THE RETRACTATION OF Mr. Charles Chancy formerly Minister of Ware in HARFORDSHIRE.  
Wherein is proved the unlawfulness and danger of railing in Altars or Communion Tables, Written with his own hand before his going to New England, in the year, 1637.  
Published by his own direction for the satisfaction of all such who either are, or justly might be offended with his scandalous submission, made before the High Commission Court Feb. 11. Anno, 1635.  
London, Printed 1641.   

Courteous Reader,  
IT was wont to be received as a true saying, De minimis non curat lex, the Law cares not for small matters; which indeed is true of men's laws, for they are intended only to punish greater offences, such as do violate public peace and overthrow societies: but divine Law proceeds to the very least iota and apex, and punishes our failing in any one point or circumstance. James 2. 10. Yea, if we shall observe the devil's wiles and methods, we shall find that the devil seldom assaults any Christian enlightened, with great sins, such as waste the conscience and all the World cries shame of at the first dash, but he begins insensibly with lesser sins, to make way for greater, he tries the spirits of men first with slighter temptations, he makes them first to swallow gnats, to make way for camels afterwards, till they put no difference between sin and sin, but grow to be past feeling, and to commit all manner of uncleanness with greediness. And most true is that of our Saviour, Luke 16. 10. He that is faithful in the least, is faithful also in much, he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much: he that willingly takes liberty to himself to adventure upon the least violation of God's righteous Law, will without all doubt upon a greater temptation, make bold with any daring sin.  
The consideration whereof hath made me to weigh a little the railing about the Communion Table, so violently pressed and strictly enjoined over all the Land in these latter times: For indeed in common estimation this seems to be a very small matter, and very many wonder why any Christian should make any scruple of it, or trouble himself about it in these times, wherein gross idolatry & image-worship is openly practised, the morality of the Lord's day is contradicted and profaned, and many new-fangled compliments, and merely human, that I say not diabolical inventions in God's worship are urged and imposed. But all these have been happily opposed, & witnessed against by others, both godly, judicious, and learned, whereas the rail about the Communion Table is slighted & waved of all sorts, that notwithstanding do greatly scruple those, & stumble at those greater stumbling blocks. But let Christians wisely consider with what eagerness this addition of rails hath been enforced, and Communicants everywhere pressed to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper at the rail, and nowhere else. Indeed what I speak in this kind is out of woeful experience, for I have suffered myself heavy things, wasted my estate two whole years together in the high Commission Court, and at the last was sentenced to be suspended from my ministry, to bear the charges of the suit commenced by Sir Thomas Fanshaw of Ware park and Master Isaac Craven the present Vicar of Ware against me, for some words spoken by me against the rail there set up (though but in a private house) yea I was censured also to make a recantation and base submission in the Court for the words spoken by me, and the Lord hath been pleased to leave me, to try me, to know what was in my heart, and I have basely and wickedly yielded to their impositions; I will not plead the greatness of my temptations by which I have been overcome, but do humbly crave pardon of God and man (whosoever have been offended by me) and upon the Lords opening of mine eyes, and raising me up, yea and sanctifying this my great fall, I have thought it my duty, to inquire into this mystery of iniquity, to rake this dunghill, and to lay open to the view of the World the wickedness enclosed in, and couched under this innovation of the rail, desiring the LORD that my fall may be sanctified both to myself, to heal that and other sins in me, and to others, that they may not stumble at the same stumbling block of iniquity; so I shall leave what is here said to thy serious consideration, and thyself to the simplicity that is in Jesus Christ.  
A wellwisher to thy Soul, Charles Chauncy.   

A Short Treatise to discover the mischief of railing about the Communion Table, and the evil consequents thereof.  

THe first Argument to prove rails about the Communion Table to be dangerous and unlawful.  
That which is an Ornament or ingredient to make up an high Altar is unlawful and abominable and to be abhorred by Christians.  
But a rail about the Communion Table is an Ornament or ingredient to make up an high Altar.  
Therefore a rail about the Communion table is unlawful, &c.  
The Major or the first proposition may be proved by all those learned writings that have been published to show the unlawfulness of high Altars, amongst which that set forth by the B. of Lincoln hath great strength in it. But let me add moreover that place Heb. 13. 10. to evince the same, the words are these, we have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve at the Tabernacle; from which place these two arguments may be framed.  
1 Christians are to have but one Altar (1. Christ) therefore they must not have any more Altars besides him.  
Master Mede, as in this whole argument hath written a collation most unworthy of his worth and learning, so in expounding of this place of the Apostle Pag. 15. where he makes this exception, I know (saith he) what you will be ready to except, namely that by the Altar here named is meant Christ, which I (quoth he) for my part would willingly admit, so that it be understood with this caution, Christ as he is to be eaten in the Eucharist, for the Apostle speaks here of an Altar to be eaten of, which is not the material instrument or seat, but the Sacrifices used thereupon.  
In which words he would not have Christ simply considered, but Christ as eaten in the Eucharist to be the Christians Altar. Contra, First take what he grants, if Christ as eaten in the Eucharist only be our Altar, then have we no Altars of wood or Stone, for that Christ is but one, but the other altars are innumerable, the Apostle acknowledges but one only altar among Christians. Secondly, let us compare ver. 15 with the tenth. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; whence I reason thus.  
That Christ by whom our Sacrifices of praise are continually to be offered, is the Altar there meant by the Apostle.  
But that Christ, is Christ simply understood without reference to the Sacrament, &c. ergo.  
As it was by God's appointment among the Jews, that no sacrifice could be accepted, but that which was offered up upon the Altar of burnt offering, so no Sacrifice (be it of thanksgiving, or prayer, or whatsoever other service) can ever please God unless it be offered up by Christ. But now will Master Mede say, either that we must never offer up the sacrifice of thanksgiving to God but at the Eucharist; or that we can continually offer up our sacrifices by Christ, as eaten in the Eucharist? must we always receive the Sacrament, when we offer up our praises unto God? or do we receive the Sacrament continually, i. daily? for the daily sacrifice among the Jews was called the continual sacrifice; but it is very observable, that the Apostle saith (by him, not upon it) let us offer, &c. intending plainly the person of our Lord and Saviour, and not an Altar of Wood or Stone; and it is strange that he should being this place to prove Altars lawful in the times of the N. T. which is most express against it.  
Secondly, there is an other argument in the same place, i. They have no right to partake of that Altar, (1: Christ) that serve at the Tabernacle; who are they that serve at the tabernacle, but the Priests and sacrificers under the Law? or such as bring in Jewish ceremonies in the time of the gospel, (as some of the Hebrews that the Apostles wrote unto, did) so the meaning of the place must be this; They that bring in or observe Jewish ceremonies in the times of the gospel, have no part or interest in Christ, they have no right unto him: but they that set up Altars in the times of the new Testament, do plainly bring in Jewish ceremonies; therefore such have no fellowship with Jesus Christ; for surely they have no right to him, and none hath any communion with him, but they to whom God the Father hath given right unto him; and this agrees with that place, Gal. 5. 2. Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing, and Jewish Altars are every whit as dangerous as Circumcision.  
For the further illustrating of this argument, it will not be altogether unprofitable to consider the ground of the Apostle, which was this, That there was to be by God's own appointment but one Altar only for sacrifice amongst the Jews (which one Altar the Apostle in that place makes a clear type of Christ) Levit. 1. Deut. 12. 13. 14. hence it was that when the Reubenites & Gadites, and half tribe of Manasseth had erected an other Altar by the bank of Jordan the residue of the 12. tribes thought that offence to be so exceedingly displeasing unto God that Josh. 22. it is called a turning away from following the Lord, yea rebellion against the Lord, and to be compared with the iniquity of Peor, and for which they thought that God would be wroth with the whole congregation, yea, they intended to pursue the sin with open hostility, and to fight against them in battle for it. And though they were mistaken touching the end and scope of that Altar of witness (it being set up only for a civil monument, and not for sacrifice) yet thus much is warranted by the zeal of the nine Tribes and half, and the answer also and apology of the other Tribes, that there must be but one Altar for sacrifice amongst the people of God; and that (saith the Apostle) is only Christ amongst Christians. Thus also 2. King's 13. when as Jeroboam had set up a new Altar, the Lord himself did oppose it by a special message, seconded by a special miracle, forbidding the Prophet either to return the same way, or to eat bread in that place, thereby implying that they were not worthy of any Communion. To the same purpose the prophet Hoseah rebuketh the degenerate Israelites Ch. 1. saying, because Ephraim hath made many Altars to sin, therefore Altars shall be unto him to sin, i. either they shall be given up to their idol Altars, or else that this shall be a most heinous and provoking sin: and that we might know the rise and ground of this sin, it is added in the next words, I have written to them the great things of the law, & they have accounted them strange things, as if he should say, It is not strange that they should fall to set up Altars, that swerve from the only rule of worship, the word of God.  
All which proves that the Apostle to the Heb. alludes to the commandment of God in the law, that because there was but one Altar of burnt offering in the Law, so there is but one Altar among Christians, that is Christ, who is both the Priest, and Sacrifice, and Altar alone; & more especially the Altar did typify his Deity, which only made the sacrifice meritorious, for the altar did sanctify the gift Mat. 18. 19 Now what could sanctify Christ's Sacrifice, but his Deity? which is also cleared, Heb. 9 14. where Christ is said, in reference to this type of the Altar, to have offered up himself by his eternal spirit without spot to God, where by the eternal spirit, we must understand the Godhead of Christ.  
But see the practice of these times, they will have Priests not Ministers, Altars not Communion Tables, Sacrifices not Sacraments: they will bow, and cringe to and before their Altars, yea, they will nor endure any man to inquire after what manner Christ is in the Sacrament, whether by way of consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, or in a spiritual manner, yea, they will have Tapers, and Books never used, empty basins and chalices there, what is this but the mass itself, for here is all the furniture of it. Thus far for the proving of the first proposition.  
The Assumption or the second proposition, (that a rail about the Communion Table is one of the ingredients to make up an high Altar, or a Popish Altar) may be proved.  
First, by ecclesiastical history, rails about the Lord's Table, whether of wood or stone were never commanded to be set up, but since the erecting of Altars, and the idol of the mass, and Transubstantiation was adored; and after Antichrist was in his Pontificalibus. I might allege out of Binius diverse acts of popish counsels to this purpose, especially it was strictly enjoined in one of the counsels of Megara, which was (as may appear by all the acts of it) a most Antichristian conventicle, but I have not now the books by me, whosoever will may consult with the author.  
Secondly, it may appear by all the cathedral churches, in which only high Altars have been continued since times of Reformation, all which also have been railed in, and all the Communicants made to receive kneeling at the rails, and nowhere else; from whence now since the Altar-worship hath spread (by the diligence of popish Prelates) and tables have been turned into Altars, the railing of them also hath been universally enjoined in the like manner.  
Thirdly the same appeared evidently to be the intent of the A. B. and the rest of the commissioners (when our cause was handled before them) they did generally construe our opposing of the rails to be an opposition of the Altars, the A. B. professing it to be the place of some more especial presence of the Lord, and therefore to be railed in; Doctor worral that hideous Apostate alleged that old proverb to prove Altars, amieus usque. ad arras, confounding ignorantly arras and altaria, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & ara (as Master Mede could well inform him) being used of heathen altars only, and such as are set up to heathenish Gods, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & altar spoken of such Altars as were appointed for the worship of the true God under the Law; but I suppose this aspiring Diatrephes would rather have aram (i an heathenish Altar) or haram a hogstye to worship at, so that thereby he may climb up to a bishopric, and nourish his swinish lusts, then to embrace the pure worship of God (which sometimes he professed) with peace to his conscience, and a well grounded expectation of eternal glory.  
Objection, But it will be said, what were there not cancelli before the invention of Altars? were they not anciently set up in the primitive Churches? Answer. This indeed was alleged by the Archbishop, in his censure of us, for the proof of the antiquity of rails; but if his state business would have permitted him to have searched Linwood's Constitutions, there he might have learned the true meaning of Cancelli, that it signifies partitionem quae s●parat chorum a navi ecclesiae, that is the partition betwixt the body of the Church and the choir, which is commonly called the Chancel upon that occasion, but what is this to the rail? only we may observe that the Archbishop's constitutions as well as of the Popes do vary exceedingly.  
By all this it may appear how extremely they are befooled and deluded which account to Table to be Altars but such as stand Dresserwise at the East end of the chancel, for if the Table be railed in, and hath the Altar furniture, and Altar worship, what can be required else to the essence of an Altar? and thus much shall suffice for the first argument.   

The second argument against railing about of the Lord's TABLE.  
Whatsoever is appointed and erected to uphold false worship, or will-worship, or idolatrous Worship, is abominable and not to be endured in Christian assemblies.  
But rails about Communion Tables are appointed and erected to uphold false, idolatrous, and will-worship, Therefore, &c.  
The proof of the fo●mer Proposition.  
Every means of false worship is forbidden by the same commandment that prohibus false worship itself, (for every precept that forbids any sin, forbids also all the means and occasions of it.)  
But whatsoever is appointed and erected to uphold false worship, is a direct means of false worship, Therefore, etc,  
The proof of the assumption or the second Proposition of the prosyllogism.  
That which is appointed only as a means to uphold and to discover kneeling at the Sacram●nt is appointed and erected only to uphold false or will-worship.  
This proof is built upon this ground, that kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is a false, idolatrous, and will-worship; for the proof whereof I shall not say much, because that others have done it sufficiently to those that will receive sound and wholesome Doctrine. But for present satisfaction take these few things.  
To leave the imitable example of Christ and his Apostles, and to follow the practice of idolaters, is a false worship, an idolatrous worship, a will-worship.  
But to kneel at the Sacrament is to leave the imitable example of Christ and his Apostles, and to follow the practice of idolaters, &c.  
The proof of the proposition is manifest Ephe. 5. 1. 1. Cor. 11. 1. where the same subject is handled, that we have in hand.  
Now that kneeling is a leaving of the example of Christ it is evident Mat. 26. 20. whose example always binds as long as it is constant, and not varying, as it is in the particular case.  
Ob. But our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, neither sat, nor stood, but lay down rather; for so the word in the original is said to signify. answer, The word signifies to sit down and is so ordinarily translated Luke 24. 30. Mat. 14. 13. It was indeed a sitting after the Jewish manner at meals, which was a sitting with a kind of leaning down upon the arm; which kind of gesture or mixed sitting being peculiar to the Church of the Jews, sitting without leaning is justly received in reformed Churches.  
Ob. But some say, that sitting at the Sacrament was an occasional gesture by reason of the Passeover joined with the institution of the Sacrament, and therefore Christians are no more bound to it, than they are to other occasional circumstances, as that it was then received at supper, yea, in a private house, by men and not by women, &c.  
Answ. 'tis true indeed, that those were all occasional, but the same cannot be said of sitting at the Sacrament, for it is evident, that after the Passeover was ended, Ioh. 13. 4. our Saviour rose up from it, and afterwards sat down again to institute and administer his last Supper, so that this gesture was not taken up by occasion of the Passeover, but it was a gesture purposely appointed by him, which I may also further prove by this argument.  
If sitting at the Sacrament hath a Sacramenmentall signification, than that gesture was not taken up by occasion of the Passeover, but is unchangeable and purposely instituted by our Lord and Saviour.  
But sitting at the receiving of the Sacrament hath a sacramental signification, &c.  
This may be clearly proved by the words of Christ himself, Luke 22. 27. &c. where immediately after the institution of the Lord's Supper, our Saviour interprets this to be the meaning of sitting at the receiving of it, that it signifies the familiar communion and fellowship that believers have with him here in Grace, and shall have with him hereafter in the kingdom of Heaven: as in all Feasts, which Princes and great Potentates do make and invite us to, if they shall admit us to sit down with them at the same Table, they testify a great deal of friendship, familiarity and near society with us; and this is taught us not only by Musculus, Rainolds, and John Alasco, but even by the Papists themselves, even Thomas Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 60. art. 3. says that the Lord's Supper is not only a sign to remember his Passion already past, or a demonstration of the present benefit, but also that it prefigures our eternal glory.  
Now to proceed to the second branch of the former proposition, that kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is an imitation of the practice of Idolaters.  
This may be proved by testimonies, Kneeling was not used for many hundred years after Christ and the Apostles time, for it was brought in for the worship of the breaden God, Beza epistol.. 8. Peter Martyr in his Epistle ad Dominos Polonos. Paraeus de symbol. Euchar. lib. 1. 11. and it is evident by ecclesiastical Stories, so that the Formalists and Patrons of kneeling at the Sacrament cannot find or bring forth so much as one writer before the 1000 year after Christ: yea, it is clear that it was the brood of real bodily presence, having Honorius the third for the Father, Anno 1220. Pope Innocent the third for the Grandfather, who in the time of King Henry the third, endeavoured to establish it by fire and faggot, Anno 1215. for he seconded Pope Gregory the seventh, who Anno 1037, advanced the opinion of the real presence.  
Add to this the blasphemy of that plea that is used by the Patrons of kneeling in the defence of it, when as they say that it is the more reverend gesture of receiving: then belike that used by Christ and his Apostles was not so reverend, or the prelates and their creatures in Kneeling are more reverend than Christ and his Apostles: and is not this horrid blasphemy?   

Thus much also for the second Argument. The third Argument.  
That which is an occasion or invitation to idolatrous bowing and cringing to Altars, is idolatrous, and to be abhorred.  
But the rail is an occasion to Idolatrous bowing and cringing to Altars, &c.  
The proof of the former proposition. It may appear by this, because that bowing towards or before the Altar is Idolatrous.  
First, because to worship electively towards or before any creature or invention of man without warrant from God is idolatrous: for I demand else why may we not as well worship electively towards or before a Crucifix or Popish Image as before or towards an Altar? the Papists will say, that they are not such Sots as to terminate their worship upon a stock or a stone, no more than our Altar worshippers do upon a piece of wood, or a joiner's frame; and can we think that when the Israelites kissed the Calves, and worshipped the Altars at Dan and Bethel, that they chiefly intended the Images and Altars in that worship, or terminated their worship upon them? nay but, says Jeroboam, this is thy God oh Israel, that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, he means, that these did but represent the true God that is worshipped at Jerusalem, and he it is that I would have you to bow unto, though you bow before his Image, and so Aaron said of his calf, Exod 32. and yet that is called an idol, Acts 7. 41.  
Ob. But did not God command to bow and to fall down in worship towards the Temple? Did not David say, And in thy fear will I worship towards thy holy Temple? and why may not Christians worship an Altar, as well as the Jews worshipped towards the Temple? answer, The Jews had a warrant from God to worship him towards the Temple, and the holy of holies, but we have none in this case; for have we any such Temple now as the Jews? It is evident that the Temple at Jerusalem was one of the greatest types of Christ in all the book of God, Joh. 2. 19 For did not the fullness of the Godhead dwell in him bodily, Col. 2. 9 i. in a glorious manner, as God's glory did of old in the Temple, and that typical signification was the ground of all their adoration towards the Temple: but now the body is come these shadows, are vanished away, Col. 2. 16. and to bring in such shadows now, is a flat denial of Christ.  
Secondly this is most wicked of all the rest, when as bowing is practised at such times when as the Sacrament is not administered; for Christ being equally present at both Sacraments, & also present in the ordinance of preaching in a special manner, why should we not as well bow to the Font, or to the pulpit, as to the supposed Altar?  
Shall we say as that great Arch-Prelate said at the sentence of Master Burton, &c. Christ said of the one only hoc est verbum meum, but of the other he said, hoc est corpus meum; but doth not this stink of Popish transubstantiation? had his holiness forgotten, or never read that of Austin, accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum? Or is not hoc est corpus meum, verbum meum? hath not the Sacrament all his feeling virtue from the Word? how was that great miracle wrought upon him (which hath been confidently reported as from his mouth) that when he was Bishop of London, and fall'n into a dangerous sickness, he was raised out of it merely by the receiving of the Sacrament? Was it by the mere virtue of the Bread and Wine, or the outward elements? (but this might have been had in a tavern, and Vintners might turn Physicians, if this were all) or was it by any virtue of the word of institution or promise annexed to the Sacrament? if it was, why doth he not ascribe as much or more to the word then to the Sacrament? nay, why did not his highness make that Chamber-table at which that Sacrament was consecrated and administered an high Altar too? Doth he still perform that homage and obeisance to that Table, whensoever he sees it? or doth his successor in the same Sea do the like? Nay, will it not follow hence that whensoever any private Communion is celebrated in a corner, (as in case of sickness is enjoined in the book of common Prayer) that such Tables are ever after holy Tables and Altars, to which God's special presence is tied in a special manner, and towards which all the Family and others are bound always to adore, and to prostrate themselves: or if they think this to be superstitious, let them tell us their just reason, why such Tables should be so adored in Churches, and not also in private Chambers? where the cause is the same, why is not the effect the same?  
Thirdly, Our Church accounts the elements to be in use but common Bread and Wine after the Sacrament is ended, and leaveth them to the Minister to use at his pleasure; why then should the Table have more reverence than the consecrated elements have when the supper is ended, so as to reverence the one and not the other? Why but doth not the Scripture say that the Altar doth consecrate the gift and sacrifice, and not on the contrary the sacrifice the Altar? Therefore the Altar is rather to be adored, than the sacrifice, or the outward elements? But such popish spirits in these days say the contrary, that their sacrifice sanctifies their altar, and Christ being really present in the sacrifice this makes their altar to be so holy and so worshipful ever after, that it makes it worthy to be bowed unto: therefore the sacrifice or outward elements should much rather be adored after the Sacrament than the Communion Table: thus they are contrary to themselves, but I shall conclude this with the saying of our Lord and Saviour, Mat. 24. 23. 26. When they shall say unto you, lo here is Christ, or there is Christ, (as they say of the Altar, and mass, and Sacrifice) go not forth unto them; let not any that fears God, or loves his own soul, step out of doors to see the Mass-christ, or to altar-Christ, much less to bow down to him. Thus far of the Proposition.  
Now for the assumption, that a rail about the Communion table (or supposed Altar) is an occasion or invitation to idolatrous bowing is clear by daily experience; the more that Communion Tables are decked and adored and sequestered from the rest of the Church, the more the opinion of inherent holiness in the Table is nourished, and so much the more persons superstitiously addicted will show unwarrantable reverence to the Table, yea let me tell you what I have seen myself, at the consecration of Sir Thomas Fanshawes chapel in Ware parish, being Minister of the place, I was commanded by the Bishop to be present by all means, being there I saw the Bishop himself, Sir Thomas and diverse others, that bowed to, or at the least towards the Table being railed in, before that any Sacrament was administered at it. Was it not a worshipful joiner, that made such a worshipful Table, yea, that such great personages should do such obeisance unto? surely the adoring and railing in of the Table was a special invitation to this adoration, which otherwise they will not do to a common table in a parlour or a joiners shop, no nor a table in a Church not railed in. Thus much of the third argument.   

The fourth Argument.  
That which makes a Jewish sanctuary or Sanctum Sanctorum, in the times of the new Testament, is utterly unlawful, and to be abhorred by Christians.  
But the setting up of rails about the Communion Tables makes an other Jewish Sanctuary, Therefore, &c.  

The Major or the former proposition proved.  
There are diverse reasons in the Epistle to the Heb. against the Jewish Sanctuary, take for an instance chap. 9 1.— 11. &c. where first that Sanctuary is called a worldly Sanctuary; so it is in respect of the times of the new testament, especially in respect of that heavenly Sanctuary provided for us: it is for worldly, sensual, and carnal hearts to set up such a Sanctuary now. Secondly, verse 8. 9 the first Tabernacle was a figure for the time then present, a figure of things revealed in the gospel, and a mere type and shadow, but now the body being come, the shadows vanish away; again it served only for the time then present, i. the times under the Law, whilst the levitical priesthood lasted, and therefore now hath no further use in the Churches of Christ. Thirdly, verse 10. they were carnal ordinances imposed only till the times of reformation, i. till the coming of Christ, as it is expounded, ver. 11. in a word, when the veil of the Temple rent from the top to the bottom, the Jewish Sanctuary ceased, and what will any man now dare to sow up the veil again, by making a new Sanctuary? or is not this to deny the death and passion of Jesus Christ? Fourthly, how is that to be meant, Rom. 3. 25. Whom God set forth to be the propitiation for our sins? the word signifies a mercy-seat. The Jewish mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies was always shut up, and none of the people might enter into it: but Christ is such a mercy-seat as is set forth openly to Ministers and people, that all sorts may lawfully and freely repair unto; which was one of the greatest mercies that ever God bestowed upon his people, for so indeed Christ is called the gift of God, Ioh. 4. 10. there is no other gift of God to be compared with this. But what a cursed sacrilege is this to lock up the mercy-seat again? yea, so to lock it up, as that neither Ministers, nor People shall enter in: for truly so they do in effect by their railing about of the Communion Table, the people are excluded out, it is an Holy of Holies to them (as M●ster Mede would have it, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, ut à multitudinis accessu prohiberentur, that common people might not come at it) but do the Priests (as they are well called that set up new sacrifices) enter in themselves? truly they are locked up within the rails, and go to their supposed Altar; but they that serve at the Tabernacle (as was said before) have nothing to do with the Altar Jesus Christ; so that as our Saviour charged the Scribes, and Pharisees, and Lawyers, Mat. 23. 13. Luke 11. 52. You have taken away the key of knowledge, you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men, and neither enter in yourselves, nor suffer those that would to enter in; as they dealt with the written word, so deal our Prelates both about the written word and the word incarnate too, they keep away the word faithfully preached from the people, and will neither preach it themselves, nor suffer others that would to preach it, or hear it, they keep away Jesus Christ (the true Altar) at least in his simplicity as Paul speaks, 2. Cor. 11. 2. and will neither partake of Christ themselves, nor suffer others to partake of him: They are like dogs sleeping in a manger, that will neither eat oats themselves, nor suffer the horses to eat them that would. Thus far of the former Proposition.   

The proof of the Assumption or second Proposition.  
This proposition may be cleared by the description of the Jewish Sanctuary, given to us in the Scripture, for what is the Jewish Sanctuary, but a most holy place, where God's glorious presence especially dwells, whither it was not lawful for any to go but only for the Priest, ordinarily once a year, and upon some extraordinary occasions: and doth not the railed Table infer all this? that it is the holy of holy place, where God is more especially present then in any other part of the Church, or upon the whole earth besides? is it not the place whither the Priest only and not the people may enter? they must stand (or kneel rather) as the people at the foot of Mount Sinai, and none may go within the rail or range without great profanation, and all this too, when the Priests do enter, it is mainly once a year at Easter: and then forsooth some of the Priests are so devout, that they make Religion of it, to put off their shoes from off their feet before they enter within the rails; for say they did not God command Moses so to do in the like case, saying, put off thy shoes from off thy feet, &c. The Sacrament is appointed indeed for Christians communion with Christ, and among themselves, yea, and the people have as much right to draw near to Christ, as the Ministers have, Heb. 10. 22. and therefore to draw near to the Table too: but the Priests would seem to be holier than all the rest, and the people, if they will have communion among themselves they may, but the Priest is in his Closet and cloister by himself, and must have no communion with lay or carnal people, nor they with him; and what is this (I pray you) but another Jewish Sanctuary? Thus far of the fourth Argument.    

The fifth Argument.  
Taken from the vain pleas that are made in the defence of rails, which are especially three, the first whereof and main is the pretence of uniformity and order, that all the Communicants may come up to the rail, and receive the Sacrament alike kneeling; the second, lest that the Communion Table should be annoyed with boys, or dogs, or telling of money, or laying of hats upon the Table; the third is, that they make for the Ministers ease, it being troublesome to him, to go with the Elements from seat to seat, to distribute them to all the Communicants.  

The vanity and sin of the first plea and pretence of uniformity.  
That which unavoidably occasions disorder, unity and uniformity in sin, it wickedly pretended for Church order and uniformity in God's worship.  
The setting up of rails about the Communion Table, and enforcing the Communicants to receive kneeling at them, unavoidably occasions disorder, unity and uniformity in sin, Therefore, &c.  
The major or first proposition is grounded upon that place, 1 Cor. 14. ult. That all things in the Churches of God should be done decently and in order, which place is ignorantly alleged by Formalists in the defence of Ceremonies, for the Apostle, Ver. 37. tells the Corinthians, that the things that he wrote unto them were the commandments of God: he doth not leave it to the Corinthians, or any other Church, to invent what they please themselves for order or decency, but he doth strictly bind them to the commandments of God, and he charges them, that even the things commanded by God should be done decently and in order, now the commandment of a Magistrate, or any church-governors, doth not make a thing to be decent and orderly because they command it (for then if they command the worshipping of Images, or Crucifixes, or whatsoever else though never so wicked, shall presently be decent and orderly by virtue of their commandment) for that is orderly which God accounts orderly, and which is according to the rule of order, and that is decent, not that man accounts so, (for that which is decent and highly esteemed amongst men is an abomination in the sight of God) but that is decent, that God accounts decent, and which is according to the rule of decency, which is not the will of any man upon earth, but the revealed will of God alone; but here we see that whatsoever occasions disorder is contrary to the Apostles rule: Again ver. 26 of the same Chapter there is an other rule, Let all things be done to edification; now that which breeds unity and uniformity in sin, doth not edify but destroy, and make men like unto Devils, for they have such an unity and uniformity, their kingdom is not divided among themselves; see also Exod. 23. 2.  
The assumption or second proposition hath been proved already in the former Reasons, for surely that which breeds uniformity in Jewish and Popish superstition is uniformity in sin and cursed deformity, such is uniformity in kneeling at the Sacrament.  
But I add for further proof of the assumption, That which breeds scandal and offence to all sorts of Christians especially weak and tender consciences, breeds rather disorder than order.  
The setting up of rails about the Communion table, and the enforcing all the Communicants to receive at them, breeds scandal, &c.  
For the proof of the proposition, see Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. the whole Chapters are spent in this, That scandals are carefully to be avoided in the Church, 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give no offence to the Jews or Gentiles, or to the Churches of God. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 43. art. 2. Scandalum activum semper est peccatum in eo qui scandalizat, vel quia ipsum opus quod facit est peccatum, vel etiam si habeat speciem peccati, dimittendum est semper proximi, charitatem, ex qua unusquisque tenetur saluti proximi providere, & sic qui non dimitti contra charitatem agit, i. An active scandal is always a sin in him that gives offence, either because that the work that he doth is a sin, or also if it hath a show of sin, it is always to be omitted for the love of our neighbour, by which every one is bound to provide for the salvation of his neighbour, and so he that doth not omit that which is scandalous sins against charity, and this agrees very well with that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 15. Such as give offence to their brethren, walk not charitably: and it is a shame for us that Papists should be more charitable in their judgement, and tender over the consciences of poor Christians than we are. Yet it is a received definition of a scandal among the Schoolmen, that it is dictum aut factum minus rectum praebens occasionem ruinae, now though an action be not evil of itself, yet if it hath an appearance of evil, it is less right than it ought to be, because it is done inordinately, and is an occasion of sin, and falling to another.  
Now for the second proposition, that the enforcing to receive at a rail cause offence to Christians experience sufficiently proves, there being but few Congregations in this kingdom, where some have not been offended and scandalised by the rail, and this new injunction of receiving at a rail.  
Two things only are replied in this case. First, that this is a scandal taken not given, and therefore in such cases not to be omitted for such a kind of offence, as our Saviour himself regarded not the offence of the Pharisees, when the Disciples told him, Mat. 15. 12. Knowest thou not that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying, our Saviour answered and said, Verse 14. Let them alone, they are blind leaders of the blind, &c.  
Secondly, they say that Magistrates are offended likewise by the refusal of, and not conforming to the ceremonies, as well as weak Christians are offended by the practice of them, and whether of these, think you, in this case is to be most regarded, a Magistrate or a weak Christian?  
To the first of these I answer, that though it were granted that the offence here specified is taken only and not given, yet even passive offences are many times to be avoided, as namely, when the things are not necessary (as the preaching of the truth by our Saviour was, at which the Pharisees were offended) though they be otherwise commendable; the brazen Serpent was a Monument set up of Moses by divine institution and appointment, yet Hezechias broke it in pieces and called it Nechustan, or a piece of brass, because it was not a necessary monument, and now the People stumbled at it, though there was no just occasion of offence given to them; so Gideon's Ephod was only a monument of a great victory, that God had wrought for him, yet the Israelites went a-whoring after it, and abused it to idolatry, after the death of Gideon, and it became a snare to his house Jud. 8. 27. yea it is a common principle of nature, that we must hurt no man, and therefore we must do nothing whereby any man may be hurt, or grieved, or wounded, this was signified by those judicial laws Deut. 22. when the Israelites were commanded to make battelments upon the tops of their houses, lest they should bring the guilt of blood upon them, and Exodus 21. 33. he that digs a pit and covers it not, if an ox, or an ass fall into it, the digger of the pit shall make it good: the like Divines by good reason gather in case of danger to the soul.  
But now the argument is yet stronger, if that which had not an appearance of evil (as the brazen Serpent, and Gideon's Ephod) yet was to be taken away & destroyed, being a passive scandal only, how much more that which hath an appearance of evil, as the present additions to God's worship have, for than it is not only a passive scandal that proceeds from his weakness only that falls, but also active in respect that it gives occasion of offence.  
To the second I answer, that it is a vain plea to say that magistrates are offended by the refusal of ceremonies, as well as weak Christians by the enjoining of them, for that is not to be called an offence that is taken by any man's disobedience to an unjust command: might not Nabuchadnezzar also have made this plea, when those three noble Jews would not worship his golden image? And Jeroboam likewise when the Priests and Levites and godly Israelites refused to go up to Dan and bethel? why, these Puritan Ministers, and People, regard not the offence of the King and State, but all they stand upon, is that themselves are offended and scandalised, belike than they are more to be respected then governors themselves; again it is a silly pretence, that they should complain of offences, that have power to reform them and to take away the occasions of them, without any damage to themselves, as Magistrates may easily do by their command.  
The second pretence for rails is, lest that the Communion Table should be anoyed with boys or dogs, or telling of money, or laying on of hats upon the Table.   

The proof of the idleness of this second plea.  
upon a common reason or disconvenience (if the annoyance of the Table be granted to be such) no special privilege can be grounded, (as the railing about of the table alone is).  
But all the pretended reasons or disconveniences are common to other instruments and utensils about Churches, as to the Font, to the pulpit, the Church-bible, &c.   

The proof of the Major or former Proposition.  
Every special privilege is grounded upon some special reason. It were a senseless reason to say, that a King because he is a man should have a guard attending upon him, his counsellors of state, his palace, his power to call Parliaments, to press soldiers, &c. if this were a good ground, than every man, because he is a reasonable creature, must have all these royalties: or to say, that a garden, because it hath trees, and herbs, and flowers, therefore it should be enclosed, or fenced and walled in; nay but there is a special reason for both these; Kings have such great privileges, and State, because God hath given such power unto them, and because of the great charge that lies upon them above other men, and the safety of all the people stands in their preservation and safety, so gardens are enclosed and fenced in, because of the special fruitfulness, usefulness, and virtue that is in them, above common fields; here is now a special reason for the special and peculiar privileges both of the one and of the other; so in the case in hand, there must be found some peculiar reason why the Communion Table should be railed rather than other parts, or instruments of worship in the Church, for the rule of logic holds sure, à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia.   

The proof of the assumption or second Proposition.  
All these pretended disconveniences of annoyance are common to other instruments or utensils about Churches, as to the Font, to the Pulpit, to the Bible, or reading-seat, &c. for why should it be a greater annoyance, for Dogs to foul, or boys, or men to lay their hats, or to tell money upon the Table (after the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is administered) than it is for the same or the like anoyances to be done to the Font or Bible, or Pulpit, or reading seat? It was indeed a reason of a great Prelate of this Land given to myself for the setting up of rails; Why said he, What if there should be Cows in the churchyard, if the Church-dores be open, is it fitting or decent, that the Cows should come and play the beasts at the holy Table? but what would not this filthiness defile other parts of the Church, as well as the holy Table (as he called it?) or should we therefore say, that every part of the Church should have a particular rail about it, or rather that the whole Church should be railed about, that one rail might serve for all, for fear of such defilements? But the truth is, that our Prelates have some secret mystery of special holiness in the Table above other parts of the Church (as was specified before) but that is utterly ungrounded in the Word of God, and unreasonable, and stinks of the breaden and dunghill God, and is odious superstition, and therefore to be abhorred.  
The third pretence for rails refuted, that they do make for the Ministers ease, it being troublesome to him, to go with the elements from seat to seat, &c.  
If the observation of Christ's own institution be far more ease to the Minister, then can come by the setting up of rails, and the people's repairing to them to receive, then by their own plea the former is better than the latter.  
But the observation of Christ's own institution is far more ease to the Minister, then can come by the setting up of rails, and the people's repairing to them, &c.  
I shall not need to prove the former proposition, or the consequence; for let this be granted on both sides, that that course is to be observed about the administration of the Sacraments, that may breed the most ease and the least trouble both to ministry and people.  
Therefore I will come to the assumption, to prove that the institution of our Saviour Christ will bring more ease and less trouble both to ministry and people. For the clearing of this I will show that Christ never ordained that the Minister should go about to every Communicant, to deliver the Bread and Wine unto him, much less that the Minister should say a prayer to every Communicant in the delivery of the elements of Bread and Wine. For first Christ said in the plural number, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Take ye, eat ye, drink ye all of this, but he never practised, nor commanded to say, Take thou, eat thou, drink thou, &c. so Fenner in his doctrine of the Sacraments saith, that this speech in the plural number is most fit to signify the communion and society of the Church in this work, seeing Christ by his Ministers exhorts all the Communicants, as it were with one expression of common love and charity, that they should rejoice and eat together the same spiritual food of faith.  
Ob. But it will be said, that Ministers must apply to every one in particular the promises of the gospel.  
Ans. It is true, but must they therefore deliver the elements in particular to every one, i. cannot the application be made but by changing the order of administration appointed by Jesus Christ? When the Minister preaches the Word, he doth particularly apply the promises of the gospel, yet he doth not go to every man in particular in the Congregation, so as to go from seat to seat, from man to man, to say, believe thou & then, &c. all believers apply these things to themselves by faith: yea, but in the administration of the Sacrament, the Minister changes the words of promise into a prayer, saying, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ that was given for you, &c. true they have these words, but in the Canon of the mass (for there is the rise of them) and they do not utter them to the people but to God, as intending some oblation to him, or as if it were a great impiety to distribute the elements to such as kneel devoutly, before they have uttered those words charm-wise to consecrate the Bread and Wine to every one in particular, which is all one, as if when thanks are given to God at meals for a company met together, some zealot should go and give thanks for every man in particular.  
Again, when as Christ said, take and eat, the meaning is not, that he gave to every one of them that sat at the Table in particular the elements of Bread and Wine, no, though it be said he gave to the Disciples, for so, Mark 6. 39-41s. our Saviour commanded the Disciples, that all the multitudes should sit down by companies upon the green grass, and they sat down in ranks by hundreds and by fifties, and when he had taken the five loaves & two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave to the Disciples to set before them, and the two fishes divided he among them all, and yet it follows not that either Christ or his Disciples gave immediately and particularly to the five thousand men, but they set them before them; so in this case: and this even Jesuits, Cajetan and Suarez confess, and with them in this particular, Beza and Piscator do agree, and it may clearly also be proved by the commandment of Christ, when he delivered the Cup saying, Divide it among yourselves, Luke 22. 17. Some answer indeed, that those words are to be understood not of the Cup in the Lord's Supper, but of the Cup used in the Passeover; for of the cup in the Lord's Supper our Saviour speaks, Verse 20. But I answer that in both Verses our Saviour speaks of the same cup, but that this precept of dividing it among themselves is meant of the cup in the Eucharist, it appears by the protestation subjoined in the next Verse, But I say unto you, That I will not drink any more of the fruit of the Vine, &c. but the same protestation in the other Evangelists, Math. 26. 29. Mark 14. 23. is added touching the Lord's Supper: besides if he had made this protestation of the paschal cup that he would not drink any more, &c. He would not have afterwards drunk of the cup in the Eucharist. But on the contrary, the Evangelists Matthew and Mark say that after he had reached forth the Cup in the Lord's Supper, he protested that he would no more drink of the fruit of the Vine, &c. therefore he had already drunk of it. Now to gather up this argument, if our saviour's course of holy institution might stand, that the Minister should deliver the outward elements to one or two that were nearest unto them, and the communicants should divide the rest among themselves, might not the Minister have more ease and far less trouble without any rail? Yea, would not this prevent that intolerable protracting and lengthening of Sacraments, when there is a great multitude of Communicants, (which is occasioned by a rail, and the particular distribution of the elements, and form of Prayer joined with it) as it falls out in many popular Congregations, so that Sacraments last many times two or three hours together? Thus much shall serve for the fift Argument.    

The sixt and last Argument.  
That which brings in conformity with the Papists and Idolaters, ought not to be endured in reformed Churches.  
But the erecting and setting up of rails about Communion Tables, and so turning Tables into Altars, makes reformed Churches conformable with Papists and Idolaters, &c.  
I shall not need to insist upon the proof of the assumption, for the arguments before alleged, and the practice of foreign popish, and our own cathedral Churches is sufficient to prove this, therefore for brevity sake I will omit this.  
The proof of the major or first proposition. That all conformity with Idolaters must be avoided, we are taught by divers precepts given to the Israelites, as Deut. 12. 30. 32. Take heed that thou be not snared by following of Idolaters, and Canaanites, &c. and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, how did these nations serve their Gods? Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hates, have they done to their Gods; whatsoever thing I command you, that observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it: therefore, 2 Chron. 13. 9 Abijah reproves Jeroboam and his army, that they had made them Priests after the manner of the Nations of the Lands: and it was one of the greatest sins of Achaz, 2 King. 16. 10. That when he saw an Altar at Damascus, he sent to Uriah the Priest the fashion of the Altar, and the pattern of it, that he might make such another in the house of the Lord: so doubtless our Priests first took the pattern of their railed Altars from Rome, & so commanded them to be set up amongst us.  
Our adversary's reply, that they do not use the same rites with the Papists, with the same mind that they do. Answ. To use the same things, that the Papists do, in civil affairs, we go not about to condemn; if they would use a rail to enclose walks or gardens, who would speak against it? but to use the same Rites or Ornaments in the worship of God, that the Papists, the Ministers of the Antichrist, the Priests of Baal do, what is this, but with Achaz, to set up the Altar of Damascus.  
Ob. But what a blasphemous speech is this, that a rail should be used about walks or gardens, that is appointed for the adorning of the Communion Table? Answ. 'tis true, that for using such a speech against a Rail at Ware, Master Humphrey Parker of Hartford was censured very severely by the high Commission Court, Sir Thomas fanshaw's zeal prosecuting the cause against him and me, against him, for no other cause pretended, but because upon the dislike of rails provided for the Communion Table, as being not so decent, he cast out such a speech, That if the rails provided did not like them, he would buy them for his garden; and let me here insert how this offence of his was set forth and aggravated by the A. B. at his censure. Suppose (said he) that when Aholiab and Bezalcel were making the hangings for the Tabernacle, some malapert person should have come to them, and said, What is here a motley coat for a fool that you are making of divers colours? Had not this been a very wicked speech? So though this Parker (said he) spoke thus irreverently of the rail whilst it was in the joiner's shop, before it ever had been consecrated to that sacred use about the communion Table, yet because it was destined to this holiness, therefore thus and thus he deserves to be censured.  
Oh the patience of our good God, that endures such blasphemies to be daily belched out in these hellish Courts, by those that set their mouths against Heaven! Belike than his highness' edicts and inventions are to be compared to, and are of equal binding force with the commandments of Almighty God, and his rail is of like authority with the pattern that God showed Moses on the Mount, and the heavenly figure of the Tabernacle; yea, should a man speak against the flax or linen in the draper's shop, in case that a Surplice should afterwards be made of it, it would be as great an offence in the repute of his greatness, as of old to speak against the Levitical Ceremonies ordained by the only lawgiver himself, though perhaps as well a whore's smock, as a priest's frock may be made of it; but of this by the way.  
To return to the argument of the imitation of Idolaters, the Formalists say, that they do it not with the same mind and intention with Idolaters: well, but the Rail is the same, the Altar is the same, the manner of using is the same, and in the same part of worship, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; what shall we term imitation to be, if these things make not imitation?  
Ob. 'Tis true, that in those things that have been invented by Antichrist or his instruments, we are not to communicate with them, but those that are more ancient than Popery and Antichristianism, though used by them, we may lawfully use the same, but such was the use of the rail, as may appear out of Eusebius, for Constantine himself invented and used it.  
Answ. Though a Rail be as ancient as the times of Constantine the Great, yet we know that the mystery of iniquity began to work in the Apostles time. Many errors and heresies were broached even in those days, besides in Constantine's days, the idol of the mass, and unbloudy sacrifice was not invented, therefore than there was much less danger of a Rail, therefore let the Rail be as ancient as the age of Constantine, or the Apostles themselves, yet if it hath been abused or defiled by Antichrist, it is to be abhorred by us. Zanchie a learned author upon the fourth commandment, That even indifferent things polluted and defiled by superstition are to be abolished, and to the like purpose to Queen Elizabeth, Neque enim honestum est, ut quae in Dei contumeliam usurpata diu fuerunt sires sint pierce {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, ea in Ecclesiâ cum discrimine etiam salutis piorum retineantur: and he proves it by the example of Hezechias, Serpens aeneus qui institutus fuerat à Deo, & quidem ad salutem Israelitarum, per pium Regem Hezechiam, quia illo contra Dei verbum abutebantur Israelitae, sublatus est, & ab hoc facto summè laudatur Hezechias, quòd illum scilicet Serpentem redigeret in cineres, eosque in profluentem, ne ullum uspiam extaret vestigium, projici jusserit: How much more than should rails about Communion Tables be burnt, that have been and are daily so wickedly abused, though never so innocent in their first invention?  
Ob. But if all these evils are inferred upon the railing in of Communion Tables, than it will be said unto me, why then have you, when you were called into the high Commission Court, & prosecuted by Sir Thomas Fanshaw of Ware Parke, for words spoken against the rail there, which you had called an innovation, a snare to men's consciences, a breach of the second commandment, Idolatry and Superstition, why have you so basely yielded to the submission imposed upon you by that Court? acknowledging at the last, that you were sorry for such words spoken by you?  
Why did you profess at last before them, that now you were of a contrary judgement, and that you allowed a rail with a kneeling bench affixed to be a decent & convenient ceremony, & promimised never to oppose that rail or any other ceremony more?  
Answ. 'tis true, that by the persuasion of friends, thus far I yielded, and truly very basely and timorously, I deny not, I will not go about to plead now for that accursed fact, nor excuse myself by the greatness of my temptations and straits; no, but I will lay my hand upon my mouth, or rather cry out to the shame and confusion of mine own face, that I have denied the truth of Christ, and been ashamed of him in this adulterous and sinful generation, worthy also to be denied of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy Angels; and I do with indignation and detestation retract every word of that submission, desiring earnestly the Lord, not to lay this sin to my charge, and his people to forgive the scandal of it, or rather not to take offence at it; and do willingly to make up this breach, forgo all the certain comforts that I had upon the earth; only let this be added, which I must needs speak for caution to others, that I perceived evidently whilst I was conformable in my judgement, that I must needs give way to the Rail, or what soever innovations, upon the same grounds that I conformed upon. But the Lord be thanked, that though I was a servant of sin, yet he hath at the last subdued my soul to obey from the heart the form of Doctrine to which I am delivered.  
It is then (I hope) upon far other, and far better grounds, that I have reversed my former sin, then that I yielded upon at the first; this I did rashly and unadvisedly, and in temptation, but now that the other is done in cold blood, and with due deliberation (I mean this retractation of my error) let these few Reasons testify unto the World; and I do humbly entreat every soul that shall peruse these few lines, to acquaint as many as he can perceive to be any ways scandalised by my fall, with what is here contained, that they may be raised up again; this I do earnestly beg of them, yea, let me be bold to charge them in the name of the Lord Jesus, so far to tender the gospel of Christ, and the honour of Christian profession, yea, and the bleeding heart of a wounded Christian: as also to make this use of it to themselves, Let him that standeth, take heed lest he fall.   
FINIS.