consciously, to deny Christ's deity.

Cannot a document have more than one author? What are the facts in other
realms of art? In painting, did not Landseer get Millais to paint the
human figure into the picture of his dogs? In literature, is there any
more acknowledged fact than that Erckmann-Chatrian's battle-stories were
the work of two writers, and not of one? The work of a single author may
have two separate meanings, for Dante declares that his Divine Comedy
has one meaning that is personal, and another meaning that is universal.
Our extreme critics are as poor students of literature as they are of
life. Their narrowness of interpretation is due to a narrowness of
experience. If they knew Christ better, they would find in the
Twenty-third Psalm alone enough proof to upset their theory. "The Lord
is my shepherd, I shall not want," is an utterance inexplicable by
merely human authorship. To suppose that even a king of Israel who had
been a shepherd-boy could have written this psalm without divine
inspiration, in a day when all lands but little Palestine were wrapt in
a pall of heathen darkness, is to suppose that religion can exist and
flourish without a God.

"The testimony of Jesus," says the book of Revelation, "is the spirit of
prophecy." It was the recognition of constant references to Christ in
the Old Testament, that enabled the apostles to convince and convert the
unbelieving Jews. The absence of this recognition is the secret of all
the minimizing of Christ's attributes which is so rife in our day. Do
men believe in Christ's deity who ignore his promise to be with them to
the end of the world, and who refuse to address him in prayer? Could one
of these modern interpreters have taken the place of Philip, when he met
the Ethiopian eunuch? That dignitary had been reading the prophecy of
Isaiah, "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter." "Of whom speaketh the
prophet this? of himself, or of some other?" "And Philip opened his
mouth, and preached unto him _Jesus._" Our modern critics call this an
unwarranted interpretation, because Isaiah had no knowledge of Christ.
And yet, John tells us that "Isaiah saw his glory, and spake of him."
The critics contradict John again, when they say that we must put no
meaning into Isaiah's words but that of his own time. His great prophecy
of a suffering Messiah, they say, had reference only to Jehoiachin, the
captive king of Judah, or to the whole Jewish nation as the afflicted