"_The Spirit of CHRIST_" is said by St. Peter to have been "_in the prophets_[343]:" and in another place he declares that they "_spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST_[344]." The HOLY GHOST accordingly is said to have spoken the xlist Psalm "by the mouth of David[345]." The xcvth Psalm is declared absolutely to be the utterance of the HOLY GHOST[346]. Once, the cxth Psalm is ascribed simply to GOD[347]; and once, to David speaking under the influence of _the HOLY GHOST_[348]. The iind Psalm is described as the language of GOD the FATHER "by the mouth of His Servant David[349]." "_Well spake the HOLY GHOST_ by Esaias the Prophet unto our Fathers[350],"--was the exclamation of the Apostle Paul, quoting the 9th and 10th verses of his vith chapter. When Jeremiah speaks, the HOLY GHOST is declared, (not Jeremiah, _but the HOLY GHOST_) to witness unto us[351]. The assertion is express that it was "GOD" who, "_by the mouth of all His Prophets_," foretold the Death of CHRIST[352]: "_the LORD GOD of Israel_" who, "_by the mouth of His holy Prophets of old_," gave promise of CHRIST'S coming[353]. "_The HOLY GHOST signified_" what the Mosaic Law enjoined[354]. "It is not ye that speak, _but the HOLY GHOST_[355]"--was our SAVIOUR'S word of promise and of consolation to the Twelve: and, on an earlier occasion,--"It is not ye that speak; but the SPIRIT of your Father, _which speaketh in you_[356]." And this promise became so famous, that St. Paul says the Corinthians challenged him to _prove_ that CHRIST was speaking in him[357].... But why multiply places? The use which our SAVIOUR makes in the New Testament of the words of the Old,--from the writings of Moses to the writings of Malachi,--would be simply nugatory unless those words were much more than human. And the record of the Apostle is express and emphatic:--"All Scripture--every Book of the Bible,--is given _by Inspiration of GOD_."--In the face of such testimony, by the way, we deem it not a little extraordinary to be assured (by an individual who has acquired considerable notoriety within the last few months) that "for any of the higher or supernatural views of Inspiration there is no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles[358]." Strange to say, there is a marvellous indisposition in Man to admit the notion of such a heaven-sent message. Not to dispute with those who deny Inspiration altogether, (for that would be endless,) there are many,--and, we fear, a daily increasing number of persons,--who, admitting Inspiration in terms, yet so mutilate the notion of it, that their admission becomes a practical lie. "St. Paul was inspired, no doubt. So was Shakspeare." He who says this, intending no quibble, declares that in his belief St. Paul was _not inspired at all_.