Those who became followers of Christ in the early days of Christianity were designated by several names, all of which were significant. They were called “saints” because they had been set apart to the service of God; “brethren,” because of their relation as members of a common family; “elect” because they were chosen of God in Christ by the Gospel; “children of God,” because of their relation to him as a common Father; “believers,” because of their devotion to Christ and of their faith in him; “disciples,” because they were learners in the school of their Master; “Christians,” because they were followers of Christ and citizens of his kingdom. It was natural, therefore, that the last name should soon become the most prominent and be freely used by the friend and foe in times of persecution. Peter says: “If a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name” (I Peter 4:16). It was the name that united believers in the government of Christ, and was the most comprehensive of all the names of those given to those who composed the body of Christ. To be called a Christian carried with it all the honors implied in all the other names. All these names were worn by divine authority, and were evidently given by inspiration. CONGREGATIONAL INDEPENDENCE Each congregation was independent of all others in its government. They sustained a fraternal relation to each other as parts of the body of Christ, but no one was under the ecclesiastical authority of another. There is no ecclesiastical authority recognized in the New Testament except that of a single congregation, and that only when acting strictly in obedience to the will of Christ. From such a decision there is no court of appeal. On this point I submit the testimony of a few distinguished men, who, while they stood identified with an eccleciasticism ruling the individual congregation, admit that no such thing was known to the New Testament. Mosheim says: All the churches, in those primitive times, were independent bodies; or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches which were founded by the apostles themselves frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is as clear as the noon-day, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality. Nor does there appear in this first century any vestige of that consociation of the churches of the same provinces, which gave rise to ecclesiastical councils, and to metropolitans. But, rather as is manifest, it was not till the second century that the custom of holding ecclesiastical councils first began in Greece, and thence extended into other provinces. (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, page 72.) Concerning the churches of the second century, Mosheim says: