Page:A Letter to the Rev James Bonwell.pdf/15



one say what, or how many particles are requisite to constitute identity, though some have maintained that one is sufficient, one invisible, minute, inappreciable atom which is really not worth contending for. On the other hand, some have maintained that when the vile body is changed into the glorious body, the natural body into the spiritual, the change takes place previous to resurrection, for that St. Paul says, “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body,” in which case it is not the natural or material body that is raised at all, but only the spiritual, and this harmonizes with the words of St. Paul in the 15th chapter of Corinthians, who says, “that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which shall be.” At all events, when the New Church denies the resurrection of the material body, it may be well to bear in mind the words of the present Archbishop of Dublin, who, in his Essays on some of the peculiarities of the Christian religion, (p. 120) observes, in regard to the resurrection of the body,—

“It is to be wished that those who inculcate this doctrine would be careful not to expose it, as some have done, to the scoffs of the infidel, by insisting on the restoration, at the resurrection, of the very same particles of matter which were united with the soul in this life. Supposing the doctrine to be true, neither reason nor revelation afford means for ascertaining its truth, or for replying to the cavils brought against it. The question has been ably and copiously handled by the celebrated Mr. Locke; it will suffice, therefore, to observe that, as far as we can ascertain, all the particles of a man's body are undergoing a perpetual and rapid change during his life; that which constitutes still his body being not the identity of its materials, but their union with the same soul and performance of similar functions,” &c. &c.

Here the Archbishop asserts, that, supposing the resurrection of the identical body to be true, “neither reason nor revelation affords means for ascertaining its truth;” and what difference is there between this assertion and the assertion of members of the New Church, that the doctrine of the resurrection of the same body has no ascertainable foundation either in reason or revelation? Does the sermon mean to consign both Whately and Locke to the fate of Core, Dathan, and Abiram, for the heresy of denying the resurrection of the dead, because they deny the resurrection of the same body? Or, if these eminent individuals are to escape, why is the anathema to be visited on the worthy inhabitants of Preston?

But I now proceed to another subject, and observe that the third doctrine which it is said the Swedenborgians have over turned, is the doctrine of the last judgment.

Now, Sir, I presume you will admit that the last judgment is future, that as such the passages of Scripture in which it is