THE “CHRISTIAN” NAME.
It is well known that our opponents frequently charge us with a want of charity, in assuming the name “Christian,” to the exclusion of all others. They tell us we thereby unchristian all other churches. I lately made a reply to this objection which my brethren have requested me to publish, since they deemed it important that the objection be removed, that we may stand before the world in our true light. Bro. Lard has written well upon this point as indeed he has upon all others, yet it may be answered by an argument of another species which may be worth the while of our opponents to consider.
We have an argumentum ad hominem to which we invite the attention of those of our friends who charge us with presumption in our choice of a name. An objection is considered fairly answered when it is shown to lie with equal force against the party objecting. An argument is refuted when it is shown that it is equally potent when applied to those offering it.
We will now show that the objection so often made to our only name is of this character. We have never claimed that our use of the name “Christian” or “Church of Jesus Christ” was either intended, or that it did unchristianize the rest of the world, yet this double charge is continually made upon us. We shall show that the name “Christian” does not exhaust all its meaning upon the Reformers, nor are all the members of Christ’s church or body connected with our people. That all “Christians” are associated together is not claimed by any, but that they ought to be thus united is what we have ever contended.
But to our argument. Let us first examine the various names which a few of the sects have appropriated to themselves, and we shall see the real force of the above objection. Take for instance the name “Protestant Episcopalian.” Now do these people assuming this name exhaust the whole meaning of the words upon themselves? Are not twenty other denominations equally Protestant? Yes, they acknowledge it. Then if they can use the name Protestant without thereby declaring all others non-Protestant, we may use the name Christian without thereby declaring all others un-Christian. Why not? So, of the other name Episcopalian. There are other Episcopalians beside them, if we mistake not. Is not the Church of England governed by diocesan Episcopoi (bishops)? Are not the Catholics and Methodists good Episcopalians? But they may say that they are Protestant Episcopalians because they protest against some things in the mother Church of England. But has not the Methodist Episcopal Church protested as much as they? Yes, more. Therefore, whether we consider each part of the name by itself, or the whole as one complex thing, we perceive that the same objection against the name “Christian,” lies with equal force against it. If, therefore, they can use their name without thereby un-Protestantizing and un-Episcopalizing all others, why can we not use the name “Christian ” without un-Christianizing all others?
We have examined the name of only one church, but the same remarks may be applied to several other names, for instance, “Protestant Methodist,” so called because they protested against the office of diocesan bishops in the Methodist Episcopal church, from whose communion they sprang. But several other branches of the Methodist body have protested against the government of the church by such officers, and are therefore equally Protestant. So, we might instance the name Congregationalist or Independent, which indicates no more a peculiarity of the body so called, than of the Baptists, and some others. Thus, our opponents have been making an objection, which, if it have any force whatever, weighs equally against themselves, but which, in fact, is the most futile of all objections ever offered.
But it may now be alleged, that although there be Protestants and Episcopalians in other churches, as well as Congregationalists, yet there is but one body known as the “Protestant Episcopalian Church,” but one known as the “Protestant Methodist Church,” and but one known as the “Congregational Church,” that is, when we use the word church in its general or generic sense. We admit it. We never yet heard it disputed. We also add that although there are Christians to be found scattered through the various sects of Christendom, yet there is but one body of Christ, but one Christian church, and this body is composed, not of our people alone, but of all the saints of whatever name.
We do not, therefore, claim that the mass of our people complete the “Christian church,” in its generic sense, neither does any other organization, nor do they all together complete the “general assembly of the first born,” since there may be those who are Christians, and consequently in the kingdom of Christ, who are not connected at present with any of these organizations. That all Christians ought to be united in one visible body we believe, and therefore we have not ceased for many years to call upon all Christians to come together and be united in one, as the Savior prayed. All Christians are “in Christ,” in his body, and are therefore members of “the household of faith, citizens of the kingdom, and made sons and heirs to the glorious inheritance beyond the skies.” Why should they then allow their opinions to keep them apart? Why should the visible body of the church be longer dissevered, dismembered, and dishonored?
Let us, before we take leave of this subject, look for a moment at the phrase, a phrase, a church of Jesus Christ, that is, a church used in accordance with its most common Scriptural meaning, denoting a Christian congregation, organized according to the grand model given at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. This is the Jerusalem church “which is the mother of us all.” The true churches of Christ are the daughters of Jerusalem, they are not the daughters of Rome, nor of Geneva, nor of London, nor of Oxford, nor of Edinburg. We, therefore, do not hesitate in applying the name Christian church to a local congregation of the “saints and faithful in Christ Jesus,” and do maintain, that if such an organization be built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, and “continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, and in breaking bread, and in prayers,” it is divinely entitled to that name. And how much more appropriate that name first given at Antioch, referred to by King Agrippa, and claimed by the apostle Peter in his first letter. Could Christians unite upon a sectarian name any more easily than upon a sectarian creed? Ah, why not take an inspired creed, a holy confession, and a Bible name? Let our friends know, then, it is for no want of charity that we have selected this name, but because we wish to unite with Christians of all denominations, we therefore throw away our human names, our human creeds, our human books of discipline, and propose to meet all who love our Lord Jesus Christ upon the good old apostolic creed and discipline. We meet you on the Bible, and not on any man’s opinions. We have sacrificed all for this, come heal the wound in the body of Christ. May our dear Lord be no longer wounded in the house of his friends!