Further probable arguments: accuser as judge; left in office; name absent from the Decree

Would the very man who had accused Placeus — having played the accuser's part vigorously with a prepared speech, great apparatus, much eloquence, and great vehemence, still hot from that accusation and with his blood stirred — also, with no reply and no delay interposed, have sat as judge in that cause and, as moderator, have called for the votes? Would a most equitable Synod have allowed that, if in that trial the issue was a pastor and theology professor's doctrine and reputation — especially one absent, not cited, and never marked by any censure? That is certainly not likely.

Placeus is far from approving, or wishing to imitate, the peevishness of the Remonstrants who refused to answer before a National Synod and demanded that a large part of the delegates be removed on that account. For if the reason of our faith can and ought to be given even before the most hostile judges, and was given by Christ himself and by his apostles and martyrs, how much more can and ought it to be given before a Synod composed of brothers and convened by the lawful authority of the magistrate? If some Remonstrants had previously accused, or had declared their own judgment, they were to be counted, once they had taken the role of delegates to the National Synod and interposed the religion of an oath, as having laid aside affections and prejudices. What Placeus does urge is what that very Synod of Dort solemnly affirmed: that no one can be both defender and judge in the same trial of the same cause.

Would that most prudent Synod, if it had indeed meant Placeus to be condemned for a serious error, also have allowed him, as before, to serve both in the sacred ministry in the church and in the professorship of sacred theology in the Academy of Saumur, with neither censure for the past nor caution for the future? Would it not have arranged for some pastor to admonish him of the error privately or publicly, so that he might, if possible, be called back from it? Would it not at least have ordered the Synod of Anjou to deal with the accused, so that he would not go on troubling the church of God? Would the Synod also have thought that the dogmas of religion were to be measured by its authority alone, and that the Scripture texts and arguments Placeus brought forward were outweighed by it? Far be it from us to believe of that Synod what is rightly condemned in the Roman church by all Protestants as tyrannical. Placeus would think himself unworthy to be counted Reformed if he prized one synod's bare authority above Scripture and the arguments drawn from Scripture, so long as those still seemed insoluble to him. The Synod would therefore certainly have taken care that someone both answer Placeus's arguments and set out those by which the Synod, moved by them, had condemned his judgment — so that both the equity of its decision would be plain, and it would seem to persuade consciences by laying truth open rather than by commanding faith. Since, then, no one who took part in that Synod, and no one at their order or urging, exchanged any word with Placeus, orally or in writing, by which to move him from his judgment, or to dilute his arguments, or to state the contrary: by that it is shown clearly enough that Placeus was not condemned by that synodical Decree.

To this is added that Placeus's name is absent from the Decree. Why, if the doctrine of Placeus, accused by name, was being condemned? For either the Synod wished to seem to have condemned Placeus's judgment, or it did not. If it did: why did it not express his name? If it did not: those for whom it seems to have condemned him depart from the Synod's mind.