If the words of the fourth _Canon_ of the _English Synod_ 1640. signifie any more, than this; That any person _convicted_ of Socinianism (_i. e._ by publishing his opinion) shall, upon such conviction, be excommunicated; and if it be understood adequate to this, _Qui non crediderit filium esse_ +homoousion+ _Deo Patri, Anathema sit_, and, that the Church of _England_, for allowing her Communion, is not content with _silence_ in respect of Socinianism, but obligeth men also to _assent_ to the contrary; then, I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of _Trent_, or other late Councils, or by _Pius_ his Bull. If it be said here, the reason of such faulting them is, because these require assent, not being lawful _General Councils_, such reason will not pass; 1st. Because, neither the English Synod, exacting assent in this point, is a General Council. 2ly. Because, it is the Protestant tenent, that neither may lawful General Councils require _assent_ to all their Definitions. Or, if it be affirmed (either of _General_ or _Provincial_ Councils) that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees; _viz._ Those evidently true, and divine Revelations; such as _Consubstantiality_ is; but may not to others; _viz._ Those not manifested by them to be such; then, before we can censure any Council for its Anathema's, or its requiring of assent, we must know, whether the point, to which assent is required, is, or is not, evident divine Revelation. And then, by whom, or how, shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or decided? for those that judge this, whoever they be, do sit now upon the trial of the rightness, or mistake of the judgment of a General Council: Or when, think we, will those who judge this (_i.e._ every person for himself) agree in their sentence? Again, If on the other side, the _former Church_ in her language, _Si quis non crediderit, &c. Anathema sit_, be affirmed (to which purpose the fore-mentioned Axioms are urged by you) to mean nothing more, than, _Si quis Hæresin suam palam profiteatur, & hujus professionis convictus fuerit, Anathema sit_, Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such _Anathema's_ will be concluded causeless and unjust. But indeed, though, (according to the former sentences,) her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion, if wholly concealed, so far as to render such person for it to stand _excommunicated_, and lie actually under this censure of the Church, because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears, nor is any dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby? Yet her _Anathema_ also extends, even to the internal act, or tenet, after the Church's contrary definition known (which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience, and contempt of her authority) so far, as to