Second probable argument: a National Synod would have cited him

To this argument I will add another no less probable. If Placeus had been accused before the National Synod, would the Synod not have had him summoned and cited to appear? Who would believe it willing to condemn a living pastor and professor of theology, of unblemished reputation until then, absent, unheard, not previously cited or even warned of the accusation — with great scandal to many of the weak, and harm to his ministry and to the Academy he served? Yet that Synod cited him in no way, neither directly nor indirectly, though the ordinary post could easily have done it two or three times any week.

Someone will perhaps reply that there was no need of a citation, because it was not the person that was put in danger, but only the doctrine that was called to examination. What do I hear? Was not a pastor and theology professor's reputation put in danger — a reputation that ought to be dearer to him than life itself? Was not his ministry put in danger — a ministry whose effectiveness nothing can injure more than the rumor that a National Synod has condemned him for a serious error in religion? Was not his person subjected to every censure, if that decree condemned his doctrine? Was he not judged worthy to be stripped of the pastoral and professorial office, if that decree shut theology students out of the sacred ministry of the Word because of his error?

Someone may also say that among those present there was an outstanding colleague of Placeus, famous for learning and eloquence, who could defend Placeus's judgment before the Synod far better and more eloquently than Placeus himself. That colleague was indeed present; Placeus both admires and honors his gifts, and counts it part of his own happiness to have such a colleague. But Placeus had never conferred with him on that question, and hoped for no other defense from him in the Synod than that, if Placeus were accused, he would intercede so that Placeus would not be condemned absent and unheard. So if he took up Placeus's cause to plead before the Synod, that happened beyond Placeus's intention, and is to be credited to kindness toward a colleague; and it ought not to have kept the Synod from citing Placeus himself, if he was being accused by name. For Placeus, never warned, could not have guessed at an accusation so contrary to the church's settled order; he had neither thought he must come to the Synod nor asked anyone else to answer and defend his cause there. Further: if his most distinguished colleague did take up his cause, why was the defender forced to speak first, in the accuser's place? Why, after the accuser had spoken, was the defender not allowed to answer and clear away the objections, arguments, and testimonies? Who ever heard that the advocate of an accused man (if he can even be called an advocate who takes up the cause of a defendant wholly unaware of the charge) must plead first, and after the accuser has pleaded must not reply?

And yet with his usual subtlety and his usual splendor of speech that colleague pleaded his own and Placeus's cause before the venerable assembly for more than two hours. Whether he pleaded his own cause or not, let him see. Placeus's cause, at least, could not be handled in so little time. For in his own cause he can bring forward so many arguments and testimonies that two hours could scarcely suffice even to touch them lightly, much less to unfold them and fence them from exceptions. Indeed he does not know whether even one argument can be weighed and judged in so short a time as fairness requires. For he himself, in examining a single argument, not rarely spends several hours — even days — taught by his own experience that what seems true at first glance, or on a light examination, is sometimes found false when inspected more carefully.