Gooding, David: 1 - What is Truth?

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, your chairman's remarks were certainly encouraging and suitably impressive. I was not aware till now, though I can see clearly that it is so, that we pagan English have corrupted you so far as to use the pagan names for the days of the week. For that I must apologize. Nevertheless, I would like sincerely to say that I do count it a real honor to be asked to this famous city to talk to you and to talk to you on such a subject. It was given to me for five years before coming here to Ireland to work in the prior's kitchen, now a university department, but originally the kitchen to the great cathedral monastery in the city of Durham in North England. No one who has had the opportunity of examining and working on the uh, uh manuscript Bibles or surveying the great collection of memorials that is housed in the kitchen there and in the refectory and in the dormitory, could possibly escape the tremendous influence that Ireland has had on Christianity, at least in the northeast of England. In the very form of writing, in the design of tombstones and crosses and building, and certainly in deeper parts too, we owe you here a great debt. So that, if we must just complain that to get us Saint Patrick, you had to steal him from us originally. Nevertheless, we do thank you for the way you have magnificently paid back your debt, helping to rekindle the fires of Christianity when they were burning very low in our parts. Let me begin by explaining what I shall be attempting to do here this evening and in these four coming evenings, these three coming evenings. You have asked me to speak to you on the evidences for the truth of our Christian faith, and I shall be simply doing that. I shall be putting before you some at least of the evidence for our Christian faith, and in particular, narrowing it down to its true basis, some of the evidence by which we may certainly know that Jesus Christ is God's son, is God incarnate. That, after all, is the chief cornerstone of our faith. If Jesus Christ is not God's son, if Jesus Christ is not deity incarnate as well as human, then we have, strictly speaking, no Christian faith left at all. I shall not, of course, be attempting to put before you all the evidence. I shall not say a half of those things that could be said. And if the evidence that I select is not perhaps the evidence that you might select, I ask you to overlook that matter. I shall not feel obliged either to put before you all those many difficulties that thoughtful minds have from time to time, uh, thought of against the truth of Christianity. I shall be mentioning some, of course, but in the space of four lectures, it would give altogether a wrong sense of proportion if I loaded down my lectures with all those many possible difficulties that can be thought up. I shall rather concentrate on putting before you positive evidence, putting before you, I trust, enough evidence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ is whom he claimed to be. To put forward enough evidence to make it then a matter of arbitrary and deliberate choice not to believe. And my method of procedure will be just this. I shall attempt this evening to s- to map out again before us what are in fact the claims of our Lord Jesus Christ? In the course of years, it is possible even for Christian people that their ideas of what Christ actually himself claimed to be grow dim and uncertain. Before we can possibly come to judge of the truth of Christianity, we should have clearly in our minds what Christ actually claimed, so that we may come thereafter to some fair decision as to whether his claims be thought genuine or otherwise. Having then staked out what his claims are, I shall attempt to put before you evidence that those claims were true. Evidence from his life, from his character, from his death, evidence for his resurrection. And then, proceeding from that, I shall ask the question of basic Christianity. If then Jesus Christ is God's son, what relevance has that to ordinary people? After all, the thing that we are studying is not a subject of mere academic interest. If Jesus Christ be God, and God has for some reason visited our planet, then there are, there evidently are certain far-reaching implication for, implications for us men and women. But just what those implications are, again, is sometimes hazy in the minds of not a few. I should be attempting to map out what it was that happened in those early days when Christianity was first preached. If we can find out what really happened to those thousands of people all over the Roman Empire who became converted to Christ, who were, so to speak, the first ones to believe on him, we shall have there too added evidence as to who Christ himself was, judging from what he did in the people of his own day. So then this evening, let me begin to talk to you about the claims of Christ. I'm not asking you at this stage to decide in your minds whether you agree or disagree, merely asking that we listen to what Christ actually claimed. Our main source of information, I want to say at once, is of course the New Testament. We have allusions to Christ in the profane historians, in Tacitus, in Pliny, in Josephus, perhaps. But the majority of our evidence, ninety eight percent, is found, of course, in the New Testament. Therefore, to be honest, I ought to deal first with one or two difficulties that people have felt against our New Testament. The first one is not so very important. I doubt whether any of you would seriously contemplate it as a difficulty. And yet I have found it amongst younger people a real stumbling block, and therefore I take a moment or two to mention it. It has often been said to me, particularly by younger people who have not had the time to study, that our New Testament has obviously been copied out so many thousands of times, it is no longer possible to, to take everything it says as representing what was originally written. So that sometimes one meets the reaction that if one quotes a part of the Bible, of the New Testament about our Lord, uh, one's friend will turn around and say, but how do you know that that's a true copy of what was originally written? The Bible wasn't written in English, it was written, the New Testament, in Greek. It has been copied out thousands of times. Mistakes creep into the manuscripts. How can we possibly know at this late stage in nineteen sixty two that we have in our New Testament what was originally written and what therefore may safely be quoted as evidence. That, I say, seems a real difficulty to some. Actually, it is no difficulty at all. All I need do, in fact, here is to quote the words of perhaps the greatest experts that ever have been on the textual criticism of the New Testament. Those great scholars, Bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort, after years of patient toiling with the manuscripts of our New Testament, gave it out that seven eighths of the whole are beyond any doubt whatsoever. Seven eighths of the whole, I repeat, are beyond any doubt whatsoever. We may be sure of the seven eighths that we have what the original writers wrote. Of the one eighth that is uncertain, these two scholars gave it as their opinion that the one-eighth is largely concerned with trivialities, odd particles here and there. And they say- summed up their findings to tell us that less than one sixtieth of the whole is still in doubt. And they were writing over a half century ago. Since their time, whole armies of scholars have worked, and we have more certainty now than then. Less than two percent, much less than two percent, in the judgment of the greatest textual critics, perhaps, that have ever been, less than two percent in our New Testament is uncertain, and the vast majority of that concerns mere trivialities. I take it I may dismiss that particular problem. But supposing we say that we can rely on our Bibles as giving us what the original writers wrote, we ought, if we are honest, to ask another question. Can we be sure that the original documents were genuine and not forgeries? We have, for instance, here some letters that are under the name of Paul the Apostle. We may be sure that what we have are genuine copies of what was originally written, but can we be sure that this letter was in fact written by that man that we know as Paul, who lived in the first century AD, was in fact one of the leading evangelists of the Christian church. Or might it not be that these letters were after all forgeries, written by later hands in later centuries? Here again, the trend of modern scholarship and modern findings are interesting. A hundred years ago, there would have been a whole army of scholars, notably on the continent, who would have maintained that scarce any of our New Testament documents are what they, uh, pretend to be. They would have maintained that the majority of them are late forgeries. Happily, that extreme school of criticism has gone by the board. We scarce hear of it these days at all. It is, in fact, a position no longer tenable, and the majority of scholars of all kinds would admit, over large parts of the New Testament at any rate, with unanimity, that what we have are genuine in the sense that the letters that claim to be Paul's were written by Paul. The gospel that was written, claims to be by Luke, was by Luke, his travel companion. The gospel that was written by Matthew was written in the first century by a Christian gentleman, and we have no reason to doubt but what that Christian gentleman was Matthew. More recently, however, Christian scholars have themselves, I better not say invented a difficulty, uh, but have at least cast some doubt on our New Testament records. They have come to the Gospels and especially to the Epistles, and they have said, but look, in the epistles we have not history. We have bits and pieces of history largely shot through with interpretation. What we have in the epistles is what the later Christian church thought about Jesus, not what he actually said. They have scanned through the gospels and have said the same thing about them. They have said here in the gospels, we haven't just plain history, we have history shot through with interpretation. Now they have said, if we would be honest, we must separate the interpretation and get that out. That is merely what the Christians thought at a later time, and we must try and thread our way back to what Christ actually said. A difficult task, you can perceive. And one I want to submit to you, and I do not wish to be unfair, but within the compass of these four lectures, I must attempt to give a right proportion. A task that I submit to you is in great part misdirected. It is true that the ancients wrote in what the scholars call certain literary forms, and if they were casting a speech, it followed a set pattern that writers used to write speeches in. But that's a long way from holding the view that our Lord himself and the teaching of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven could not recast those forms. The new wine of Christianity doubtless burst the old literary bottles in not a few places. It is largely a speculative occupation to try and separate out from what the apostles and the evangelists wrote, what was their contribution, and what Christ originally said. Nor indeed is it a sound procedure. The gospel writers are agreed on this, and unless they be telling absolute and deliberate lies, we must believe them. The gospel writers all agree that when our Lord was here on earth, he appointed certain men whom he called apostles and ordained them that they should be his official interpreters. There was wisdom in that. After all, what use for us would have been the life of Christ here on earth if we had no interpretation of its meaning? I take that one sample. It is knowledge that we have not only from the New Testament, but from the profane historians, that our Lord was crucified in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. But what was the point of that crucifixion? What was the meaning of the death of Christ, if so be it had any meaning at all? Was it that he died as an over-enthusiastic reformer? Because being youthful, he was also hot-headed. Was it that, as some have told us, that if only he had been a little bit more circumspect, he might have placated his enemies, and he needn't have died at all? Or was it, as the New Testament roundly proclaims, not an accident at all, but an event divinely controlled, a death that in some sense was for us and for our sins, and did us something that we might be reconciled to God. Who should tell us? Just to know he was crucified wouldn't tell us much at all, would tell us nothing as to the significance of that death. Therefore, if our Lord did in fact come here that he might die for us, that that death should mean something to us, he would have wasted his time completely had he not appointed men who should officially interpret the significance of that death. That is what the New Testament claims, that these apostles were appointed for that specific task, that they might be with him in his life, that he might teach them, that when the Holy Ghost came, the Holy Ghost might teach them the significance of our Lord's life, death, resurrection, and ascension. It is therefore a misguided task to try and divorce what actually happened to Christ from the interpretation that the apostles put on. If the apostles are true, then we have no need to divorce it. If the apostles are false, then either Jesus Christ himself was not true, and we may dismiss him from our thinking, or else Pentecost and the sending of the Holy Spirit has somewhere failed, and again, a major plank of Christianity is found to be corrupt. Now, I shall have to be say, say more later on about the question of the a- the authority of these New Testament documents. I just want to make the point here that, um, we may take it that what the apostles wrote, they wrote with Christ's consent. In reading what they write, we are reading what Christ himself would have had them written, would have them write. That's all I want to make for the moment. I shall come back to this basic question again later on. I say so much that now we may examine what is written in our New Testament and mark out what Christ did in fact claim. What did he claim? Let me take, to begin with, just one claim. We are familiar with the verse in which he is reported to have said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Let me select one item. I am, said Christ, the truth. Shall we notice what he is saying? He did not say, I speak the truth, though we believe he did. He was not merely saying that on certain things I tell you true opinions. His claim is far deeper than that. Not merely I speak true things, but I am the truth. I am the truth. What is truth anyway? We all know what true things are. So and so told me a story and it proved to be correct. True in that limited context. But what is the truth? What is the reality behind life, behind all things? The Christian claim, coming from the lips of Christ himself, is just this, said he, I am the truth. Let me illustrate it to you at its various levels. At the physical level. Suppose I held in my hand here a tulip, and I ask myself, now, what is the truth about this tulip? I take it to one of my scientific friends, and I say, now, old man, tell me about this tulip. What is the truth about this tulip? And if you please, he will begin answering, well, you know, this tulip is made up of such and such and such. And it grows by the process, uh, of, um, photoelectricity, you know, the the sun shining on the green leaves get the chlorophyll working and all such wonderful things as that he will relate. And it makes the thing grow. And then certain pigments here and there make the colors come, you'll see. And if you would go, uh, a bit deeper than that, you must go off into physics, and you'll come down to the basic atoms of which the thing is made. Now the atom, says the scientist, is composed of a nucleus, plus all sorts of things that buzz around. And of course, the man is telling us correctly. But now, should you probe this scientist a little bit further? So you tell me that the truth about this tulip is that, um, it is really made up of atoms, and that the atoms are largely made up of a tiny, tiny nucleus and electrical charges buzzing around it, and, um, particles held together by strong electrical forces. It is largely empty space, and, um, in the space there apply electrical forces. Well, you say, um, tell me yet further. Where did the nucleus come from? Where did the electrical forces come from? Scientists before us can go no further. The Christian claim is that they came from that person whom we have come to know as Jesus Christ. Writing with all the authority of Christ behind him, the Apostle Paul said at one stage that our Lord is the first begotten, the first born of all creation because, and in this sense, that all things, the whole way in earth and heaven, all things were made in him and through him. The Apostle John Bright, likewise writing with the authority of Christ, says that without him was not anything made that was made. The truth about your tulip, if you ask what is truth at the physical level, the ultimate truth is Christ. And that's a mighty big claim to make. For it will be the same whether you inquire about a tulip or a star, about this planet or the vast suns in space, about a speck of dust or the whole universe. The Christian claim is that the truth about it all is Christ. Let us, um, set our sights big enough. I remind you that at this stage I'm not asking you to, to agree with me right wholeheartedly at once. I'm meaning merely telling you what the Christian claim is. And I want to state it in big enough terms that we see what kind of a question it is we have to settle. This is either the most arrogant nonsense that was ever taught, or it is true. There is no halfway house. We haven't done with our tulip when we have thought about it on the physical level. Suppose I took my tulip to an arts man, and I said, you know the truth about this tulip. Why, the thing is made up of atoms, you know. These atoms, so they tell me, are largely empty space with the nucleus in the middle, and certain particles are roaring around them. The arts man would smile rather condescendingly and say, poor scientists, poor scientists. What they miss. If they only have that explanation of things, quite true in its way. But all those things were only the preliminary, only the material necessities behind the tulip being a tulip. Now a tulip is a thing of marvelous beauty, wonderful aesthetic value. Look at the shape of its leaves, look at that wonderful coloring. And the arts man will begin to turn into a poet as he expresses all his reaction to this wonderful, beautiful thing. It wasn't made, he will tell you, for a scientist to take it all to pieces again on the bench. May be nice to know how it works. It wasn't made so that we could take it to pieces again. It was made that we might enjoy the thing. To examine it minutely and find out how it was made and yet not enjoy it would be absurd, would be to miss the whole purpose for which the thing was made. While it is quite possible to enjoy the purpose for which the flower was made without knowing anything about how it was made. So tulips have a purpose. And if tulips have a purpose, what about human beings? Your scientists could take you to pieces and explain you in terms of atoms and nuclei, but it wouldn't be a very satisfactory explanation, would it? I suppose you would be the first to object. You don't like to think of yourselves merely as a collection of nuclei and bits and pieces held together with electricity. You're something more than that. Yeah. A thing of beauty may be. If we took the outer layer off, it would be rather ugly, I must confess. But then, we're not interested very much, unless we be medics, in the mechanics of us inside. That is only a preliminary to the whole question, what are we here for? If tulips are here to, for us to enjoy, what are we here for? All sorts of answers have been given to that question. Sooner or later, every thoughtful man and woman will meet, will inquire about it and ask himself honestly, now what am I here for? We ought to be wary of giving too small an answer to that question. To make the world a happier place, that is to say, to make all the other people in the world happier, but what are they here for? When we have made them happier, what will they do? But I do not go into a discussion of all those many reasons that have been suggested for the, for the per- as the purpose of human life. All I want to do just now is to stake out the Christian claim. Writing again with the full authority of our Lord, the Apostle Paul tells us that not only were all things made by Christ and through him, but all things were made for him. That tulip, in the last analysis, was made for him. And human beings everywhere and at all times were made for him. That is the meaning of human life. And we at once begin to see that the Christian claim, far from being a merely academic thing, is a thing that comes home directly and personally to each, to us each one. If Christ be true, then each one of us was made for him, and not to live for him, whatever that may mean, not to live for him, is a denial of the fundamental reason for our existence. The Christian would, in fact, point you- point to all the trouble and chaos, not only in the uncivilized parts, but all the unhappiness here in our own beloved country, and tell you that basically it springs just from that. That we, having been made for Christ, have gone astray and do not always live for him, and thwart thereby the very purpose for which we are made. Again, I'm not here asking you to assent. I merely am pointing out what Christ claims. And again, the claim is so tremendous, and this time so personal to each one, that if it be not true, it is the most wicked imposition upon people. Christ was the most undesirable sort of a meddler. And again, it is arrant nonsense to be resisted with all our might, and no less, if it be not true. There is no middle path. If it be true, we may welcome it. If it be not true, it is nothing short of sheer bondage and slavery, and an insult to mankind. But still we haven't done with our tulip, surely. We may inquire about it at the physical level. We may inquire about its purpose. But even tulips raise other issues. A colleague of mine was the other day talking to somebody on the telephone, when, in a way that sometimes happens, the wires became crossed somewhere, and they were interrupted by another telephone conversation, which turned out to be a gentleman ringing the florists and arranging flowers to be sent to Miss- Mrs. So-and-so, who obviously wasn't his wife. Said my colleague, from the brief conversation, it was pretty apparent that he was arranging for the flowers to be sent at such time as Mr. So-and-so wasn't in. That a right kind of a thing to do? Yes, even such things as tulips and flowers raise other issues, what we are, uh, want to call moral issues, whether it is right to do certain things. Who should tell us what is right? What is the truth about what we call morals? Is it just a convention? Is right what people think is right? Nowadays, in some quarters, we hear this very much urged. The commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery, is represented to us as being merely a convention, a kind of rules of the club, and therefore wrong if you do it because, well, you are offending against your particular society, but there, if you were in some other country and they did commonly commit adultery, well, it would be the right thing to do because everybody does it. What is the truth about morals? Is it merely a convention? Or is it... that these morals go back to an absolute standard? The Christian claim, I need hardly remind you, is that there is an absolute standard. But what I do want to remind you of is simply this, that the Christian claim, the claim of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that he is the absolute standard. The point of that we may grasp if we think back to the situation when he was first here upon earth. The Jews among whom he was born held it as a tenet of their religious faith that the Ten Commandments contained in the Old Testament were laws that were given to them by God through Moses. For that contention, they had fought, and thousands of them in the course of history had given their lives. When our Lord came, right well knowing that they believed those Old Testament regulations to be of God. He said that he had not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them. He honored them as of God. But then said he, there will be certain modifications, gentlemen. You have heard how it was said of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery. I say unto you, at which juncture the Jewish ears stood up on end. What was this? A young man of thirty, uh thirty, thirty one, thirty two maybe, daring to put himself in a place that they had regarded as the prerogative of God. I say unto you. And that was precisely what he did. He claimed to be the absolute standard. He went further than that. Not only himself the absolute standard of morality, he announced to his astonished contemporaries that he would be, at the end, humanity's judge. The Father judgeth no man, said he, but has committed all judgment to the Son. I wonder what your reaction would have been. I wonder what mine would have been. If you had had a young man of thirty one whom you knew to have been brought up in a carpenter's shop, who had had no formal education as such, I wonder what your reaction would have been if that young man had come to you and said, do you know that at the last, when all humanity comes to be judged, I shall be your judge. And if further he had said to you, and this is the terms on which the judgment shall proceed. Verily, verily, if I may quote his words in our beloved authorized version. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, my word. He was about thirty two when he said that. He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into judgment. Words perhaps that to us are very familiar, so that sometimes we lose their impact and fail to see what a tremendous claim is here staked out. Let me repeat them to you. For this is the claim that Christ, through his people, makes still today to every one of us. He says that there is an absolute standard of morality. He is that standard. He says that the meaning of human life is this, that human life was made for him. He says that in the final day he will be judge. He says that the judgment will proceed on these terms. He that heareth, of course, in the sense not merely that listens to and then forgets, but he that hears and does and obeys. What? The Ten Commandments? No, he didn't say that. He said to his astonished listeners, and to us too, if we will take him in, he that hears my word, my word, my word shall judge him in that final day. The Jews said, you speak blasphemy. They took up stones to stone him. I've no wonder they did. I've no wonder they did. Any non-Christian who wouldn't take up stones to stone him, surely has missed the point of what he is saying. If we are not Christians, and we don't feel really warm against him, then we ought. For a young man of thirty one or two years to come before us and say that we were made for him, that he will be our judge, that the judgment will proceed according as we have treated his word personally. If that is not true, that is so preposterous, as perhaps to mark the man an insane lunatic. But if he really means it and is sane and is not true, we better pick up our stones and hurl them with all our might. Not to do so would show that we are lacking in moral fiber or haven't understood the point or something. Perhaps I labour things. But I do wish us on this first lecture to get this well and clearly into our minds. Unless we see what the claims of Christ really are, we shall be in no position to come to any adequate judgment about them. It is for lack of carefully studying what Christ actually claimed, that one can hear oftentimes loose and alter- altogether inadequate ways of thinking. People will say, well, I can't go as far as saying that Jesus Christ was divine, was the Son of God. I think he was a good man in his day. But such statements either show that the person has never read his New Testament or reading it has completely missed what is basic to our Lord's claim. Or other people you will meet will say, yes, well, I believe Jesus Christ was a good man in his way, you know, but I, I think all religions are as good as each other. And it doesn't matter really which way you come to God. The Buddha did as much for his people as Jesus Christ has done for us Westerners, and Confucius for those who follow him. Wouldn't it be a little bit more charitable if we as Christians were to recognize the good in all religions and be willing to at least amalgamate with them? Again, such, such, um, thinking, charitably intended as it may be, shows clearly that it is never understood what it is that Christ claims. If he had come to us merely as a teacher and a preacher, we could perhaps have compared him with others. But he will not rest content at that. I am the truth. No man cometh unto the Father but by me. All things were made by him and in him and for him. If that is true, there's not another like him. If that be not true, I'm afraid you cannot save anything from your Jesus Christ. You must literally have done with him. It is mere sentiment that would try to save anything from your Jesus Christ. You must literally have done with him. It is mere sentiment that would try to save anything from that utter ruin. Evidence is mounting on the part of classical historians that it was for preaching such claims of Christ and in those terms that the original Christians were persecuted. One hears it commonly said that the original Christians were persecuted because they refused to worship the emperors and offer their piece of incense to the, to the image of the emperor. And doubtless their refusal of worship of the emperor was a part, a part cause of that intense hatred which the Romans and others felt against Christians. But it cannot have been the only cause. If for no other reason than this, that the Jews likewise, as Jews, refused to worship the emperor or offer their incense to him. And yet, in days when the Christians were being most violently persecuted, the Jews were not persecuted. It shows then that there must have been some added reason for persecuting the Christians. What was that added reason? I say the evidence mounts that that added reason was, if I may so term it, the exclusiveness of early Christians. The Romans were a reasonable lot on the whole. It was their political policy to show tolerance to religion of all sorts and kinds. Wherever they went, they allowed the natives whom they conquered to carry on with their own religious service. So be it only, of course, they added a prayer or two for the emperor and were willing on occasions to add their, to offer their incense to his genius. The Jews refused to do the last thing. They refused to offer their incense to the emperor, but the Romans overlooked that. For the Jews worshipped the gods of their fathers, little as the Romans knew about the gods of the Jewish fathers. But these Christians, they came to be the most execrable people on the earth to the Romans for this reason. Whether brought up Jew or Gentile, they discarded their original religions. They preached a Jesus that would know no rival, no equal, save God Almighty. It was that very exclusivism that brought down upon their heads the wrath of official Rome. It is that very exclusivism that is liable to be misunderstood today. It sounds uncharitable. But I do submit to you that if we would be true to the historic claims of Christ, we cannot budge so much as one inch from that said position. If Jesus Christ is no more than one more teacher, one more preacher, one more prophet to add to the rest, then is he convicted of being a liar in the most important things he ever said? Is the worst of the prophets that has ever been, has for centuries deceived millions of people. If he were true, then he is our creator, for whom we were made. Whereinsoever we have not lived for him, we have transgressed the fundamental reason for our existence and are found sinners. He will at the end call us to judgment, and he will sit in the judgment seat. And he will cause the judgment to proceed on these terms. What have we done with his personal word? He likewise undertakes that all who believe him shall never perish. Again, to his startled contemporaries, said he, if I may paraphrase his words in homely fashion, said he, would you like to live forever? Would you like to be sure here and now of eternal life? Well, look, said he, I will be there at the last day, and I will raise you up at the last day, if you believe on me. And similarly, it is said, whereas they believe, who believe on him, have this eternal life that he gives. The Christian position is that they who refuse him shall not see life. They shall have rejected their very creator and their only savior. That will be nothing short of eternity. They then are his claims. In coming weeks, I hope to put before you the evidence which will show that those claims are not the words of a lunatic or an excitable, uncontrolled prophet. But that we have reasons enough to believe that those words were the words of one who is God incarnate. While I see- speak these things in the objective language of a lecture, I trust it will become apparent to all that behind these words there come the insistent claims of Christ to us, each one personally. As we think of the meaning of our lives, as we think of our moral success or failure, as we think of the eternity to which we travel. It is the claims of Christ as they impinge upon us, each one personally, that we have to settle. It is in a person, in the end, that we are asked to put our trust. No man will put his trust in any such person unless he is fully convinced that he was what he claimed to be. To trust Christ, if he be not all that he has claimed, is to put our head in the sand, to follow a wrecker's fire, and to go out into what will probably be a disastrous eternity. Therefore, I ask you to pay me as close attention as you may, as in these coming weeks I shall attempt to put before you the evidence that, if we are Christians, will help to strengthen our faith and assure us that our faith in Christ has not been misplaced, that he will do all that he has promised. And if perchance we are not yet Christians or not yet fully convinced Christians and have been shaken, maybe, by current tendencies in thought, we might come to that conviction that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and believing that, to borrow a phrase from the New Testament itself, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, we may come to have life, that is eternal life, through his name.