BCEME -p 25
Erasmus wrote a response to Stunica’s work between June and
September 1521, and it appeared in early October. This initial volley initiated
a series of thirteen attacks and counterattacks between Stunica and
Sancho Carranza on one side, and Erasmus on the other.36
36 See ASD IX-2:17–47, on the course of this exchange.
p. 43
Accordingly, some delegates criticised the way in which the charges against Erasmus were framed. Antonio de Alcaraz suggested that since there are many things the
Arians might deny, the question should have been phrased more carefully.
Alcaraz, bishop Santiago Cabrero, Sancho Carranza de Miranda, Miguel
Gómez, Pedro de Lerma and Martín de Samunde stated that while
Erasmus’ comments about Jerome may have displayed arrogance and
irreverence, they did not constitute an attack on the Trinity, and should
not have been included amongst Erasmus’ alleged denials of this doctrine
p. 45
It was true that popes and councils had
cited the comma, but they were simply following the biblical text current
in their day. Carranza was one of the few who realised that the distinction
between canon and manuscript attestation was crucial to any discussion
of Erasmus’ orthodoxy. While Carranza believed that the comma was part
of the canon of Scripture, he (like his colleague Luis Coronel) considered
that Erasmus had not erred in his annotation, since he merely reported the
absence of the comma from his Greek manuscripts. Moreover, Carranza
pointed out that Erasmus proved his willingness to submit to ecclesiastical
tradition by restoring the passage in his third edition. By contrast,
Pedro Ciruelo and Córdoba maintained that it was wrong to deny or even
doubt that the comma was part of the text of Scripture, no matter what
some old Greek or Latin codices might say. Accordingly, their only criterion
for judging whether a given manuscript reading was good or bad was
the degree to which it conformed to the received canon of the Scripture,
that is, the Latin Vulgate. Samunde was virtually the only delegate prepared
to consider the possibility that the comma was not part of the biblical
text. The responses given at the conference show that many of the
p. 47
Carranza had a more nuanced approach. He
considered that some doctrines which might be disputed by the Arians,
such as the divinity of Christ or his equality and consubstantiality with
the Father, are clearly expressed in Scripture. But there are other doctrines
which can only be proven by a combination of Scripture and the exercise
of reason, such as the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is true God, of
the same nature as the Father and Son, who proceeds from them both.
Besides disagreeing about the meaning of the comma, the delegates
were undecided about Erasmus’ reasons for excising and then reintroducing
it, and the significance and motivations of his actions.
– Cabrero, Carranza, Carrasco, Gómez, Lerma, Quintana and
Virués – were prepared to believe that Erasmus had not found the comma
in the manuscripts he had used to prepare the first two editions, but had
solved the defect by restoring the comma to his text once he had seen
such a manuscript.
