SECT. IIII.
HEre are two testimonies brought to confute the Non-conf. his interpretation of Scripture, wherby he would infer that all kinde of will-worship is unlawfull. For that is here the question and nothing else. The first Witnesse is Danaeus, where the consequence lyeth thus, if Danaeus in one place doth ap∣ply these Scriptures to grosser will-worship then our is, then he doth not allow that they condemne all kind of wil-worship; but the first is true: ergo. is not this a faire kinde of reasoning: just as the Papist Gregorius de Valentia reasoneth, abominable idolatry is condemned, 1 Pet. 4. 3, therfore not all idolatry.
The other Witnesse is Zanchius in Col. 2 23, where beside that the like consequence is made as before, I would desire any indiffe∣rent man to consider these vvords of Zanchie found in that verie place. One kind of wil-worship is if any new worship, wherby God is wor∣shipped be invented and brought into the Church. For God will onely be worshipped, and onely with that worship which he himselfe hath appointed, Deut. 6 Mat. 15, also those in 1 Thes. 1 9. By an idol in generall is meant whatsoever in Religion is brought in without the word of God. He that looketh upon these words of Zanchie, will scarce tell what to think of this Def▪ his audacious alledging of this Author, and the vaine triūph which he groundeth upon him. He thought it seemeth that few or none would ever take the paines to examine what he said.
In the fift Section, there is nothing on either side but a dumb shew. It shall passe for me therfore in silence.