[234] Irenæus, however, writing in the second century, states that the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring cities were assembled at Miletus, so that he distinguishes between bishops and presbyters even on this occasion: see his work _Against Heresies_, iii. 14. Dr. Hatch had an extraordinary theory, which he elaborates in his article "Priest" in the _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_, vol. ii., p. 1700. He thus states it: "Whether the institution of Presbyters existed in the first instance outside the limits of the Judæo-Christian communities is doubtful. There is no evidence that it did so; the presumption is that it did not, for when St. Paul, writing to the churches which were presumably non-Jewish in their character, recognises the existence of church officers, he designates them by other names: προϊστάμενοι (1 Thess. v. 12), ἐπίσκοποι (Philip. i. 1)." To put it briefly, his idea is that bishop as a title was confined to predominantly Greek communities, and presbyter as a title was confined to predominantly Gentile communities. Will this theory and the instances he gives stand the test of facts? Philippi was, he thinks, a predominantly Gentile Church, so thoroughly Gentile that its members would necessarily prefer titles drawn from impure pagan sources rather than from Judaism. But was Philippi so thoroughly Gentile? If so, why did St. Paul stay there and celebrate the days of unleavened bread and the passover, as we have above noted? A large element in the church must have been Jewish when this happened. Again, take Thessalonica. We have already noted that the majority of that church must have been Gentile in origin; but there must have been a large and influential minority Jewish by race in a town where the Jews were so large an element in the population. Again, we find the title presbyter applied to the church officials of Ephesus. Dr. Hatch on the same page enumerates Ephesus among the Judæo-Christian communities, one, therefore, which would presumably prefer Jewish titles for its clergy. But was it predominantly Jewish? St. Paul laboured three months in the synagogue at Ephesus, and was then expelled. He laboured there for two years among the Gentiles with such success, that Demetrius describes him as having turned away all Asia from Diana's worship. Surely if ever there was a Gentile Christian Church it was Ephesus! (Cf. Ephes. ii. and iii., where the Gentile character of the Ephesian Church is expressly asserted.) Yet here we have the title presbyter in use. Dr. Hatch's is not scientific historical reasoning, but the exercise of what Bishop Butler well designates, that delusive faculty called man's imagination and fancy. Upon this whole question of the origin of Christian presbyters, I may notice an exhaustive Biblical inquiry, called "The Ruling Elder," by the Rev. Robert King of Ballymena, the learned author of a well-known Irish Church History. It appeared after this chapter was written.
[235] In the second century bishops were often called presbyters, though presbyters were not called bishops, or, to quote Bishop Lightfoot, "Essay on the Ministry," _Philippians_, p. 226: "In the language of Irenæus, a presbyter is never designated a bishop, while on the other hand he very frequently speaks of a bishop as a presbyter." This usage long continued in the Church. Cyprian often expresses himself thus: cf. article on word "Senior" in _Dict. Christ. Antiqq._ Many instances of it occur in the literature of the early Celtic Church in Ireland, which was an offshoot of the Gallican Church and, through Gaul, of the Church of Western Asia Minor. In fact, this custom of calling bishops seniors or presbyters was used in Ireland till the twelfth century: see Ussher's Works, Ed. Elrington, vi. 517, 528. St. Bernard, for instance, in his Life of St. Malachy, calls the Bishop of Lismore "Senior Lesmorensis." I do not, as I have said, propose to enter any further into the debateable subject of Church government; but as I have come across this passage, and as I have already announced that I am writing this commentary as a decided Churchman, I may be permitted to state my own views, as history seems to me to set them forth, without entering into any discussion on the point. During the apostolic age the terms bishop and presbyter were interchangeable. As the apostles passed away, they seem to me to have established Episcopacy as the normal rule of the Church, though, doubtless, it was only by degrees that the title of bishop was appropriated to the office so created. By the time of Ignatius, that is, about 110 A.D., this appropriation was complete. As regards my authority for saying the apostles established Episcopacy, I simply appeal to Irenæus, who, in his great work against Heresies, Book III., ch. iii., states in section i. that "the apostles instituted bishops in the churches," and then in sec. 3 proceeds to trace the line of these bishops in the Roman Church, beginning with Linus, "into whose hands the blessed apostles committed the office of the Episcopate." Now it is upon Irenæus we largely depend for the proof of the canon of the New Testament and the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel. Surely if Irenæus is a witness sufficient to establish the apostolic origin of the Gospels, he should be quite sufficient to establish the apostolic origin of Episcopacy! If Irenæus is a competent witness to the true authorship of an anonymous document like the Fourth Gospel, he is surely competent to tell us of the true origin of a worldwide institution like Episcopacy. It is assuredly much easier to learn the origin of institutions than of documents.