Their inquiry was rightly deserving of anger and great displeasure. Yet the benevolent and provident one is not angry. He pities them even as they tempt him. He laments them as incurably diseased after so full a demonstration of his power.

They did not seek him out in order to believe but to lay hold of him. Had they come with any readiness to believe, he would have given such a sign. For he who said to the woman, It is not fair,^[1] and afterwards gave, much more would he have shown his bounty to these officials.

But since they did not seek to believe, he therefore calls them hypocrites, because in another place they said one thing and meant another. If they had believed, they would not even have asked. It is evident that they did not believe, since when reproved and exposed, they did not remain with him, nor did they admit We are ignorant and seek to learn.

But for what sign from heaven were they asking? Either that he should stay the sun, or curb the moon, or bring down thunderbolts, or work a change in the air, or some other such thing.

This is not found in many codices.^[1] The meaning is clear from the order and harmony of the elements. Both fair and rainy days can be forecast. But the scribes and Pharisees, who were viewed as doctors of the law, could not discern the coming of the Savior from what the prophets had predicted.

He exposes the rashness of their question, saying, You regard the air as moving according to a certain order, so that by means of signs you are able to predict when the weather will be fair and when stormy. But in the case of miracles you recognize no order at all. You do not recognize any occasions on which doing or not doing wonders is appropriate. You assume that such a thing happens completely without order and without any reason.

What then does he say to all this? You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. Observe Christ’s meekness and moderation.

Even earlier he did not just refuse and say no sign shall be given. And so now he goes further and states the reason why he gives them no sign, even though they were not asking for information.

What then was the cause? It is much as in the sky, he says, where one thing is a sign of a storm and another of fair weather. No one when he saw the sign of foul weather would expect a calm, nor in calm and fair weather would one expect a storm. So you would do well also to think with regard to me. My coming in this present time is different from the way in which I shall come in the future. Now there is need of these signs which are on the earth. But those in heaven are stored up against that time. Now as a physician I have come to heal. Then I shall come as a judge. Now I am seeking out those who have gone astray. Then I will demand an account. Now I have come in a hidden manner. Then I will come much more publicly, folding up the heaven, hiding the sun, not permitting the moon to give its light. Then the very powers of the heavens shall be shaken,^[1] and the manifestation of my coming shall imitate lightning that appears suddenly.

Now he called them evil because their wicked deeds had made them evil people (evil because of deliberate wickedness) and adulterous because when the Pharisees and Sadducees left their metaphoric spouse, the true word, they committed adultery, with falsehood and the law of sin.^[1]

Assume there are two laws: the law of our bodies, which is in conflict with the law of our mind. We might say then that the law of the mind (that is, the law of the Spirit) is the husband to whom the soul was betrothed by God as wife according to the Scripture; a wife is married to a man by God.^[2] But the other law is a seducer of the soul and as such is called adulterous.

Just as that whale was not able to digest Jonah nor was able to keep him alive inside himself for long, so too voracious Death assuredly received the Lord. But since he was not able to keep him alive and in custody inside himself, Death regurgitated him on the third day, just as the whale had regurgitated Jonah. For Death, though accustomed always to eat and digest the dead, was nauseated and vomited out the Lord alive. Truly he was not able to digest him, for he was a rock—as the apostle says: Moreover, Christ was a rock.^[1] And indeed the whale gulped and expelled only Jonah. But Death in ingesting the Lord cast out not that very one alone but many with him. For we read that many corpses of the holy had risen up with the Lord.

But he descended from the sky and established for these an earthly sign that he might preserve among them a conviction of bodily humility, saying that the sign was to be given by Jonah. The Lord compares himself by means of like appearance with this one whom he had dispatched to Nineveh to accomplish the coming suffering for the proclamation of repentance. Indeed, Jonah was thrown from the ship by furiously raging winds and was devoured by the whale. After the space of three days he was cast out alive, not retained by the monster. He was not digested as food, but contrary to the nature of the human body, he escaped whole and unharmed into the open air. He prefigured the Lord. Therefore Jesus demonstrated that this sign of his own power had been divinely constituted, thus proclaiming in himself the forgiveness of sins through repentance. For he was soon to be cast out of Jerusalem and the synagogue by the blast of unclean spirits and by the power of Pontius Pilate.

The bread that they had before they crossed the lake was no longer of any use to them when they reached the other side. They needed one kind of bread^[1] before they crossed and a different kind afterward. They forgot to take any loaves with them because they were careless about carrying bread. The disciples of Jesus had also crossed to another side. They had passed from the material to the spiritual, from the sensory to the intellectual. This is why Jesus said to them after the crossing, be careful and be on your guard.

The Pharisees and Sadducees offered a different dough of teaching, a truly ancient yeast restricted to the bare letter^[2] and therefore not free from evil. Jesus does not want his disciples to eat of it any longer. Instead, he mixed a new spiritual dough when he himself offered to any who would abandon the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees and come to him, the living bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world.^[3] Anyone intending no longer to use the yeast and dough of the Pharisees and Sadducees’ teaching must first be careful. He must be on guard that he will not use the old leaven either accidentally or due to shortages. So Jesus tells his disciples first, be careful, and second, be on your guard.

Why did he not say plainly, Beware of their teaching? His purpose is rather to remind them of what had just been done—the feeding of the multitude—for he knew they had already forgotten its significance. But Christ did not immediately admonish them. Rather, he took their own thoughtlessness as the occasion for reproof. Remember that he had not reproved them when they had earlier said, Where are we to get bread enough in the desert to feed so great a crowd?^[1] It seemed better now to say to them what he says here. He did not want to rush hastily on to another miracle. He did not admonish them before the multitude, nor did he seek to elevate himself in their eyes. He might have been much harsher with them after their forgetfulness following the miracle of the loaves. All of these considerations gave his reproof a greater meaning.

The apostles are ordered to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They are warned not to be involved in the disputes of the Jews. The works of the law are now to be viewed in the light of faith. They are forewarned that they, into whose time and age the truth had appeared incarnate, should judge nothing except which lies within the position of hope in likeness of the truth that is revealed. They are warned against allowing the doctrine of the Pharisees, who are unaware of Christ, to corrupt the effectiveness of the truth of the gospel.

After Jesus said this, the disciples thought to themselves (not aloud but in their hearts), We did not bring bread. Then they said something else, like If we had bread, then we wouldn’t need the yeast from the Pharisees and Sadducees, but since we don’t have bread, we are at risk of taking their yeast. The Savior does not want us to return to their tutelage, so he told us ‘be careful and be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Or they reasoned similar things.

But Jesus, seeing into their hearts and hearing their inner arguments, reproves them as the Shepherd of the heart because they did not understand nor remember the bread which they had received from him. Because of what they had received, even when they appeared to lack bread, they did not need the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Note how intense is his displeasure. Nowhere else does he appear to have rebuked them so much. How does he do this? He is challenging their prejudices about food laws. Already he had said, Are you still without understanding?^[1] Now in this place, with a strong rebuke he says, O men of little faith.

Leniency is not always a good thing. Christ sometimes allows the disciples freedom for their opinions. At other times he reproves them. By this variable nurturing he provides for their salvation. Note how at the same time his reproof is strong and yet mild. For all but excusing himself to them for his severe reproofs to them, he says, Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? He specifies the numbers and the fragments, so as to bring them to a clear recollection of what had just happened and making them more attentive to the future.

And to teach you how great is the power of his reproof, and how it roused up their slumbering mind, hear what the Evangelist says. For Jesus having reproved them said no more but added this only: How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

See how much good his admonition conveyed. For it both led them away from the Jewish food observances and, when they were remiss, made them more attentive and delivered them from the neglect of faith. So they were not afraid nor in alarm about having no food or about starving.

Some were distracted by the use of bread and yeast. In order to clarify and enlighten them in a still symbolic way that he was not speaking about literal bread but about yeast as representing teaching, Jesus adds, How is it that you do not understand that I was not talking to you about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Even though he still had not exposed the literal meaning of his words but continued as before, the disciples would have understood the Savior as referring to the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees as leaven.

When Jesus said beware of the yeast, the disciples understood that he did not tell them to watch out for bread but instead for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. You, of course, are aware that whenever yeast is used in the law or in the Scripture which follows the law, it refers to teaching. Perhaps then yeast should not be burnt on an altar. Prayers should not have the form of teachings but should be only supplications for good things from God.

Now, someone might ask, based on what has been said about the disciples crossing over to the other side, how can anyone who has reached the other side be rebuked as a person with little faith, not yet understanding or remembering what Jesus did? It is not difficult, I think, to answer this. That which has only a part will be done away with before that which is perfect. Little faith is all the faith we can have. Accordingly, we who know in part do not yet fully understand or remember.^[1] Therefore we are not able to achieve a mind sufficient and capable of attaining the magnitude and nature of such speculations.

This was a favorable opportunity for instruction which was ordered by the Savior. He said, Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He taught them what the five loaves and seven that had nourished five thousand and four thousand men in the desert signified. He showed that there is a spiritual understanding underlying these events, even if the import of the sign is clear. For if the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees indicated not physical bread but twisted narratives and heretical teaching, then might not also the food by which the people of God were nourished signify the true and complete doctrine?

Someone might inquire, How is it that they do not have the loaves? For they immediately boarded the boat after the seven baskets had been filled. But the Scripture testifies to the fact that they had forgotten to take food with them.

Remember the leaven about which even the apostle speaks when he writes, A little leaven spoils the whole dough.^[1] The sort of leaven of which he speaks is something like the kind that Marcion and Valentinus^[2] and all heretics exhibited. It is to be avoided by all means.

Leaven has this power, that, if mixed with flour, that which seemed small would grow into something larger and draw to its own essence the whole loaf. So too with heretical doctrine, if it tosses even a tiny spark into your heart, in a short time a huge flame grows beneath and draws to itself a person’s entire substance. It was then that they finally understood that he had not meant them to beware simply of the leaven of bread but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why does he mention Philip, the founder of the city? Because there was another city, Caesarea Stratonis.^[1] He does not go there, but rather he leads them far away from Judea, so that being freed from all alarm, they might speak with boldness all that was in their mind.

Caesarea Philippi is outside Judea in the region of the Gentiles. Why therefore did our Lord not examine his own disciples within the borders of Judea? Why did he go far north into the territory of the Gentiles? But as our insignificance [as Gentiles] works against us, he questioned the disciples in Gentile territory. The result was that by the true and everlasting conviction of the blessed apostle Peter—what flesh and blood had not unveiled, the Father revealed from the heavens. Through faith the Gentiles rather than the Jews would come to acknowledge the Son of God. This indeed occurred in the city of Caesarea—Cornelius who was first among the Gentiles to believe with all his own household, through the holy apostle Peter. The Lord was not inclined to question his own disciples in Judea, when the Jews did not believe that he was the Son of God but regarded him merely as the son of Joseph.

Jesus asks this in order that we might know what opinions about him were current among the Jews. [He also asks] so that we might learn to inquire intently into what people are saying about him, and if it is bad, to remove the causes, or if complimentary, to increase them. But he said Son of man in order to show that he himself not only appears to be but in fact unchangeably is man, and again, is true God. [It is] not as if he were divided into different species, one part God and one part man; rather one may address him as Son of man with no doubt that this very same one is also the Son of God.^[1]

Note that he is not asking them their own opinion. Rather, he asks the opinion of the people. Why? In order to contrast the opinion of the people with the disciples answer to the question But who do you say that I am? In this way, by the manner of his inquiry, they might be drawn gradually to a more sublime notion and not fall into the same common view as that of the multitude.

Note that Jesus does not raise this question at the beginning of his preaching but only after he had done many miracles, had talked through with them many lofty teachings, and had given them many clear proofs of his divinity and of his union with the Father. Only then does he put this question to them.

He did not ask Who do the scribes and Pharisees say that I am? even though they had often come to him and discoursed with him. Rather, he begins his questioning by asking Who do men say the Son of man is? as if to inquire about common opinion. Even if common opinion was far less true than it might have been, it was at least relatively more free from malice than the opinions of the religious leaders, which was teeming with bad motives.

He signifies how earnestly he desires this divine economy to be confessed when he says, Who do men say the Son of man is? for he thereby denotes his godhead, which he does also in many other places.

In the same way they had supposed that Christ was Jeremiah. Perhaps they knew that the Lord had wisdom from his birth and was without peer in his teaching. Something similar was thought of Jeremiah, in that as a child he was singled out for prophecy and that without human training he was the prophet of a greater prophet who was to follow.^[1]

Just look at the differences of opinion among the Jews about Jesus. Some, following corrupt thinking, said he was John the Baptist (for example, Herod the tetrarch, who asked his servants, Is this John the Baptizer now risen from the dead and, because of this, with powers at work in him?) Others said that Elijah is now the one called Jesus. He has either been born a second time or he has been alive somewhere all along and is now appearing again. Some suggested Jeremiah was Jesus, and not that Jeremiah was a type of Christ. This comes perhaps from a mistaken interpretation of a passage in the beginning of Jeremiah about Christ’s prophecy unfulfilled in the time of the prophet but beginning to be fulfilled in Jesus, whom God set up over nations and kingdoms to root up, and to build up, and to transplant.^[1]

When they had presented diverse human origins concerning him, he asked what they themselves thought about him. Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. But Peter had pondered the nature of the question. For the Lord had said, Whom do men say that the Son of man is? Certainly his human body indicated he was a Son of man. But by adding Who do you say that I am? Jesus indicated that they should consider something besides what he seemed in himself, for he was a Son of man. Therefore what judgment concerning himself did he desire? It was a secret he was asking about, into which the faith of those who believe ought to extend itself.

Then, since they said, Some John the Baptist, some Elijah, some Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, and set forth their mistaken opinion, he next added, But who do you say that I am? He was calling them on by his second inquiry to entertain some higher mental picture, indicating that their former judgment falls exceedingly short of his dignity. Thus Jesus probes for another judgment from them. He poses this second question that they might not fall in with the multitude who, because they saw his miracles as greater than human, accounted him a man indeed but one that, as Herod had thought, may have appeared after a resurrection. To lead them away from such notions, he says, But who do you say that I am?—that is, you who are always with me, and see me working miracles and have yourselves done many mighty works by me.

Did the Lord not know what people called him? But by questioning he brought forth the conviction of the apostle Peter and left for us in the future a strong affirmation of faith. For the Lord questioned not only Peter but all the apostles when he said, Who do you say that I am? Yet one on behalf of all answered the King, who is in due time to judge the whole world. He is God, both God and man. How miserable does this make those who are false teachers and strangers now, and to be judged in eternity. If Christ is the Son of God, by all means he is also God. If he is not God, he is not the Son of God. But since he himself is the Son, and as the Son takes up all things from the Father, let us hold this same one inseparably in our heart because there is no one who escapes his hand.

Peter did not say you are a Christ or a son of God but the Christ, the Son of God. For there are many christs by grace, who have attained the rank of adoption [as sons], but [there is] only one who is by nature the Son of God.^[1] Thus, using the definite article, he said, the Christ, the Son of God. And in calling him Son of the living God, Peter indicates that Christ himself is life and that death has no authority over him. And even if the flesh, for a short while, was weak and died, nevertheless it rose again, since the Word, who indwelled it, could not be held under the bonds of death.

This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith. For this reason, addressing the one who first confessed him with this title, on account of his confession he applied to him this authority, too, as something that would become his, speaking of the common and special good of the church as pertaining to him alone. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that he bestowed upon him this name, the rock. In the same way also Jesus attributes to him the special character of the church, as though it existed beforehand in him on account of his confession. By this he shows, in consequence, that this is the common good of the church, since also the common element of the confession was to come to be first in Peter. This then is what he says, that in the church would be the key of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone holds the key to this, to the church, in the same way he will also hold it for all heavenly things. He who is counted as belonging to the church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. He who is a stranger to it, whatever his status may be, will have no communion in heavenly things. To this very day the priests of the church have expelled those who are unworthy by this saying and admitted those who have become worthy by repentance.

For Christ is a rock which is never disturbed or worn away. Therefore Peter gladly received his name from Christ to signify the established and unshaken faith of the church. . . . The devil is the gateway of death who always hastens to stir up against the holy church calamities and temptations and persecutions. But the faith of the apostle, which was founded upon the rock of Christ, abides always unconquered and unshaken. And the very keys of the kingdom of the heavens have been handed down so that one whom he has bound on earth has been bound in heaven, and one whom he has set free on earth he has also set free in heaven.

And why did he charge them? That when the things which offend are taken out of the way, the cross is accomplished and the rest of his sufferings fulfilled, and when there is nothing any more to interrupt and disturb the faith of the people in him, the right opinion concerning him may be engraven pure and immovable in the mind of the hearers. For in truth his power had not yet clearly shone forth. Accordingly it was his will then to be preached by them when both the plain truth of the facts and the power of his deeds were pleading in support of the assertions of the apostles. For it was by no means the same thing to see him in Palestine, now working miracles and now insulted and persecuted, especially when the very cross was presently to follow the miracles that were happening, and then to behold him everywhere in the world, adored and believed, and no more suffering anything such as he had suffered.

For the purpose of proclaiming, he had sent his disciples before him and ordered them to announce his arrival. But he advised them lest they say publicly that he was Jesus Christ. It seems to me to be one thing to proclaim him to be Christ, another thing to proclaim him to be Jesus Christ. Christ is a common term for the messianic dignity,^[1] while Jesus is the proper name for the Savior. It is possible that for this reason he had been unwilling to be proclaimed Jesus Christ prior to his suffering and resurrection in order that he might afterwards, when the obligation of blood had been fulfilled, at an opportune time say to his apostles, Go and teach all nations^[2] and the rest. And lest anyone think that this is merely our opinion and not the perceptions of the Evangelist, then what follows explains further the reasons for the prohibited proclamation.

When the disciples had received the Spirit, then the teaching concerning the divinity of the Son was shown to them perfectly and the Spirit himself bore witness through the miracles that were done in his name. Yet it was still necessary that this be hidden from the rulers, the elemental powers of this world,^[1] so that Christ, by suffering and rising again, might transform in himself human life and recreate it, changing it back to the state it was in at the beginning of its corruption. This perhaps is the reason why of necessity this instruction had not yet been given them.

[T]he holy Church of God, the mother of your most Christian power, should be delivered and liberated with all your might (through the help of God) from the errors of such teachers, and the evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error. The whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic Tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls.

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

This, then, is the account of the blessed Polycarp, who, being the twelfth that was martyred in Smyrna (reckoning those also of Philadelphia), yet occupies a place of his own in the memory of all men, and that he is everywhere spoken of by the heathen themselves. He was not merely an illustrious teacher, but also a preeminent martyr, whose martyrdom all desire to imitate, as it was completely consistent with the gospel of Christ. Having through patience overcome the unjust governor, and thus acquired the crown of immortality, he now, with the apostles and all the righteous [in heaven], rejoicingly glorifies God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, the governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Catholic Church for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [a letter] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others that cannot be received into the Catholic Church—for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. Moreover, the letter of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the Catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor.

Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.

They alone have remained without, who, if they had been within, would have had to be cast out. . . . Peter, on whom the Church was to be built, speaks there [Jn 6:67–69], teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to its pastor. You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, then he is not in the Church, nor those who flatter themselves in vain and creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.

But those who say: “There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,” and “before he was born, he was not,” and “because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,” and those who call “God the Son of God changeable and mutable,” these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, “the Clean,” if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the Catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution.

Concerning the Paulianists who take refuge with the Catholic Church, a decree has been published that they should be fully baptized. If, however, any of these in times past have been in the clerical order, if they have appeared spotless and above reproach, after being baptized let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church.

[The Church] is called catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely the doctrines that ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins that are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue that is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gift.

And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.

And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristeri, Quartodecimians or Tetradites, Apollinarians—these we receive when they hand in statements and anathematize every heresy that is not of the same mind as the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of God [Canon 5].

We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name that the whole world employs in her regard.

[W]e believe also in the holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. As a result neither do the heretics belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by him who has reconciled us to himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life.

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith)—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things that most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name that keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there are none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith that binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the divine law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinarius, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, and lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.

Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church.

Simon Cephas answered and said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it”.

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the Church would be built” [Mt 16:18] with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? [Mt 16:19]”.

Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Mt 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? “O you of little faith,” he says, “why do you doubt?” [Mt 14:31].

There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathers elsewhere, scatters.

Peter, on whom the Church was to be built, speaks there [Jn 6:67–69], teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock that adheres to its pastor. You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, then he is not in the Church, nor those who flatter themselves in vain and creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.

But his error . . . [for he] who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church founded upon the rock by Christ [Mt 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said only to Peter: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:19].

[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Mt 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter.

[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] “For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church” [Mt 16:18].

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra , on which sat Peter, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra , unity should be preserved by all.

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Mt 16:18]?

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! [Mt 16:18]. This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten [Ex 12:22]. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

But you say [Mt 16:18], the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all, yet one among the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back until we reach Peter himself, to whom, as a figure of the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Mt 16:18]. The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephyrinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known.

Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors”.

Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been given his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not.

Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” [Mt 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither human rashness could assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it.

[T]he most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate.

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom the Father first revealed the Son; whom the Christ blessed with good reason; the called, and elect.

The Lord is loving to man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little maid, but he repented and wept bitterly.

[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness that I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures.

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Mt 16:18]?

Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom, being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord.

But you say [Mt 16:18], the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all, yet one among the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.

Who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles?

Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: “We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle”.

Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors”.

Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” [Mt 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither human rashness could assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it.

Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery.

And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; because even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. . . . [So today through the bishops] through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its head.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church that has the tradition and the faith that comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic Tradition.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Letters to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition that it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so may learn that he, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the churches, and may also understand the apostolic Tradition of the Church, since this letter is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical Tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! Where the apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile!

If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of being, what has the chair of the Roman Church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

Moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church [at Rome] whence priestly unity takes its source.

Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter.

[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If any suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice of it ought to have been sent to the church here; but, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, they now desire to obtain our agreement with their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, or the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice . . . . [W]hat I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter is what I signify to you.

But if in any province a bishop has a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in a bishop from another province as judge. But if judgment has gone against a bishop in any cause, and he thinks he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us honor the memory of St. Peter the apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he judges that the case should be retried, let it be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he finds that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered: “It is our pleasure”.

You cannot then deny that you know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra , on which he sat, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra , unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim—each for himself—separate cathedras , so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one cathedra , which is the first of the endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! [Mt 16:18]. This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten [Ex 12:22]. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

The Church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and Passion, those necessary glories of our faith, as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria.

[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the see of Rome.

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back until we reach Peter himself, to whom, as a figure of the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” [Mt 16:18]. The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus . . .

If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of being, what has the chair of the Roman Church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod”.

Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original rock that solidity that belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter].

After the reading of the foregoing letter, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events that have happened to us, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points about which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, that a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. . . . It is right and holy, therefore, men and brethren, to obey God rather than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation. For we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, to draw us away from what is good . . . we may reach the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness you will afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession we have made for peace and unity in this letter.

You will write two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so.

Ignatius . . . to the Church that has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the most high Father, and Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son; the Church that is beloved and enlightened by the will of him that wills all things according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, that presides in the place of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and that presides over love, and is named from Christ, and from the Father.

You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].

Today we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter. Whenever we read it, we shall be able to draw advice, as also from the earlier letter, which was written to us through Clement.

The same witnesses also recommended Irenaeus, who was at that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the bishop of Rome [Pope St. Eleutherius], saying many favorable things about to him, as the following shows: “We pray, father Eleutherius, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenaeus to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in esteem, as zealous for the covenant of Christ”.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, in so far as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Cyprian to [Pope St.] Cornelius his brother, greeting. You have acted, dearest brother, with diligence and love, in quickly sending us Nicephorus the acolyte, who told us the glorious gladness for the return of the confessors, and most fully instructed us against the new and mischievous devices of Novatian and Novatus for attacking the Church of Christ.

Cyprian to Antonianus his brother, greeting. . . . You wrote . . . for me to transmit a copy of those same letters to [Pope St.] Cornelius our colleague, so that he might lay aside all anxiety, and know at once that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church.

[Pope St.] Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men . . . when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant, which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church.

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church from which priestly unity takes its source.

[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Mt 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.

Thus Irenaeus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating on behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If any suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice of it ought to have been sent to the church here; but, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, they now desire to obtain our agreement with their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, or the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. . . . [W]hat I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter is what I signify to you.

It is necessary to add this—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity. But if in any province a bishop has a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in a bishop from another province as judge. But if judgment has gone against a bishop in any cause, and he thinks he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us honor the memory of St. Peter the apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he judges that the case should be retried, let it be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he finds that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighboring bishops, and asserts that he has fresh matter in his defense, a new bishop not be settled in his see unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision.

You cannot then deny that you know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra , on which he sat, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra , unity should be preserved by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built [Mt 16:18]! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten [Ex 12:22]. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

The Church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and Passion, those necessary glories of our faith, as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria (ibid., 16:2).

The bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome.

[T]here are many other things that most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, put in charge of feeding his sheep, down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius].

[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there replies too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!

We enjoin upon you [my legates to the Council of Ephesus] the necessary task of guarding the authority of the Apostolic See. And if the instructions handed to you have to mention this and if you have to be present in the assembly, if it comes to controversy, it is not yours to join the fight but to judge of the opinions [on my behalf].

In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter], from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided by divine, not human, judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as decided, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and then other churches—just as all waters proceed from their source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids from an uncorrupted head.

Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . instituted the observance of the divine religion. . . . But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that he has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him, as from the head, wishes his gifts to flow to all the body: so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. . . . And so we would have you recollect, brethren, as we do, that the Apostolic See, such is the reverence in which it is held, has numerous times been consulted by the priests of your province as well as others, and in the various matters of appeal, as the old usage demanded, it has reversed or confirmed decisions.

As for the resolution of the bishops that is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter.

But if in what you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us. . . . And though [the bishops] have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; because even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable estate, there was a distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead. From this model a distinction has arisen among bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that everyone should not claim everything for himself, but that there should be in each province one whose opinion has priority among the brethren, and again that those whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nowhere should be separated from its head.

We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome.

Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, “We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope St. Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out”.

After the reading of the foregoing letter [i.e., the Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo.

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the Church would be built” [Mt 16:18] with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? [Mt 16:19]”.

But his error . . . [for he] who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church founded upon the rock by Christ [Mt 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said only to Peter: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:19].

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the city of Rome was bestowed the episcopal cathedra , on which sat Peter, the head of all the apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one cathedra , unity should be preserved by all.

Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors”.

For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith].

[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things that seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in only one; for they do not reach so high a stage of power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.

The Lord is loving to man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little maid, but he repented and wept bitterly.

[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius set up his statue. . . . As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their prayers against Magus, and struck him down to the earth. And marvelous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven [Mt 16:19].

[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness that I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures.

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

Who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles?

Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: “We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle”.

Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors”.

[The Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven” [Mt 16:19].

Your most sweet holiness [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy. . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And though special honor to myself in no way delights me . . . who can be ignorant that the holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter, from petra . And to him it is said by the voice of the truth, “To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Mt 16:19]. And again it is said to him, “And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren” [Lk 22:32]. And once more, “Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep” [Jn 21:17].

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon you , he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys.

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [ cathedra ], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon you , he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys.

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [ cathedra ], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?

Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18–19].% The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [ cathedra ], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith?

If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need for a long discussion and arguments. There is easy proof of faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [ cathedra ], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?