tians." I again say, that if we could have but one name, I should prefer this. I might have been convinced by the specious arguments and the winning spirit of brother Eaton, to adopt his views, did I not know positively that the ancient Christians called each other indiscriminately and indifferently by nearly twenty different names. I therefore entreat my beloved brother Eaton to labor with love and zeal to accomplish such a reformation in character with the brethren, that they may be indeed what he would nave them in name.

CHRISTIANOS.

P. S. The brethren will have the goodness to pardon my presumption in assuming to myself individually a name which I am rather unwilling they should take collectively.

COMMUNICATION.

NOTWITHSTANDING all that is said in the preceding article, by Christianos, and that has been said by others whom I sincerely love and respect in relation to the name by which the advocates and subjects of the proposed reformation should be known, it would appear that there is none so eligible or suitable as the name CHRISTIAN; and that for the following reasons:-1st. Because of the radical and comprehensive import of its appellative signification 2d. Because of its scriptural

consistency with the intention of the proposed reformation. 1st. With respect to the former-its radical and comprehensive import, &c.—it is evident that it literally signifies a disciple and follower of Christ; from which, as a proper name, it is derived; and which is the very radix of Christianity;-upon which, of course, every scriptural appellation of a religious import, under the gospel dispensation, derives its religious significancy. For if a man be not a disciple and follower of Christ, he has no right to be called by any of the "different appellatives" by which Christians were wont to salute each other, as such. All other confessed or conceivable relations by which they did or could recognize each other, radically depended upon their confessed relationship to Christ, as his disciples and followers. Wherefore, the title CHRISTIAN comprehends and covers them all. 2. Nor, secondly, is it less consistent with the intention of the proposed reformation, for which some of us have been laboring both by tongue and pen, by pulpit and press, for, at least, thirty years. The professed object of which is, and has been, from our commencement-the restcationr of pure, primitive, apostolic Christianity in letter and spirit, in principle and practice; witness our "Declaration and Address," published at Washington, Pa., in the fall of 1809. Now this is that very religion that very exhibition of Christianity, to which the appellative

of CHRISTIAN was primarily annexed; for the disciples of Christ were called Christians first at Antioch A. D. 43. Nor, indeed, can there be a more proper term; "for as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ:" therefore, surely they have as good a right to be called after him, as a woman has to be called after the name of the man of her choice, whom she has assumed as her head and husband. And is not this the very relation in which Christians are divinely said to stand to Jesus Christ? see 2 Cor. xi. 2.; Eph. v. 23.; "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ:" "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Should Christians, then, consent to be recognized by any other name than that which brought them into the family of God? by which they have become heirs of God-even joint heirs with Christ, their husband: compare Rom. vii. 4., with viii. 16, 17., and Gal. iii. 26! "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.-And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.". Hence "All things are yours"-for "you are Christ's." Can any name, then, be more appropriate, more distinguishing, more compre hensive, more glorious, or more scriptural than that of CHRISTIAN? Or can any name suit better with the ultimate intention of the proposed reformation: viz.-the scriptural unity and unanimity of the professors of Christianity, without which they can never convert the world? Surely no. For while one says, "I am of Paul"-another, "I am of Apollos"-the professing body must be divided; and, while continuing so, it can never succeed, prevail, or prosper: "For every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation." Matth. xii. 25. Wherefore our Lord prays so earnestly for the unity of all who should believe in his name, that so the world might be converted: see John xvii. 11.; 20.-Nothing, therefore, is more obviously necessary for this purpose, than that professed believers be professedly united in the one name, the one faith, and the one love, of the one Lord and Master;-both in order to their own peace and comfort, and also for the success of the blessed cause in which they are professedly engaged.

These things being evidently so, what signifies all the objections that have been, or can be made to that worthy name by which the disciples of Christ have been called from the beginning? What if some have abused it? Is the abuse of a good thing any reason for the disuse or rejection of it? If so, what is it that has not been abused? But-"It is not sufficiently distinguishing." Why? Is it because that some who assume it, have practised or taught, something inconsistent with the genuine truth and purity of our holy religion? Grant it: and what then? May not any name or title be thus abused? And can any appellation

be better calculated to keep us right than that of CHRISTIAN? Surely no name can possibly combine in it so many interesting considerations to excite us to every thing that is good, honorable, and praise-worthy, as the name CHRISTIAN. It is, without exception, the most exalting, the most honorable, and distinguishing title under heaven. Excited, therefore, by these considerations, let us hold it fast, and endeavor to walk worthy of it. T. C.

My dear brother Campbell

COMMUNICATION.

Jacksonville, Illinois, November 11, 1839.

FROM you I have received no private communication for a longlong time. For this I blame you not, seeing you have so many more interesting correspondents. Your Harbinger, kindly sent, and thankfully received, I have always read with much interest. To a few numbers, the last. on OUR NAME, I have objections. Some of those objections I stated in a letter to brother Walter Scott. Whether he may make them public or not, I cannot tell, nor am I concerned. I met with your remarks in the October number, in Missouri, and in a hasty manner wrote mine. I am sorry, very sorry, that you have written as you did I can anticipate no good results, but evil. It appears to be uncalled for. We were all living in peace and harmony, and the good cause prospering. You well knew the great attachment thousands of us had to the name Christian, aud many believed from your writing that you had adopted it as the most appropriate name. You also knew that many could not conscientiously be called Disciples, as a family name. You knew your two warmest friends, J. T. Johnson and myself, rejected the title of our Hymn-Book, because it was called the Disciples' Hymn-Book. Brother Campbell, ought you not to have respected the feelings of so many, who united their energies with yours in promoting the common cause? The reasons given by you for rejecting the name Christian, because you were anticipated by a people in the East and in some parts of our country, who are Unitarians, and who do not baptize for the remission of sins, nor break the loaf every first day, are the things so objectionable, and objected to by all, whom I have heard speak on the subject. They think you have rejected virtually all such from any claim of being disciples of Christ Myself and thousands of others have been called Unitarians by our enemies, though I ever denied the name. How cordially did I agree with you in the Apostles' Creed. Were I to adopt any other beside the Bible, it would certainly be this ex-animo. Have you altered your views? Do inform me. If you really design to purge out all Unitarians from the Disciples, as is thought by some, do inform me your de finition of a Unitarian. If none are to be reckoned Disciples of Christ, unless they baptize for remission, what do you think of those who never use the phrase I baptize for remission, when they baptize a person? Of this number of immersers I am one, yet I as firmly believe the doctrine of baptism for remission as you do. With you I also believe that it would be improper in many cases to use these words in the act

of baptizing, seeing many have received remission prior to their baptism. You have admitted this, when you admit that there are Christians among the sects. If a Christian, he must have been justified or pardoned, and a partaker of the Spirit; for an unpardoned Christian, having not the Spirit, is an anomaly in Christianity. I do think with you, there are Christians among the sects, and therefore would think it improper to baptize them for remission. They had the spirit of obedience, but had been educated in Babylon, and had drunk of her wine too deeply, and by it were blinded to this duty.

My dear brother, I write freefy to you. The brethren in Missouri are grieved with myself at these things. I do hope they have misapprehended you that you do not design to establish another sectarian party-that you do not design to co-operate with Trinitarians agaiust Unitarians that you do not design unchristianizing those who cordially embrace the Apostles' Creed; especially those who take the Bible alone for their rule of faith and practice that you do not make the opinion of a pious believer, differing from your opinion, a bar to fellow ship. Do, my brother, inform me.

I am confident, brother Campbell, that the Christians in the East, and in some other sections of our country, have not been treated with that forbearance and love enjoined by the gospel. A few hot-heade ill-informed leaders among them, labored to excite their nearers against the reformation. Had they been dealt with in the meekness of wisdom. glorious would have been the results; but harshness has driven them farther astray; and the doctrine (not of the reformation) that none have their sins remitted but by being baptized for remission has rivetted their prejudices. Yet their case is not hopeless. I know, I am well well pursuaded, that I could influence them so far, that they would agree to meet us in convention, and adjust matters to mutual satisfaction. Quere-Shall we try? Again: Would it not be advisable that you soften the hard objectionable features of your numbers on OUR NAME? Without it, much mischief will be done.

O! for the wisdom of the serpent and harmlessness of the dove! have just returned from a preaching tour in Missouri. There were, during my stay, sixty or seventy additions. I hear much said about obedience, and too many confine or almost restrict the term to baptism and the weekly supper: prayer is sadly neglected, especially family prayer, love to God and man-peace with all men-set your affections on things above, not on things on earth.

I must close. May grace, mercy, and peace be with you! Farewell, my brother, B. W. STONE.

AND OUR NAME.

My remarks on UR NAME, elicited at this time by a query from our amiable and intelligent brother Rucker, of Georgia, have occasioned much discussion, and some irritating, and, in my humble opinion, unchristian remarks. I speak not now in reference to the preceding documents from fathers Stone and Campbell, but in reference to sundry others which have appeared elsewhere. True, indeed, some of our

brethren who think too much authority is attached to my opinions, and too little to their own, are in all good conscience compelled to seize every favorable opportunity of endeavoring to lessen the former, and to increase the latter. I can, indeed, most fraternally sympathize with them, because of their extreme conscientiousness and refined sensibility on this subject. They are piously afraid that a power in other hands might be wielded disadvantageously, which, in their own, could be so safely trusted and so happily employed to the promotion of truth and good order. To persons so constituted it must always be as gratifying to their benevolence, as it is promotive of their honor, to seize any unpopular expression or opinion of mine, and make out of it a broad axe to hew down the aforesaid supposed authority, even if it should only increase their own as it lessened mine.

Others again, perhaps not so morally sensitive on the subject of too much authority in my hands, as they are mindful of their former posi. tion to the name Christian, having laid, perhaps, an undue emphasis pon the designation, are preternaturally excited on any indication that seems to impinge upon the prejudices and feelings which they may have helped to create on this subject. Some of these have pronounced precocious plaudits on the benevolent efforts of those who assume their old side of the controversy, whom they patronizingly and graciously stimulate by their smiles to increased exertions in behalf of their old partialities.

Well, all this is poor human nature, which, in its best estate, is altogether vanity, and an object of pity and forbearance, rather than of anger and resentment. We can bear with these indications without the slightest ripple on the placid tide of our good feeling: for we do not love these brethren because they are either perfect in knowledge or in character, but because they desire to be. Nor were we so ignorant of human nature as to expect that those who have preached a hundred sermons on the divine and exclusive authority of the name Christian, and wrote a thousand pages, first and last, upon its supernatural charms and sanctions, are to be, all of a sudden, satisfied with any proof that this high and authoritative ground of theirs is neither more nor less than a good-natured and well-meant assumption, of which themselves are not so much the authors as the adopters.

Well now, I trust that all these zealous and loyal brethren will allow me frankly to show cause why they are too sanguine and too fast, as well as too ideal in all their speculations upon this, to them, very engrossing subject.

I gave some reasons for my preference for the name Disciple. These have been assailed with spirit, if not with power; and not even the