Three of the predicates applied to the Roman Church by Ignatius in the address may now be considered.
(1) The believers are diroSiv\i<T/ji4voi dirb wavrb^ dXXoTpiov xp'i'A'aTos, ' filtered,' ' pure,' ' free from all polluting colouring matter' (cf. Lightfoot, p. 193). As we have already noted, Ignatius does not think there are any heretics in Rome, and here he praises the Romans for not mixing any foreign colouring matter \vith the purity which befits them, as elsewhere he expresses a wish that among the Ephesians there may be no plant of the devil (Eph. X. 3). In the case of the Ephesians it is a mere wish, but with the Romans it is an accomplished fact.
(2) The Church of Rome wpoKdOriTai iv rbiri^ X(Jpl-ov"P(i}fji.alwv. The verb 7rpo/fd^7;/iat is translated praesideo, irpoKd6i<ns sessio {in throno, in tribunali) ; irpoKddT]Tai = ' has the chief seat, presides, takes the precedence' (Lightfoot, ii. 190). Ignatius applies this epithet elsewhere to the bishop and the pres- bytery {irpoKad-qijAvov rod iirurKbirov els rbirov deov, Kal Tuv TTpeff^vripuv els rinrov awebplov rwv dirocTTbXwv [Magn. vi. 1] ; and again ivdidrjre ry ^Tna-Kbirtp Kal ToTs irpoKadr)iJ.ivois els rinrov Kal didax^v d<j)dapijias \ib. 2]). Ignatius thus attributes to the whole Roman Church a gravity comparable with that of the bishop and the presbytery. Zahn thinks that iv rbwip is a bad reading, and suggests iv rOirq) : * Ecclesia igitur Romana tamquam exemplar, ab omnibus imitandum, hominibus imperio Romano subditis prseest ' ( ' Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulte,' p. 67). This correction has not been accepted by any other critic, and indeed, if Ignatius had wanted to say that, he would have written rather els r&irov. Then again, irpoKdOriTai is not to be taken with X<^pi-ov, as if Ignatius were saying that the Roman Church presided over the Roman region and ' the suburbicarian bishops' (Lightfoot, ii. 190) ; but it is to be understood absolutely, and iv rbTrifi x'^P'^o" "Pufiaioiv designates the place where the Cliurch presides. The curious tautology iv rbiri^ x^piov must be equivalent to iv rbirq) ^ x^P^V> ^^*^ thus signifies the town of Rome. This interpretation of Funk's seems more objective than Ligiitfoot's (p. 190 f.), who prefers to give the text a 'suburbicarian' meaning.
(3) The Church of Rome is called d^ibdeos, d(ii- Traivos, diioeirlrevKTOs, d^iayvos Kal TrpoKaOrj/j-ivrj ttjs dydiri^s, xP'<''7"i''o/toy, Trarpcbvv/jLos. This accumul.ition of epithets is an example of Ignatius' emphasis ; but the expression irpoKadrj/xivrj ttjs dydinjs does have a
more precise meaning. This time TrpoKaOrnuLivt] is not to be taken absolutely but construed along with dydTr7]s : the Roman Church presides over love. Lightfoot (p. 192) takes the meaning to be : ' the Church of Rome, as it is first in rank, is first also in love,' but it is doubtful if dydvrjs has this causative sense of dydirrj or iv dydwrj. The Latin version of the interpolated Letters of Ignatius translates the words ' fundatur in dilectione et lege Christi,' but the verb irpoKddrifiai has not this meaning in Ignatius. Harnack's interpretation ' procuratrix fraterni amoris ' is not exact either. The verb irpoKdd-rjfjLai with the genitive implies presidency over a city or a region : iKetvos roiyapouv 6 vipicrros Kal p-iyiaros Zet^s, 6 irpoKadrjixevos T7)s \a/xirpoTdTrjs vfj,Qv wdXeus writes the Emperor Maxiinin Daia in a letter to the people of Tyre (Euseb. HE IX. vii. 7). Funk (Pair, apost. i. 253) quotes from Theodoret the expression applied to Rome : rfjs olKov/xivrjs irpoKa- driixivq ; and from John Malalas that apjilied to Antioch : irpoKa6r)p.ivriv ttjs dvaToKTjs. We may com- pare also Philostorgius representing Constantine irpoKadT]fxivov tQv iTTLcrKbiruv {HE vii. 6 [ed. Bidez, 1913, p. 85]). Thus the word dydtrri must be a meta- phorical word for some collectivity, which cannot be the Church of Rome, because here the Church of Rome is the subject of which irpoKaO-ripAvT) is the epithet. It would be very extraordinary if dydirtj meant the Christian communities near Rome, or even the Christian communities of Italy, for that would be limiting arbitrarily the meaning of the word dydiri). We are left then with the explana- tion that dydirt) is that in which the distant churches like Antioch and Ephesus are united to the Church of Rome. Ignatius Avrites to the Trallians (xiii. 1) : dcnrd^erai. v/j.ds i] dyaTTT} "Zfiupvaluv Kal 'E^eaiwv ; and to the Romans (ix. 3) : dcnrd^erai vfids . . . r) dydir-q tQjv iKKXrjffiuv tQv Se^ap-eviov fie (cf. Philad. xi. 2 and Smyrn. xii. 1 : dcwd^eTai v/xas 7} dydirr] tQv dbeXcpQv Twv iv Tpuidbi). Just as the collectivity of the believers of one church is designated by the expression dydirrj ruv d8e\<pCov, and two or three churches are designated by the phrase dydirr] tQv iKK\r]cnwv, so it is natural that irpoKadr}fj.ivi} t^j dydirr]s should mean irpoKadrjfiivrj ttjs dydirrjs rwv iKKXrjffiQv, ' president of the love or collectivity of the churches.'
The Letter to the Romans presents one difficulty formulated by J. Wordsworth {Ministry of Grace, London, 1901, p. 126) in these words: Ignatius ' twice speaks of himself as "Bishop of Syria "or "of the Church of Syria" (chs. 2 and 9) : but he ia entirely silent as to any such office in the Church of Rome. ... If then, Clement, or any other single Church officer, had been " Bishop of Rome," in the sense that Ignatius was "Bishop of Syria," the language of the latter in writing to Rome would be almost inexplicable ' (cf. also J. Reville, Origines de V^piscopat, p. 510). If we take the trouble to read the Letter to the Romans carefully, we shall find still more extraordinary facts, viz. that Ignatius does not speak of presbyters or deacons either, so that if the objection of Wordsworth and Reville is valid, we should have to say that the Church of Rome, at the time of Ignatius' Letter, had no hierarchy, no deacons, no presbytery, no bishop. As a matter of fact, Ignatius regarded each church as having its unity in its totality, and his letters are addressed to churches, to each church as such (exc. the Epistle to Polycarp), just as the Epistle of Clement does not bear the name of Clement, but is addressed by ' the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth.' It is very probable that Clement was irpoKadrjfievos, although in his time the line of demarcation between episcopate and presbytery was still blurred. It is difficult to say when the monarchical episcopate strictly began