Christians, that they called an Heresie, because it differed from the received opinion; not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church_: where, in saying, _not because it opposed any Definition_, he means, _not only because_. For, whilst that, which differed from the received opinion of the Church, was accounted an Heresie by them, that, which differed from a formal definition of the Church, was so much more. Something I find also for your better information, in the Learned Dr. _Hammond_, [69]commenting on that notable Text in _Titus_----_A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition, reject_, [a Text implying contrary to your discourse, Heresie discoverable, and censurable by the Church,] where he explains +autokatakritos+ _self-condemned; not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices; for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's Censures. Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against Conscience, and though he knows he be in the wrong, yet holds out in opposition to the Church; for so, none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks; and he that stood against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times_ [you may guess whom he means] _should not be an Heretick: and so no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church, for no man would acknowledge of himself, that what he did was by him done against his own Conscience_, [the plea which you also make here for your self.] _But to be an expression of his separation from, and disobedience to the Church; and so an evidence of the_ +exestraptai kai hamartanei+ _his being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and without excuse._ What say you to this? §. 26.