[Syntagma Thesium Theologicarum in Academia Salmuriensi Disputatarum; 2nd ed; (Saumur : Jean Lesnier)]
Josué de La Place (Latin: Josua Placeus, c. 1596–1655), ****stands among those figures whose contributions to the French Reformed tradition were both profound and controversial. Born in Saumur, France, around 1596, Placeus was educated in the renowned Academy of Saumur, where he imbibed the more irenic and speculative spirit characteristic of that school, rather than the robust Calvinism that marked earlier generations. Advancing swiftly in academic and ecclesiastical ranks, Placeus succeeded Mark Duncan as Professor of Philosophy in 1621, served as pastor at Nantes (1625), and later held the influential chair of Theology at Saumur from 1633 until his death. It was here, amidst an atmosphere increasingly marked by theological innovation, that Placeus’s “moderate” tendencies came to the fore. Following in the steps of John Cameron and the so-called "Saumur School," Placeus labored to soften the more austere doctrines of Reformed orthodoxy, especially regarding original sin and the imputation of Adam’s guilt. Rejecting the “immediate imputation” of Adam’s sin—a bulwark of Reformed confessionalism—Placeus advanced the doctrine of "mediate imputation," wherein Adam’s sin is accounted to his descendants only by way of inherited corruption, not by the imputation of Adam’s actual guilt. This mitigated position, laid out in his Disputatio de imputatione primi peccati Adami and his defense of the 1645 Charenton Synod’s decree, drew censure and alarm from orthodox contemporaries, who saw in it a dangerous concession to the spirit of the age and a breach with the settled doctrine of the Reformed churches. Placeus’s moderatism, while perhaps intended as a bridge between theological camps, was perceived by many as a harbinger of doctrinal decline. Though his name endures in the annals of controversy, it is as a warning against the perils of theological compromise as much as a testimony to his learning and zeal.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
Presided over by Dr. MOSES AMYRALDUS
Responded to by EPHRAIM DE LA VOUTE of Normandy
THESIS I. SINCE no one denies that Sacraments were instituted, among other reasons, to be a certain token of union and concord between men, it seems not only strange but even deplorable that no other controversy in religion has divided Christians with greater and more irreconcilable separation than that concerning the Sacraments. To such an extent that, as if disputes about the things themselves were not sufficient, they have thought it necessary to contend even about the name. And where they have not found true adversaries, they imagine imaginary enemies with whom to wage war.
THESIS II. Certainly Bellarmine unjustly attributes to Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and others that they abhorred the name of Sacrament, and if that term in this matter was less pleasing to those great men, it is wrongly attributed to us, since from the public declarations of our Faith, and ordinary liturgy, and forms of Catechisms, and other public and private documents of our religious opinion, it is evident that we are accustomed to designate by no other nomenclature those ceremonies about which these and the following disputations are undertaken by us. For Sacrament indeed is a Latin word, and therefore unknown to the books of the Old and New Testament; μυστήριον (mysterion) truly, although frequent in the New Testament, is nowhere used in it to designate those sacred rites. Nevertheless, because Greek Theologians transferred one from the sacred rites of the Gentiles to Christian ceremonies, and Latin Fathers, as we believe, transferred the other from the military oath to signify that part of our religion, and that usage has prevailed in the Church, if anyone abstains from the word Sacrament led by some superstition, we think him to be importunely and preposterously religious.
THESIS III. In order to approach the matter, we shall discuss the Sacraments following the method and manner established and already used and confirmed by the custom of many, so that first we may speak of Sacraments in general; then consider them specifically. Although we shall not entirely avoid the explanation of controversies (for indeed matters have come to such a pass that Theology can scarcely be treated otherwise, especially in this argument), it will nevertheless be our chief concern to set forth briefly and clearly the matter itself, as it is delivered in Scripture, and as it can be gathered from the harmony of the parts of religion compared among themselves. For no one who is a little more knowledgeable in these matters but knows how the obliquity of a curved line is detected without difficulty, if one applies it to a straight line; so after the truth has been rightly and clearly established, falsehood is very easily refuted by comparison with it. Here, therefore, as far as we can, we shall follow those things which are common to Sacraments of every kind; but those which are more specific, we shall defer to other disputations.
THESIS IV. Although there are many things about which one could accurately and usefully dispute here, we have nevertheless determined to conclude this dissertation within the compass of four questions, thinking that from their explanation the rest will be understood without difficulty of their own accord. First, we shall inquire into the origin of Sacraments, and investigate the causes why they were instituted. Then we shall declare their nature, namely, matter and form. Thirdly, we shall say something about their author, Ministers, and administration. Finally, we shall explain their efficacy and manner of acting, as far as their common nature can bear.