Page:The Collected Works of Theodore Parker Discourse volume 1.djvu/283

236 and to assume a miraculous agency is contrary to the inductive method, to say the least of it.

Do the writers ever claim a peculiar and miraculous inspiration? The furthest from it possible. Paul speaks of his inspiration, but admits that, of all Christians, “No man can say Jesus is the Lord,” that is, Christianity is true, “but by the Holy Ghost.” He refers wisdom, faith, eloquence, learning, skill in the interpretation of tongues, ability to teach, or heal diseases, to inspiration: “All these worketh that one and selfsame spirit.” The Spirit of Christ was in all Christian hearts; they all received the “Spirit of God.” That was Paul's view of inspiration. He and his fellow-apostles were servants that helped others to believe. He had the gift of teaching in a more eminent degree, and enjoyed a greater “abundance of revelations,” and therefore taught. John carries the doctrine of the universal inspiration of Christians still further.

Now, if the apostles had this miraculous and peculiar inspiration, and through modesty did not state it, they must yet have known the fact. But it is notorious they taught not in the name of any private inspiration, but in that of Jesus.

But even if the apostles claimed miraculous and infallible inspiration, and taught with authority they pretended to derive therefrom, still their claim could not be granted, for, if infallibly inspired, they must be ready for all emergencies. Now a practical question arose in a novel case which was a test of their inspiration: Should they admit the Gentiles to Christianity? The book of Acts relates, that Peter required a special and miraculous vision to enlighten him on this head. He seems surprised to find that “God is no respecter of persons,” but will allow all religious men of any nation to become Christians. Had he been miraculously inspired before, to what purpose the vision?

If the apostles were infallibly inspired, they could not