CHRISTIAN (XpLartap6s). This world-famous name, 'quod sicut unguentum diffusum longe late que redolet ' (Gul. Tyr. iv. 9), occurs but three times in the N. T. (Acts xi. 26 ; xxvi. 28 ; I Pet. iv. 16). In Acts xi. 26 we are informed that it arose in the city of Antioch" during the year spent there in preaching by Paul and Barnabas. It was therefore first used about the year 44 A.D. Both Suidas (ii., p. 393o, a, ed. Gaisford) and Malalas (Chronograph. x.) say that the name was first used in the episcopate of Evodius at Antioch, and Evo dius is said to have been appointed by St. Peter as his successor A. D. 45 (Jerome, Chronic., p. 429). That Evodius actually invented the name (Malalas 1.c.) is an assertion which may be disre garded as safely as the mediwval fiction that it was adopted at a council held for the purpose.
Throughout the N. T. the followers of Christ are called by vague and general names, such as of ,ualhirat (Acts ix. 26 ; xi. 29 ; xiii. 52), of 71070t of (Acts xv. 23 ; iv. 32 ; Rom. xv. 25 ; Col. i. 2) of ci3oX0ol, of Bytom, of rips Moi; (Acts xv. 1, 23 ; Cor. vii. 12 ; Rom. viii. 27 ; Acts xix. 9, 23, etc.) The very variety of these terms, many of which are wholly unadapted for use by any but the believers themselves, prove the non-existence of and the neces sity for, some common and indifferent appellation. That the new designation did not arise from the Jews is obvious, first because they had generally adopted the opprobrious terms Galileans' and Nazarenes,' which sufficiently expressed their con tempt and hatred for the new sect (Acts xxiv. 5 ; 44 ; iv. 32 ; John i. 46 ; Luke xiii. 2) ; and secondly, because it is certain that they would not have used the hallowed title of Messiah (Xpto-rbs, the Anointed) to apply as a name of ridicule to those whom they so much despised. That the name did not originate with the Christians themselves is equally certain, because even after it had been invented, it was not adopted by them. As the name is essentially external, it is not even alluded to for twenty years (Acts xxvi. 2S). In both of the places where alone it subsequently occurs, it is placed in the mouth of an enemy. That the tendency of Agrippa's speech was sarcastic when he said, 'Almost thou pers-uad est me to be a Christian'—is evident from the con text ; but as the sarcasm was intended to be half complimentary, we may infer that the new name did not involve the same designed animosity as the insulting title Nazarene.' In I Pet. iv. 16, 'if any man suffer as a Christian,' the word is again used as a name given from without by unfavourable judges, a term in fact of legal indictment (cf. Clem. Alex., Strom. p. 297, 13, ed. Sylb.); and the con tinuation of the verse, `let him glorify God in this name' (leg. pro is the earliest indi cation we have that the church was prepared to adopt the badge which had been fixed upon it by the world. In fact, the name Christian, though originally used as a stigma, was regarded in after times as a peculiar glory, just as the cross, once the mark of infamy and degradation, was afterwards the proudest emblem on the banners of armies and the diadems of kings. We hear of more than one martyr and confessor, who at the tribunal or the stake shouted repeatedly, as his cry of triumph and conso lation, I am a Christian' (Euseb. IL E. v. i., Tert. Apolog. 2); and in the Clementine Liturgy (quoted by Mr. Humphry on Acts xi. 26) we find an express thanksgiving that Christians were suffered to bear the name of their Lord (eUxaplarabtiv cot 871 7.2) 7011 Xpto-roi) trot/ iip,its). The name itself ivas only contemptuous in the mouths of those who regarded with contempt him from whom it was derived ; and as it was a universal practice to name political, religious, or philosophi cal societies from the name of their founders (as Pythagoreans, Epicureans, Apollonii, Cmsariani, Vitelliani, etc.), it was advantageous rather than otherwise for the Christians to adopt a title which was not necessarily offensive, and which bore witness to their love and worship of their master ; a name intrinsically degrading—such as the witty Antiochenes, notorious in the ancient world for their propensity to bestow nicknames,* might easily have discovered (Philost., Vit. Apoi.,
16 ; Zosim. iii. I r7eXoioLS 76 Kill ciraEict licav6.)S eXoPrat, Procop. Bell. Pers. ii. S),—would certainly have retarded the progress of the new religion ; and as we see even in modern times that it is the tendency of rival sects to brand each other with derisive epithets, it is natural to suppose that the name Christians' resulted rather from philoso phical indifference than from theological hatred. The Latinised form of this hybrid word—Greek in form, Latin in termination—is not indeed a con clusive proof that it emanated from the Romans, because such terminations had been already fami liarised thoughout the East by the Roman domi nion ; but it is precisely the kind of name which would have been bestowed by the haughty and disdainful spirit of victorious Rome, which is so often marked in early Christian history (John xviii. 31; Acts xxii. 24; xxv. 19 ; xviii. 14). That the disciples should have been called from Christus,' a word im plying the office, and not from Jesus,' the name of our Blessed Lord, leads us to infer that the former word was most frequently on their lips, which harmonises with the most important fact that in the Epistles he is usually called not Jesus,' but Christ' (Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, i. 13o). Christus non proprium nomen est, sed nuncupatio potestatis et regni,' Lactant (Div. Institt. iv. 7). In later times when the features of the superstitio' were better known, because of its ever widening progress (Tac., Ann. xv. 44), this indif ferentism was superseded by a hatred against the name as intense as the Christian love for it, and for this reason the Emperor Julian countenanced and perhaps enjoined the use of the less honourable appellation of Galileans' (Gibbon, v. 312, ed. Ha man; Greg. Naz. Orat. iii. 81). Yet as Tertul lian, in an interesting passage points out, the name so detested was harmless in every sense, for it merely called them by the office of their master, and that office merely implied one sec apart by solemn unction (Tertull., Aplog. 3).
It appears that by a widely prevalent error the Christians were generally called Chrestiani, and their founder Chrestoes—a mistake which is very easily accounted for (Suet., Ner. 16, Claud. 25; Lactant., Dio. iv. 7), and one which the Christians were the less inclined to regret, because it implied their true and ideal character (of cis X/3/0•0P irerLereuK6res xpncrof re del Kal Tkyovrai, Clem. Alex., .Strom. II. iv. IS. Sed quum et perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavi tate et benignitate compositum est,' Tert. Apol. 3). The explanation of the name Christians as refer ring to the unction from the Holy One,' although supported by the authority of Theophilus Antio chenus (A.D. 17o), 'who lived not long after the death of St. John' (rarrou eVEKEV Kaaovp,EBa Xpec rtaPoi 874 Xpi6i4e0a Beo0, ad Autolyc. i. 12), can only be regarded as an adaptation or an after thought (See Jer. Taylor, Disc. of Confirm.' sec. 3, and compare the German Christen).
The adoption of the name marks a very impor tant epoch in the history of the Church ; the period when it had emerged even in the Gentile observa tion from its Jewish environment, and had enrolled followers who continued Gentiles in every respect, and who differed widely from the Jewish prose lytes. It expressed the memorable fact that a community consisting primarily of Jews, and di rected exclusively by them, could not be denoted by that name or by any name among them. To the disciples it signified that they were witnesses for a king, and a king whom all nations would be brought in due time to acknowledge' (Maurice, Eccl. Hirt., p. 79). See Buddmus Miscell. Sacr. i. 280, sq.; Wetstenii, N. T. in Acts xi. (Cony beare and Howson, i. 13o ; Zeller., Elbe. Wdrterb. s. v. Christen, etc.—F. W. F.