Page:A Letter to the Rev James Bonwell.pdf/14

 ritableness rejoiceth in untruth; and that a creed which begins with uncharitableness will go on with a tissue of error. Is not this, at least, the argument which you put into the mouths of the Swedenborgians, when you say, “hence the charity of the Athanasian creed, which declares that such men shall without doubt perish everlastingly?”

But we proceed to another subject. The next doctrine which you say they have overturned, is the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead; and if they have really done so, then, in this case, I cannot commend them. But I am inclined to think, nay, I am certain, that so far from their overturning the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the sermon has rather overturned, that is, turned-over, or, in other words, upside down, their doctrine; and has exhibited to your congregation, not their doctrine, but your version, or rather inversion, of it. Not that you have done this intentionally, far from it; but that you have been unintentionally confounding the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which the Church of England has everheld to be two distinct things; for the resurrection of the dead is declared to take place before the general judgment, at the separation of soul and body, but the resurrection of the body at the reunion of soul and body on the day of judgment. The only ground upon which I could suppose any one to maintain that he who denies the resurrection of the body denies the resurrection of the dead, is the opinion held by some, that without the body the soul is unconscious, that it remains in that unconscious state till its reunion with the body, that previously to this there is no proper resurrection of the soul, that the resurrection of the soul can take place only by a resurrection of the body, and, therefore, that he who denies the resurrection of the body denies the resurrection of the dead; but, as I am far from attributing to you a doctrine which was advocated by Dr. Priestley, I can account for your mistake only by your unintentionally confounding the resurrection of the dead with the resurrection of the body. Now, the New Church maintains the resurrection of the dead as openly and decidedly as the Church of England, or as yourself, but denies the resurrection of the body. So, likewise, did the celebrated Mr. Locke; the resurrection of the dead is a doctrine which was strenuously maintained by him in opposition to that of the resurrection of the identical body, as insisted upon by Bishop Stillingfleet; and, whether Locke be right or wrong, he has had generally the credit of defeating his opponent. No one can reasonably contend for the resurrection of the same particles, nor can any