetown University Press.
  • Taveira da Fonseca, Fernando. 1997. “6. A Teologia. 6.1. A Teologia na Universidade de Coimbra.” In História da Universidade em Portugal. Volume 1. Tomo 2: 1537-1771, I.2: 781–816. Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.