PHYSICAL RESURRECTION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18185, 23 September 1924, Page 7

PHYSICAL RESURRECTION.

old: DiseiissioN REViyEP. (from otra own cobrkoondbht.) .... LONDON, August 7, Bishop Gore, has made a declaration that a physical resurrection of the bodyis "impossible." Bishop Barnes, of Birmingham, has said, "Man was not specially created by God." As usual, these statements, coming from import-, ant dignitaries of the. Church, have created widespread discussion. An essential article of the Apostles' Creed is the statement: "I believe in the resurrection of .the body," but Bishop Welldon, in commenting on Bishop Gore's pronouncement, emphasised the fact that the physical or materialistic theory of resurrection is not Christian. "Flesh and' blood," he said, "cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.''

The new Bishop of Birmingham, on the other hand, states that he is not sure that Dr. Gore's '' claim that material resurrection received no sanction in the early days of Christianity would be endorsed by.all theological scholars."

"I should like to know," says one correspondent 1 to the "Daily Express," ''how "Dr.:. Gore reconciles his statement with a belief in the omnipotence of the Creator, to whom all things are, and must be, possible. It would seem, that the Bishop, in currying favour with science, is denying one of the attributes of God."

"Our High Church dignitaries," writes another correspondent, "seem to spend most of their time nowadays removing their neighbour's landmarks. The material resurrection of our bodily parts is a scientific 'impossibility,' also it is 'impossible' that a man unaided should remove a mountain, and 'impossible' that there should exist a 'Being' who.marks the fall of a sparrow in a world so over-full of sparrows. Alas! toi the 'bright lexicon' of Bishop Gore, apparently there are no such words as 'faith' and ' simplicity '—the simplicity of the little child; the faith which bishops used to teach was capable of performing 'impossibilities.' Church dignitaries forget that the words '1 cannot explain, but I believe,' have a value that any old village woman with her Bible could attest."

"One gathers that Bishop Barnes doe 3 not believe in the fall of man," still another critic writes, "and. consequently no atonement is necessary. The vital essence of Christianity is the fact of a fall, and the need of au atonement. The title 'Christ' is the priestly and substitutionary one given to our Lord in His capacity of the Kedeemer of mankind. Can any man honestly call himself a Christian who denies the very facts embodied in the name? Is not the main object of the Christian Church to preach'' the good news of a Saviour for sinners? If this is taken out of the Scriptures, as the logical result of the teachings you quote, how much is left ? No doubt "Bishop Barnes is a man of brilliant ability and great scientific knowledge; but if we must accept his words against those of our Lord, then there-is an entire end of all belief in the words of Him who said, 'I am the Truth.' "

From the Bev. C. L. Drawbridge, hon. secretary of the Christian Evidence Society, there comes the following "The Very large majority of the clergy of the Church of England nnder the age of seventy—although they very seldom say so— do not go to the Bc-ok ox

Genesis for their natural science, but to modern scientific works. Personally, I think they make a mistake in being so secretive upon this point. The rising generation is interested itLithis/BHbjecti" ' ""~"~ "Men like Canon Barnes find deeper truth and unity in "the ojd story than those who first compiled it from tradition, divinely inspired though they undoubtedly were," is' the opinion of-,an- ! other writer. " These earnest searchers see the whole process of Evolution as the working out of God's great purpose; and they find its consummation in Jesus Christ. They'do not refute, they open wider the gate of interpretation, revealing new and beautiful vistas of' the 'things God has prepared.' "