The credibility of the resurrection.
If it be an incredible doctrine, it must be so because to raise men from the dead is physically impossible or morally unlikely in a very high degree. But—
I. IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
1. The continuance of the spirit in existence after death is certainly not impossible; indeed, it is the discontinuance which has seemed so impossible that to many thinkers its permanency appears to be a necessity. The difficulty, to many minds, is to understand how a spirit can be dissolved and destroyed.
2. Its reassociation with a human body of some kind is also possible, and to almighty power and wisdom easy of execution. The same Divine strength and skill which created and fashioned man as he is can surely continue his existence and his powers under similar conditions to the present ones. He who has made us what we are can make us again, more or less closely associated with the bodily frame which is our present home and organ.
II. To RAISE HIS OWN SON FROM THE DEAD IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE WORLD OF HIS DIVINITY, and of the heavenly origin of the faith he taught, is credible enough. Granted that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Savior of the world, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so far from being incredible or even improbable, is positively demanded.
III. To RAISE FROM THE DEAD THE FOLLOWERS OF A RISEN AND ASCENDED SAVIOR is perfectly credible. Granted what we have assumed, and that, therefore, Jesus Christ is Savior, Lord, and Friend of believing, loving, and faithful disciples, it follows that he would exert his Divine power and raise them to his heavenly kingdom, that they might share his honor and his blessedness. The real difficulty is not in the resurrection of Jesus Christ or in that of his disciples; it is in the assumption which lies behind—the assumption that Jesus Christ was one who came down from heaven to redeem a fallen race. That granted, everything else follows necessarily. We maintain that—
IV. A DIVINE REDEMPTION IS A CREDIBLE AND NOT AN INCREDIBLE IDEA. There is much within us and around us that points to the presence of a holy and living Father of spirits. If we make our appeal to our own hearts—and there is nothing higher than a living human heart from which to argue to the Divine—we shall conclude that to restore his fallen children by the sacrifice of himself was just that very thing which the infinite Father would do. There is nothing more probable, more credible than that.
1. Redeeming love is a well-attested fact.
2. The resurrection of Christ is involved in that fact.
3. The resurrection of man is an inference from that.
Gradations in guilt.
The old notion that, as sin is committed against an infinite God, it must itself be an infinite evil, and that, therefore, all sins are equally heinous and offensive, is held no longer. Its logic is unsound, and our moral sense contradicts the theory. The fact is that the degrees of human guilt in the multitude of actions men perform, under a vast variety of conditions, are indefinitely numerous. Only the Omniscient can possibly discriminate and compute them. But there are some simple principles on which we may safely rely for our spiritual guidance. We judge—
I. THAT DELIBERATE AND DIRECT ANTAGONISM TO CHRIST IS THE GUILTIEST OF ALL POSITIONS. "Doing things contrary to … Jesus Christ," when these things are done by an agent who knows what he does, reaches the very summit of iniquity. "This is the condemnation, that light is come," etc. When men oppose themselves to Christian truth because" their deeds are evil," because "their craft is in danger," Because they hate the light which exposes their sin and robs them of their gains or their enjoyments, then they stand in the very front rank of criminality; they deliberately take up arms against their Maker; "They take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder," etc.; they say, "This is the Son; come, let us kill him," etc. Surely God will trouble these "with his sore displeasure" (Psalms 2:5).
II. THAT DELIBERATE NEUTRALITY IS A MOST SERIOUS SIN, When men refrain from taking an active part against the cause of Christ and his truth, doing "nothing contrary," etc., they shun the very worst possible thing. But when they attempt to take neutral ground, and either
III. THAT IGNORANCE CHANGES THE CHARACTER AND MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE DEGREE OF GUILT. Clearly Paul was not so guilty in his acts of persecution as he would have been, had he not "thought that he ought to do many things contrary," etc. He himself tells us that this ignorance of his was a great mitigation of the sinfulness of his act (see 1 Timothy 1:13). Our Lord also gave his own Divine sanction to this truth when suffering the pangs of crucifixion (Luke 23:1-56. 34).
1. Ignorance changes the character of the sin. What Paul was guilty of in those days was not the deliberate attempt to crush the work of a Divine Redeemer; he would have recoiled from so doing, had the act presented itself thus to his mind. His mistake, his condemnation, was that he had not fairly and impartially considered the claims of Jesus of Nazareth; that he had blindly assumed that his teachers were right, guiltily neglecting all the proofs which the Savior had given that he was the Messiah "that should come into the world."
2. It also greatly reduces its turpitude, not to have inquired as we should have done—this is wrong and blameworthy. But it is not so serious an offence, in the sight of God or of man, as willfully and wantonly to conspire against the Lord, and to seek to positively hinder the coming of his kingdom. It may rightly comfort those who, like Paul, have to look hack on offences which they have committed, when they can say, with him, "I verily thought," etc.; when it can be said to them, "Brethren, I vet that through ignorance ye did it" (Acts 3:17).
IV. THAT ONLY ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE EXONERATES FROM BLAME. It is conceivable that men may be so circumstanced that their ignorance is absolute, and therefore wholly faultless. In this case there is no guilt. But how seldom is it of this kind! Usually when we do "things contrary" to truth, righteousness, God, we might have known better if we had inquired more promptly or more purely. We may not excuse ourselves if we have kept out of our mind any light we might have admitted. We may apply this to