[56]De Baptismo, l. 2. c. 3.
[57]Stillingfl. p. 542.
[58]Stillingfl. ibid.
[59]Id. p. 526.
CONFERENCE IV.
His Plea, for his not being guilty of Heresie.
That he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles, be accused as guilty of Heresie, for several reasons.
- Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental, he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie, as long as in silence he retains it, unless he engage further, to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof. §. [23].
- Fundamentals varying according to particular persons, and sufficient proposal; none can conclude this point in the affirmative, to be, as to him, a fundamental, or, of the truth of which he hath had a sufficient proposal.
- That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie, doth not necessarily argue that it is so; because they may err in Fundamentals; or at least in distinguishing them from other points. §. [26].
- That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions, till he is either actually convinced, or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined: that such Councils have authority to require submission, of judgment, and assent to their Definitions: of which conviction or sufficient proposal (that varies much, according to the differing conditions of several persons) as to himself, none can judge save himself: and, consequently, neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie. Ib.