would repudiate us and unchurch us, because of our supposed Unitarianism, Arianism, &c. For this reason we prefer an unappropriated name, which is indeed neither more nor less than the scriptural equivalent of Christian; for who were called Christians first at Antioch? They had a prior-a more ancient name. They were called Disciples. Disciples of whom? Of Christ. Disciples of Christ is, then, a more ancient title than Christian, while it fully includes the whole idea. It is, then, as divine, as authoritative as the name Christian, and more ancient. Besides, it is more descriptive; and, better still, it is unappropriated. It claims our preference for four reasons:— 1st. It is more ancient. 2d. It is more descriptive. 4th. It is more unappropriated. 1. Our first reason is indisputable; for the disciples of Christ were called Christians first in Antioch. Those who from the day of Pentecost were known throughout Judea, Galilee, Samaria, and among the Gentiles as disciples of Christ, were, at Antioch, many years afterwards, called, for the first time, Christians. 2. It is more descriptive: because many people are named after their country, or their political leaders, and sometimes after their religious leaders, who would feel it an insult to be called the pupils or disciples of the person whose name they bear. Germans, Franks, Greeks, Romans, Americans, Columbians, Jeffersonians, &c. do not describe the persons who bear their names; for they are not supposed to be the pupils of such men. Might not a stranger, an alien, imagine that Christian. like American or Roman, had some reference to country or some benefactor, or some particular circumstance, rather than scholarship? Disciple of Christ is, then, a more descriptive and definite designation than Christian. 3. It is more scriptural. Luke wrote his Acts some thirty years after the ascension. Now in his writings, which give at least thirty years' history of the primitive church, the word Christian occurs but twice-used only by the Antiochans and by king Agrippa; but no disciple, as far as Luke relates, ever spoke of himself or brethren under that designation. More than thirty times they are called Disciples in the Acts of the Apostles. Luke and other intelligent men call them often "brethren" and "disciples," but never Christians. Again, we have the word Christian but once in all the epistles, and then in circumstances which make it pretty evident that it was used rather by the enemies, than by the friends of the brotherhood. Our proposition is, then, abundantly proved, that it is a more scriptural, and consequently a more authoritative and divine designation than Christian. 4. It is more unappropriated at the present time. Unitarians, Arians, and sundry other newly risen sects abroad, are zealous for the name Christian; while we are the only people on earth fairly and indisputably in the use of the title Disciples of Christ. For these four reasons I prefer this designation to any other which has been offered. Can any one offer better reasons for a better name? A. C. MORALITY OF CHRISTIANS-No. XVII. IN discussing the morality of certain callings, and of the manner in which they are followed up by those in the profession, we had progressed so far as that of the speculators. There is such a thing as, talking of politics and policies, and there is the driving of politics as a trade. Now while an Apostle might reasonably notice political events and political men in his travels, neither an Apostle nor a Christian could compatibly devote any portion of his time to the trade of politics. So while a merchant or a farmer may speculate upon crops and seasons and the prospects before him, and shape his course accordingly, neither of them, as Christians, could make speculation a trade. man. What, then, is the trade of speculation? The art of living upon nothing, or the art of making a fortune by cunning. The capital stock of the speculator mainly consists in cunning. Money or property he may have; but it is not essential to his trade, so far as actual investment is concerned. But the speculator, properly so called, appears to best advantage in contrast with those of other callings; such as the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the transporter, the professional The farmers are the creators of all the materials of life, so far as they are derived from the earth. The manufacturer furnishes us with all the necessaries of life, except food, and some of them take part even in that branch of business. The merchant neither creates nor manufactures any thing, but transfers the surplus labors of all classes. The transporter, whether by ship, boat, carriage, car, or dray, carries the produce of these three classes. Professional men prepare and apply the stores of literature, philosophic, medical, legal, and moral science to the conditions and wants of society. All these do something for society-give value for value received. They create, new-modify, transfer, transport, or minister something for man; while the speculator does none of these: but by his wit, information, or advantageous position, sets about elaborating from each and all of these, by the process of mere cunning, all that he wants for his purposes in this life. He may, for instance, purchase and sell a thousand bales of cotton, or a thousand shares in some bank or corporation, and never touch one of them with the tip of his finger. He deals in the necessaries or comforts oflife, and does no more than deal in them. He carries them to no place, he puts no improvement on them, increases them in no way. His whole employment, address, and art is simply to raise the price.— This he may attempt in a thousand ways, according to his capacity, foresight, times, and circumstances. His whole business is to buy cheap and sell dear-to consult no one's interest but his own. He aims not to change the quality, position, or place of any thing he buys; but simply its price. His talent for trade consists in the facility with which he can accomplish these things. If he have to ship or transport any thing he buys, it is because he could not otherwise dispose of it. That is foreign to his business-indeed, it belongs not to the speculator as such, but to the transporter. Such is the speculator, and in these points he differs from the merchant. The proper merchant buys his goods in one market and sells them in another; he mediates between the producer, the manufacturer, the importer, the transporter, and the actual consumer who purchases for his own wants. He greatly facilitates and reduces the business of life. He generally pays himself for this, it is true; and with him it is always as much a matter of personal interest as it is of benevolence. Sometimes, indeed, (for the transition is easy to him,) he becomes a speculator; and then he only benefits himself at the expense of society. eater. This calling, in all its branches, is but sheer selfishness at work to enrich itself on the labors of others, by its own ingenuity, without any equivalent to them, and is wholly incompatible with the genius of Christian morality. It is naturally and necessarily oppressive in all its operations and tendencies. For example: A, the agriculturist grows the wheat, and sells it to M, the manufacturer; M, the manufacturer, sells it to D, the merchant; and D, the merchant, sells it to E, the All this is natural and convenient, and consequently right and beneficial to society. But S, the speculator, interposed three times in these transactions, and every time made ten per cent. on his investments. In the first place, he interposed between the grower and the manufacturer, and bought the raw material. He held this for a few days, and sold it at the advance of ten cents on the hundred. Again he interfered between the manufacturer and the merchant, and by purchasing and holding the flour a few days, gained a second ten cents on the hundred. And last of all, he repurchased from the merchant, and sold to the transporter at another ten per cent. Now, by his cun ning, circumvention, and management, E, the eater, paid 30 cents more for his hundred pounds of flour than he would have done but for his interference and cupidity; and neither the farmer, the manufacturer, nor the merchhnt got one cent more for his labor than he would have got from E, the eater, had S, the speculator, never appeared upon the theatre. From this plain view of the operations of the speculator, the morality of his calling, and his use to society may be appreciated. But I should be sorry to think that any of my readers would conclude that only those who follow this business for a trade are reprehensible according to Christian morality. Those who only take a a hand at it occasionally, when a good opportunity occurs, are also culpable to the whole amount of their negociations, and are a real injury to society. I will be told that such persons are nevertheless in some sense useful to society, advancing the price of the articles in which they trade. This is often a real loss to the great majority, and seldom any true advantage to the minority. But it is not necessary to our purpose to prove that they are of no manner of use to society: for serpents, toads, and moschettoes may, indeed, be of advantage; but this will not prove that we should resemble them. Neither is utility the standard of morality. All operations in things unlawful, inhumane, and oppressive, are immoral in despite of all the good which Heaven may extort from their inhumanity and injustice. So far, then, we have endeavored to describe a calling in society essentially immoral, and to distinguish it from those, that, although they may in some respects partially resemble it, are, notwithstanding, radically and essentially different. A. C. SIN-A DIALOGUE. [CONTINUED FROM PAGE 271.j Philander. WHEN we come to consider the reason, or reasons, on account of which, sin, with all its direful consequences, was admitted into the universe of God our Father, we find our view much more circumscribed, for want of the clear light of revelation, than when the place and manner of its origin were inquired for. It becomes us, therefore, to be more cautious in our advances, and less confident in our conclusions. To know the reasons or causes of things is, indeed, a happiness not often permitted to us. We readily perceive effects, just as we do the morning breeze which now feels to us so refreshing; which is seen to move the graceful boughs, and is heard to murmur amongst the foliage by which we are overshadowed; but we know as little of causes, for the most part, as we do of the region from whence this breeze has come to us, or of the quarter to which it goes. We can easily observe the bright waters of the fountain which issue from that mountain's side, but their secret sources mock our scrutiny, and defy our researches. Eugenio. Yet, although we cannot trace the course of the wind, or pursue the fountain into the deep recesses where it originates, we can readily and certainly infer their uses, and the reasons of their creation, from the purposes which they accompiish or subserve. May we not, then, with some degree of certainty, thus judge of the reasons for which sin is permitted to exist? Philander. This is precisely the matter before us, and it would not be very easy to show that we should not in this case, as in others, thus reason from the effect to the design, or that we could not in this way obtain some insight into the uses or purposes of sin. For that sin must be designed to accomplish some important purpose in the universe, or that else it would not be allowed to exist, will not, I presume, be disputed by any one. In the first place, then, it manifestly gives occasion to a display and development of the Divine character to both men and angels, which could not, so far as we can reason or imagine, have taken place without it. What could inen or angels have known of justice, or mercy; of long-suffering, or condescension; and of the infinite power and wisdom of God, if circumstances had not arisen which called for a manifestation of these attributes? The opposition of an adversary, and such a one too as Satan, and the conflict of antagonist principles which has been occasioned by his means, have elicited manifestations of the Divine character, which, so far as we know, we could not otherwise have had at all; or which at least, (our confidence in the Divine wisdom should lead us to say,) we could not have had so well in any other way. That such has been the effect of sin, like the dark ground of the picture, to exhibit in bold relief the attributes of God, is incontrovertible. And we must conclude that it was permitted for this among other purposes, or suppose events to have occurred unforeseen by Omniscience, and unavoidable by Omnipotence. Indeed, if we may deduce the design of the whole drama from what is actually expressed in relation to certain scenes and actors in it, this conclusion would be sustained even by revelation; for while we are invited in relation to some events to "behold the goodness and severity of God," it is in respect to others |