argument, but the very style itself has been scrutinized with unusual perspicacity. One of my reasons for the preference given, was, and still is, that the name DISCIPLE (which is understood by all to be elliptical, and equivalent to disciple of the Lord, or of Christ,*) is more scriptural.

This it seems was not sufficiently rhetorical; for one brother, geuerally discriminating, just at that time discovered that the word scriptural is a peculiar adjective, that has no degrees of comparison; that if any thing be scriptural, it is so; that it is neither more, nor most so. Thus if disciple be found one hundred and ten times in the New Testament, and the name Christian just three times, the latter is as scriptural as the former. James, who wrote one epistle, is as scriptural as Paul, who wrote fourteen. This is, to say the least, hypercritical; or being "righteous overmuch.”

Alexander Cruden, in his Concordance, the best in the world, says"The word disciple, absolutely taken, signifies in the New Testament, a believer, a Christian, a scholar, a follower of Christ or his Apostle as in Acts vi. 1.”—“When the number of the disciples was multiplied;" and ix. 1., where it is said, "Paul yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord." He quotes this word as occurring more than one hundred times in the New Testament. For this reason we say it is more scriptural, more frequently found in the New Testament, than the word Christian. This no person can deny.

But enough has appeared on this subject; and as we are all passive in receiving a name, and cannot compel the public to call us what we please, I shall only attempt one point, which, with me, is the only important one in the whole affair. It is this: Have we any divine authority for being called Christians? I do not ask, Have we any divine authority for being exclusively called Christians; for I believe all our brethren give that up; but the question is, Have we any divine authority for being called Christians at all? The same question may be variously propounded-as, for example, Was the name Christian first given by Heaven or earth, by God or man? Or was it recommended by human authority, and finally adopted by divine authority?

Those who affirm that it was given by divine authority from the days of John Newton till now, have relied upon the verb chreematizo, found in Acts xi. 26., as importing they were divinely called Christians firs at Antioch; but it never has been shown that such is the fixed meaning of that word, which is essential to the argument from it; indeed, no one, I believe, has ever assumed that it necessarily means so. Others

* As the term disciple is always elliptical, aud includes the teacher, it is unnecessary to say that it is the same as "diciples of the Lord," or "of Christ." I never heard of but one person that denied this.

again have assumed that Christian is the new name by which God's people were to be called, as intimated in Isaiah lx. 3. But that was in the days of text-preaching, when the context had little or nothing to do with the interpretation of any passage: for now all are satisfied that the new name there spoken of is Hepzibah-"the delight of the Lord," or "My delight is in her." But although we are not called upon to prove that this name was not given by divine authority, our friends being obliged to offer proof that it was; we may fearlessly affirm, from all that has recently been written on the subject, and from all that is in the New Testament, that no person can possibly prove that it was divinely introduced or sanctioned.

One great fact or two on record, in my judgment for ever precludes the possibility of such proof. It is a fact that the disciples were not first called Christians at Jerusalem, but at Antioch. Now as from Jerusalem went forth the law and the word of the Lord, and as the Holy Spirit was then fully communicated to the Apostles, and they had a full revelation of the whole institution and of the Master's will, whatever name they gave to the followers of Christ was of divine authority, and no other. The question, then, is, What did the Holy Spirit then call them? I answer, Certainly not Christian; for Luke says they were called Christians first at Antioch. The matter is then decided forever, that the followers of Christ were not called Christians by divine authority, unless the Apostles received a new revelation or command some fourteen years after the day of Pentecost. For according to the chronology of those who differ from us, as well as of those who agree, the disciples were called Christians at Antioch fourteen years after the descent of the Spirit, and never before.

But a second fact, equally conclusive, is, that Luke did not write his Acts of the Apostles for twenty-one years after they were called Christians first at Antioch. Paul, according to the received chronology, came to Rome A. D. 63, and Luke did not write his Acts for two years afterwards: for he writes in them that Paul "lived two years in Rome in his own hired house;" consequently he could not have written that book till the end of 64. Now if the name Christian had been given in Antioch, twenty-one years before, by divine command, what an ungodly man must Luke have been during these twenty-one years after, and fourteen before-in all, thirty-five years-never to have called them Christians; but, on the contrary, waywardly and frowardly to have called them disciples all the while; and even in the very next fact that he writes in the very face of his intimating that they were divinely called Christians, (according to some of our Evangelists and teachers,) he obstinately says, verse 29, "In the days of Claudius Cesar, the

disciples, every man," &c. Unless, then, we suppose this man Luke to have been a bold and daring offender against a divine revelation, it is infallibly certain that he and his companions, the Apostles, dil not receive the name Christian as coming from Heaven, but from the rude and profane Antiochans.

But it is assumed that Paul admitted it as of divine authority when it fell from the lips of king Agrippa. Paul was not such an admirer of regal grandeur as to hold the words of a king divine; nay, he modestly declined the name in the presence of Agrippa. For when the king said, "Paul, thou almost persuadest me to be a Christian," Paul does not say, "I would to God that not only thou, but all that hear me this day, were not only almost, but altogether" Christians. Nay, verily, he says, "altogether such as I am, except these chains." The reason was then what it is now. The enemies of Christ desired to put him on a footing with Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and other philosophic and political aspirants, heads of parties, leaders, and thus to place his religion and his party on a par with others according to the ruling custom of the age; by which they hoped to humble his pretensions and exalt their own. The Apostles, therefore, as appears from all heir writings, never once adopted the name. They call themselves and one another by numerous and various names, but never by that

name.

Thus Paul waived an appropriation of the name so complimentarily given him by the king. As, for example, should a German prince have said to Zuinglius when pleading the cause of Protestantism before him, 'Zuinglius, thou almost persuadest me to be a Lutheran; Zuinglius, perceiving his drift, would, in the spirit of Paul, not replyO! Prince! I would to heaven that you were not only almost, but altogether, a Lutheran; but altogether such as I am, except my unfor. tunate circumstances.' So I think an uncommitted person would understand Paul before Agrippa.

But the term is once more found, 1 Pet. iii. 16. The Apostle inti mates a fiery trial, persecution, reproaches, and sufferings for the name of Christ. The name Christian being then common among the enemies of Christ, as Luke intimated in the year 64, by telling when and where it first began; and it was then usual to indict, try, and kill the holy brethren under the name Christian. "If, then," says Peter, "any one suffer under this name of reproach and suffering (as a Christian,) let him not be ashamed," &c. These are the only times the name is 'found in holy writ. Paul and Peter having suffered under Nero, ali antiquity dates his 1st Epistle about the year 60, four years before Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. We have, then, unequivocal evidence

that even after the time of Peter's two letters, the brethren called each other disciples, and had not then adopted the name Christian, though so current in the world as to be mentioned three different times in the space of thirty years in the inspired writings.

It is an instructive fact that the same year (A. D. 60,) in which Peter uses the word Christian as bandied about by Roman magistrates and people, the saints called each other brethren and disciples. For A. D. 60, Luke says "the disciples" came together to break the loaf at Troas; while Peter spoke of their persecution under the title of Christians in the same year, and not far from the same place. The world, then, it seems called them Christians while they called themselves disciples and brethren, &c. down to A. D. 64.

Not to repeat what has been so often and so well said by others— such as if the Lord had, in the judgment of the Apostles, anthorized or approved this name, I ask, Would they not have immediately and ever after adopted it in preference to all others, as was the fact when Abram was changed into Abraham, and Sarai into Sarah? Even courtesy decreed that when the names Saul and Joses were changed into Pau and Barnabas, the old name should no more be used; or that they should thence be designated by the new name. I say, we need not to repeat what has already been so well said, and so often said by others. The disciples were immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This holy name, neither Jesus nor Christ, was put or called upon them by divine authority.

Now as Father Stone and Father Campbell consider that Disciples of Christ and Christians are identical expressions so far as import is con cerned, all they allege about being called after him is as applicable to the term disciple as to the term Christian; for neither of them are among those weak scholars who cannot conscientiously be called disciples as a family name, on the hypothesis that the name disciple does not imply its own ellipsis-Christ. We are God's heritage; for we are Christ's, and Christ is God's. The numerous essays which have appeared on this subject have convinced me that I conceded too much in my first articles upon the name. I have, however, no desire to impose any name upon any person without his own consent-much less upon our brethren. Therefore I cannot consent to any one fixing upon me, under the pretension of a divine warrant, a name either exclusively or at all, because of their peculiar attachment to it.

As a human designation, we call our religion Christianity, and its professors Christians. I have used these words as often as most men of my age; but I use them not as divine, or exclusive names, but as I

use other words by common consent. The followers of Christ had several nicknames; but, as already shown, they had a variety of names chosen by themselves and sanctioned by the Apostles. The saints— the brethren the holy brethren-the children of God-the disciplesare names and titles of divine authority; and if by common consent the name Christian import just as much, neither more nor less; then, as I have said, I hold it to be indifferent whether we are called Disciples or Christians; and as written by me, before I saw a single remark from any brother on the subject, I only give my reasons why I vote for Disciple in preference to Christian. I commenced with four reasons: I still cherish them; and the discussion has given me a fifth-viz: that we have divine authority for Disciple, and sundry other names, and none for Christian.

Still as some glory in it, because many were persecuted to death under it, I am not ashamed of it. Our brethren have gone too far however, on this point, as well as on some others. They have affirmed that all the ancient martyrs suffered under this name. This only shows, when prejudice and feeling are a little excited, how memory and judgment alike fail. Not one of the most ancient martyrs suffered under that name: for Stephen, the protomartyr himself, and all the subjects of the first persecution, during Paul's opposition to Christ, and long afterwards, died under another name than that of Christian: for "the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch," many years after the death of Stephen and the conversion of Paul.

I have no desire to expose a number of similar errors and mistakes in the various pieces I have read on the name: for, as already said, if the brethren will agree to be called by all the names in the New Testament; or if they will use the name Christian to represent just the same sort of people that were so named by the Antiochans, I will cheerfully go with them. I have not cast my anchor, or said if all the world would call themselves Christians, I will call myself a Disciple.

This reminds me of a circumstance I heard the other day. Two teamsters happened to meet on the brow of a very bad hill: the one ascending with a heavy load, requested the one descending with an empty waggon to drive out of the track, as universal custom and courtesy required, and let him ascend in the best part of the road. But, on receiving a peremptory refusal from his neighbor, "Well," said he, "rather than we should fight about it, my horses being in good plight, I will try and get out of your way," So say I: if any one say he will not leave the smooth path of his own partialities, I will not dispute with him-I will get cut of his way. I have given only some of my