up the prayers of the assembly; [266:1] and as, in all the synagogues, there was worship at the same hour, [266:2] he could, of course, be the minister of only one congregation.  If then the angel of the Church discharged the same functions as the angel of the synagogue, it would follow that, towards the termination of the first century, there was only one Christian congregation in each of the seven cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.  It may, however, be fairly questioned whether the number of disciples in every one of these places was then so limited as such an inference would suggest.  In Laodicea, and perhaps in one or two of the other cities, [266:3] there may have been only a single congregation; but it is scarcely probable that all the brethren in Ephesus still met together in one assembly.  About forty years before, the Word of God “grew mightily and prevailed” [266:4] in that great metropolis; and, among its inhabitants, Paul had persuaded “much people” [266:5] to become disciples of Christ.  But if the angel of the Church derived his title from the angel of the synagogue, and if the position of these two functionaries was the same, we are shut up to the conclusion that there was now only one congregation in the capital of the Proconsular Asia.  The angel could not be in two places at the same time; and, as it was his duty to offer up the prayers of the assembled worshippers, it was impossible for him to minister to two congregations.

These considerations abundantly attest the futility of the imagination that the angel of the Church was a diocesan bishop.  The office of the angel of the synagogue had, in fact, no resemblance whatever to that of a prelate.  The rank of the ancient Jewish functionary seems to have been similar to that of a precentor in some of our Protestant churches; and when set forms of prayer were introduced among the Israelites, it was his duty to read them aloud in the congregation.  The angel was not the chief ruler of the synagogue; he occupied a subordinate position; and was amenable to the authority of the bench of elders. [267:1] It is in vain then to attempt to recognise the predecessors of our modern diocesans in the angels of the Seven Churches.  Had bishops been originally called angels, they never would have parted with so complimentary a designation.  Had the Spirit of God in the Apocalypse bestowed upon them such a title, it never would have been laid aside.  When, about a century after this period, we begin to discover distinct traces of a hierarchy, an extreme anxiety is discernible to find for it something like a footing in the days of the apostles; but, strange to say, the earliest prelates of whom we read are not known by the name of angels. [267:2] If such a nomenclature existed in the time of the Apostle John, it must have passed away at once and for ever!  No trace of it can be detected even in the second century.  It is thus apparent that, whatever the angels of the Seven Churches may have been, they certainly were not diocesan bishops.