but that such I am] _cannot gainsay it._--Again [72]----_It is possible_ (saith he) _that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous, either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith, in it self considered; or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding (not clouded with prejudice, ambition, vain-glory, or the like passion) that it is an error_ [one of these I account my self.] Or out of Dr. _Hammond_, [73]----_It must be lawful for the Church of God_, [any Church, or any Christian, upon the Doctors reason,] _as well as for the Bishop of_ Rome, _to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no; and if they be found otherwise, to eject them out, or not to receive them into their_ belief. _And then still it is the matter of the Decrees, and the Apostolicalness of them, and the force of the testification, whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such, which gives the authority to the Council; and nothing else is sufficient, where that is not to be found._ And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils, and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils _on their setting down and convincing the truth of their Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety,----and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof, which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles_.[74] [Upon which follows, that, in such case, where a Lawful General Council doth not so, (as possibly it may, and Inferiors are to consider for themselves, whether it doth not) there may be no Heretical Autocatacrisie in a dissent from it, nor this dissent _an evidence of the_ +exestraptai+ _and_ +hamartanei+ _his being perverted and sinning wilfully, and without excuse._]----Lastly, thus Doctor _Stillingfleet_ concerning _Heresie_[75]----_The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation; and therefore,_ 2ly. _None can reasonably be accused of Heresie, but such as have sufficient reason to believe, that that which they deny is revealed by God. And therefore,_ 3ly. _None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church; unless they have sufficient reason to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God; and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any_ Hereticks, _but such as have reason to believe, that she cannot err in her Definitions._ From hence also he gathers, _That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists, till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove, that whatever the Church declares, is certainly revealed by God_. Thus he. Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead, that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-Authority, I alledge, that neither have they nor others given me. To be _self-condemned_, therefore, in