diversity of opinion in regard to the meaning of the word _angels_ here. By the advocates of Episcopacy, it has been argued that the use of this term proves that there was a presiding bishop over a circle or group of churches in Ephesus, in Smyrna, &c., since it is said that it cannot be supposed that there was but a single church in a city so large as Ephesus, or in the other cities mentioned. A full examination of this argument may be seen in my work on the _Apostolic Church_ [pp. 191‒199, London ed.]. The word _angel_ properly means a messenger, and is thus applied to celestial beings _as_ messengers sent forth from God to convey or to do his will. This being the common meaning of the word, it may be employed to denote anyone who is a messenger, and hence, with propriety, anyone who is employed to communicate the will of another; to transact his business, or, more remotely, to act in his place――to be a representative. In order to ascertain the meaning of the word as used in this place, and in reference to these churches, it may be remarked, (1) That it cannot mean literally an _angel_, as referring to a heavenly being, for no one can suppose that such a being presided over these churches. (2) It cannot be shown to mean, as Lord (_in loco_) supposes, messengers that the churches had sent to John, and that these letters were given to them to be returned by them to the churches; for, (a) there is no evidence that any such messenger had been sent to John; (b) there is no probability that while he was a banished exile in Patmos such a thing would be permitted; (c) the message was not sent _by_ them, it was sent _to_ them――“_Unto_ the angel of the church in Ephesus _write_,” &c. (3) It cannot be proved that the reference is to a prelatical bishop presiding over a group or circle of churches, called a _diocese_; for, (a) There is nothing in the word _angel_, as used in this connection, which would be peculiarly applicable to such a personage――it being _as_ applicable to a pastor of a single church, as to a bishop of many churches. (b) There is no evidence that there _were_ any such groups of churches then as constitute an episcopal diocese. (c) The use of the word “_church_” in the singular, as applied to Ephesus, Smyrna, &c., rather implies that there was but a single church in each of those cities. Comp. ch. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; see also similar language in regard to the _church_ in Corinth, 1 Co. i. 2; in Antioch, Ac. xiii. 1; at Laodicea, Col. iv. 16; and at Ephesus, Ac. xx. 28. (d) There is no evidence, as Episcopalians must suppose, that a successor to John had been appointed at Ephesus, if, as they suppose, he was “bishop” of Ephesus; and there is no probability that they would _so soon_ after his banishment show him such a want of respect as to regard the see as vacant, and appoint a successor. (e) There is no improbability in supposing that there was a _single_ church in each of these cities――as at Antioch, Corinth, Rome. (f) If John was a