First, " For dismembering the body of Christ, is it not the law of Christ himself, in every particular church or body of his, that as any of their members putrefy and discover themselves to be rotten and corrupt, they should be cut off by the spiritual sword of excommuni- cation? and doth not such a dismembering as this rather tend to the honouring and adorning the body of Christ than any ways to maim or deform it? And for such a dismembering of the body of Christ
5 t-t DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP.
^vhicli the doctrine in band supposeth to be causable by the mem- ])ers themselves, by the voluntary disfaithing of themselves through sin and wickedness, neither is the permission of this, upon such terms as it is permitted, either unworthy Christ or inconvenient to the body itself." Reply, —
1. That there is no argument will toleral)ly arise from what is 2')racticahle and comely in a visible ecclesiastical body of Christ to the mystical spiritual body, — that is, from a particular visible to the catholic church of Christ. As to the matter in hand, this is evident by the light of this single consideration, that in such an ecclesiastical body of Christ there are always, or may be, — and Christ himself, in the rules and laws that he hath given for the government thereof, did suppose that there always would be, — good and bad, true saints and empty professors; whereas in the body whereof we treat there is no soul actually instated but who is actually united to the Head by the inhabitation of the same Spirit. There never was, nor shall be to eternity, any dead member of that body. They are all " living stones," built upon Him who is the " foundation." Now, surely this is an inference attended with darkness to be felt: "Because it may be comely, for those to whom the administration of ordinances in the visible church of Christ is committed, to cut off a dead member from the membership which he holds by his confession of the faith, when he discovers himself not to answer the confession he hath made in his walking and conversation ; therefore Christ himself doth cut off, or one way or other lose, any living members of his body mystical, and actually by faith instated in the unity of his body with him." And if it shall be objected " That even living members, and such as are truly so, may yet, for and at a season, be cut off from a visible particular body of Christ," I answer, — (1.) It is true they may be so in respect of their ordinary present right to the enjoyment of ordi- nances, not in respect of their remote fundamental right; that still abides. (2.) They are so, or may be so, for their amendment, not for their destruction ; that separation for a season being an expression of as much love and tenderness to them in Christ as his joining of them to the body w^as from whence they are so separated. And, (3.) This makes not at all to the impairing of the true completeness of the mys- tical body of Christ and the perfection of its parts; for as in particular visible bodies of Christ there may be, and are, dead members which have no place in the body, but are as excrescences in the vine, and yet the body is not rendered monstrous by them, so a true member may be removed and the body not be maimed in the least; the member, though perhaps [removed] from any such visible body for a season, and yet [being of] the true spiritual [body, though] sick and pining, continuing a member thereof still. Now, there is nothing of all this that willin any measure agree to the plucking off a member from
XV.] THE SINS OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 545
the mystical hody of Christ, whereof alone we speak. If aiiy should be so separated, it must not only be to [the loss of] his present actual enjoyment of union, but to the loss of his Spirit also, and with him of all right and title, plea or claim whatever, to any interest therein. Neither is it possible that it should be a means for the correction and amendment of such an one, it lying in a direct tendency to inevitable destruction ; separation from all interest in Christ can look no other way. So that still the uncoutlmess of such a procedure abideth.
2. The reason that is added, to put some colour and gloss upon this assertion, namely, "That such persons as are affirmed to be so sepa- rated from the body of Christ do voluntarily disfaith themselves," as it is called, is not to the purpose in hand ; for, —
(].) The question is about the thing itself, whereunto this answer de modo is not satisfactory. It is urged by the argument that it cannot be allowed any way; the answer is, "It is done this Avay!"
(2.) Were Mr Goodwin desired to explain unto us the manner how believers voluntarily do or may disfaith themselves, I suppose he Avould meet with no small difficulties in the undertaking. However, this sounds handsomely.
(3.) That they should so disfaith themselves, through sin and wick- edness, without being overcome by the temptations of Satan and the power of the enemies with whom they have to do and wrestle, doubt- less will not be affirmed, whilst they continue in their right wits; and if they lose them, it will be difficult to manifest how they can voluntarily disfaith themselves. The state wherein they are described to be by Mr Goodwin, and the considerations which for their pre- servation he allows them, should not, methinks, suffer him to sup- ]iose that of their own accord, without provocations or temptations, they will wilfully ruin their own souls. Now, that believers should, by the power of any temptation or opposition whatever, or what affliction soever, arising against them, be prevailed upon to the loss of their faith, and so to their dismembering from Christ, is that which is objected as an unseemly, uncouth thing; which in this an- swer Mr Goodwin earnestly begs may not be so esteemed, and more he adds not, as yet.