Epistle to the beloved clergy and faithful of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church

By Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado

"Now I beseech you, brethren, look out for those who cause the divisions and the stumbling blocks contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them [Rom. 16:17]."

"For there must be also heresies among you, that the approved might become manifest among you. [1 Cor. 11:19]."

I wish to inform our Christ-loving flock of the latest events in the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) in America.

We joined the ROAC because of its confession of the Faith and canonical succession, the two essential requirements to be Orthodox. On the 2nd of December of 2001, by the mercy of God, I was consecrated a vicar bishop of the Synod, with the authority to shepherd the flock of Christ which would be formed in America and abroad through my efforts.

By the grace of God the Church grew, and because of this increase, the next year I was made a ruling bishop. With this responsibility I had the same authority as before, yet for some mysterious reason, although the Russian Church had established dioceses in America since the 1700s, a new diocese was created for me, that of Denver and Colorado. As time went on and as God blessed, the Church grew and clergymen were added across the country and abroad, through my humble efforts.

Approximately six months after I was made a ruling bishop, for another unexplainable reason, an administrator was named for the United States, excluding Colorado. This was Archpriest Vladimir Shiskoff. He lived in New Jersey with his wife; and his church was the only one subject to Metropolitan Valentine. No explanation was given why there was an administrator priest appointed by the Metropolitan, when there was a ruling Bishop in the same country. This of course was contrary to the Holy Canons of Orthodoxy and Ukaz #362 of Saint Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Last year, two of our clergymen, Father Dionysi McGowan and Father Fotios Roseboro, visited Father Vladimir and celebrated the liturgy with him. During the liturgy, Father Vladimir invited a stranger into the altar and had him take Holy Communion. After the service was over, the fathers spoke to the stranger and learned that his name was Father Peter LaGruta, and that he belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Yes, he was an ecumenist and did not belong to our Church, yet was given Holy Communion by the "administrator," Father Vladimir. It was learned that Father Vladimir gave Communion to lay people of the Greek archdiocese that day also. Fathers Dionysi and Fotios wrote a report, witnessing to the uncanonical actions of Fr. Vladimir, which they sent to me so that I might submit it to the Metropolitan.

We all know of the Metropolitan's visit to the United States in April of 2004, and we all followed his ordeal of having quintuple-bypass heart surgery. As the Metropolitan recovered slowly, and his ill heart was made strong, many faithful gathered from all over the country to congratulate him and encourage him. On Pentecost, in accordance with the Ukaz #47 of the Synod of Bishops dated March 7/20, 2004, I was elevated to the rank of Archbishop with the added dignity of wearing a diamond cross on my klobuk. This was given to me, it was said, because of my missionary activity in building up the Church. Our clergy and faithful had gathered from all over the country to participate in this joyous event. Of course the clergy and faithful from Bulgaria and the countries abroad could not attend, yet they were here in spirit.

During the Metropolitan's visit to the United States, I explained to him that I needed help to govern the Church in America. I suggested that our Hieromonk Andrew Maklakov be ordained a bishop to help me in this, with the stipulation that he would remain in the monastery. During this time tragic events occurred. The weak heart of Metropolitan Valentine, which was now healed physically, became haughty and waxed bold. He beheld the Church that was under my authority at peace and growing, zealously supporting my labors, while his attempt to govern America through his "administrator" was not flourishing at all. The Metropolitan, via his Ukaz #114, therefore decided to illegally take Father Andrew away from the monastery and place him under his own authority in New Jersey, as Father Vladimir's assistant. The reason given was that Father Vladimir was senile and needed help. I objected to Father Andrew's move, stating that this was against the Holy Canons, and I also withdrew my petition to have Father Andrew ordained. The Metropolitan informed us, however, that he, the Metropolitan, was not subject to the Holy Canons of the Church, but rather as Metropolitan was following something called the Kniga Consistorium. This is a pre-revolutionary document which had Latin influence and was certainly against the Canons, since it gave almost papal powers to a Metropolitan. He told Father Andrew that the Holy Canons were written for Greeks, but that the Russian Church follows the Kniga Consistorium. This was all a novelty and unacceptable. When we are ordained, we make vows to uphold the Holy Canons and other teachings of the Church, not some innovation.

Unfortunately, Father Andrew did not have the courage to resist the orders of the Metropolitan. Father Andrew broke his vows which he made when he became a monk, and placed himself under the Metropolitan, who promised to make him a bishop. The Metropolitan wanted Father Andrew to move to New Jersey and live in a room in Father Vladimir's house, to be his helper. He would also have to get a job in the world to support himself. The Metropolitan therefore came into another bishop's diocese and stole one of his priests. This is a violation of the Holy Canons [Canons 63 and 88 of Carthage; 15 and 16 of the Holy Apostles; 15 and 19 of Sardica; 17 and 18 of the 6th Ecumenical Council; 3 and 7 of Antioch; 15 and 16 of the 1st Ecumenical Council; 13 and 20 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, etc. as well as 34 and 39 of the Holy Apostles]. All these Canons were written to control a bishop's avarice, and the Holy Fathers call such actions "episcopal adultery," since every bishop is "married" to his diocese.

The Metropolitan then went on a short trip to Massachusetts, where he received certain priests who, for obvious reasons, wanted to enter the Church through Father Vladimir. Father Vladimir, as we know from past experience (i.e., inviting Hieromonk Elia Yenovkian, the Monophysite), has a reputation of wanting to receive anyone, regardless of their qualifications. One of these priests was Father Michael Graves, who had petitioned me a year earlier to enter the Church but did not want to convert from his ecumenical ideas. He came from Anglicanism to the Antiochian Church without Holy Baptism. He had with him another "priest" and "deacon" in the same condition. They also had 180 people with them in Haiti who were never baptized, and Father Michael did not want them to submit to Baptism, even though they also had only been poured upon with three buckets of water. All these people were received by Metropolitan Valentine, who recognized and accepted their Protestant-style baptism by an illegal and false use of economia. This also is an uncanonical act (Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles; Canons 1 and 91 of St. Basil the Great, etc.). Canon 50 of the Holy Apostles and 91 of St. Basil speak about the proper form of Baptism, whereas the rest condemn or teach against the recognition of any validity in heretical mysteries or priesthood.

While in Boston, Metropolitan Valentine also received into ROAC, with the recommendation of Fr. Vladimir, four priests: Fathers Spyridon Schneider, Christopher Johnson, Victor Melehov, and Michael Marcinowski, all of whom, without proper reasons, abandoned their true confessing Orthodox Church of Greece, under Archbishop Makarios (see Canon 7 of Antioch). Metropolitan Valentine also accepted the priestmonk Ephraim Bertolette who received ordination five times, the last two being from the old calendar Greek Church to the Ecumenical new calendar Greek Church (see Canon 68 of the Holy Apostles). He is known for his Cyprianite practice of giving communion to all "Orthodox Christians" regardless of their jurisdiction.

As the Metropolitan determined in his mind to take Fr. Andrew, I again insisted that Father Andrew should not leave the monastery. The Metropolitan ultimately said that if I did not obey him, he would punish me. I did not cower before this threat, and dismissed it, and proceeded to present alternative ideas to govern this country. It seemed to me that the Metropolitan wanted to govern this country from abroad (and in an uncanonical, destructive manner), which we know is one of the reasons why ROAC broke away from ROCA, when they wished to govern Russia from Manhattan, citing Ukaz #362 of Saint Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Church.

The Metropolitan told me to put my ideas in writing and submit a report to the Synod. I started on this immediately, and, while writing the report, I also explained to the Synod the Metropolitan's actions while in the United States. The report turned out to be what it should be, an accusatory letter. After I sent the report, I summarized the accusations which should be addressed against the Metropolitan. They were:

1. Illegally receiving three clergymen and 180 people in Haiti into the Church without Holy Baptism, and thus introducing an unacceptable tradition into the Orthodox Church, contrary to the Canons;

2. Not punishing, but promoting Father Vladimir Shiskoff AFTER it was manifestly proven to the Metropolitan by the testimonies of Father Dionysi and Father Fotios that he is a crypto-Cyprianite, an ecumenist;

3. Having withdrawn my petition for Father Andrew to be ordained a bishop, the Metropolitan illegally took him. He was one of my monks, who lived in my monastery; and to do this is against the Holy Canons.

4. And the most important, which resulted in all the above lawlessness, is that Metropolitan Valentine, even though he does not live here or speak the language, wants to rule America from a foreign country through the priest administrator Father Vladimir Shiskoff, when there is already a canonical, Orthodox ruling-bishop here. (See Canon 23 of the Second Carthage Council, and Ukaz #362.)

These accusations were first put forth on June 17, 2004. After I sent my report to the Synod, I telephoned Suzdal and received confirmation that my letter was in the hands of Archbishop Theodore and Bishop Irenarch, both members of the Synod. The Synod notified Metropolitan Valentine of my accusations the next day, and the response was his shameless Ukaz #130, written a week later, which contains nine untrue and rapacious accusations by the Metropolitan against me, which he predated to June 16, 2004. This is a trick and supposedly means that the Synod will hear the Metropolitan's accusations before it hears mine.

This is the Metropolitan's deception, which will unfortunately implicate all the bishops of the Synod who are aware that I sent my accusations first. The Canons require that the accusations initially put forward must be heard and investigated first and that the accused not be allowed to make accusations until his name has been cleared. (Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Synod)

The Metropolitan's Ukaz #130 is a KGB-style document, in that it seeks to discredit the character of someone who does not submit to lawlessness. It shockingly revealed to us the malice and envy of Metropolitan Valentine. It accuses me of the sin of simony, of falsely accusing the "venerable" Father Vladimir, of not understanding the mystery and uniqueness of Baptism, of unjustly suspending clergymen, of writing the report to the Synod demanding an emergency meeting without the Metropolitan, of lying, of forgery, and of stealing. Then, at the end of the same document he retires me, as if he has the authority to retire a bishop: and all this only two weeks after he and the Synod elevated me to the rank of Archbishop, with the right to wear the diamond cross, a distinction granted to only one other Archbishop of the ROAC.

Yet, it seems that God blinded the Metropolitan in his slander against me, because he refers to my report which was dated June 17th in his Ukaz #130, which he dated June 16th. Slander by a clergyman, whether a Bishop or priest or deacon, is a sin that is punishable by deposition (Canon 25 of the Holy Apostles; and Canon 6 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council).

God, Who is over all, has seen the criminal actions of Metropolitan Valentine. This sin of open slander, which he made public by publishing it on the Internet before I had received it, and before any trial, was such a grievous attack on me that punishment from God came quickly.

While I was in Bulgaria and on the Holy Mountain praying for our faithful and for God's mercy during this time of trial, the Metropolitan tried to leave this country with an enormous amount of money which he had sewn into his trousers in special pockets. He was caught by U.S. customs agents and, as we were informed, initially by Fr. Dionysi, was arrested and strip-searched.

We made inquiries and learned that all the money that was on him, in the amount of almost $100,000, was taken away. He was escorted back to Russia by two Russian security officials from the airline "Aeroflot." If he returns to America, he will have to appear in court to defend himself. We were told that it may be up to 10 years before the Metropolitan will be allowed to travel within the United States again.

The initial police report stated the following:

ANATOLY P. RUSANTSOV
DOB: MARCH 3, 1939
ALIAS: METROPOLITAN VALENTINE
HEIGHT: 6'
WEIGHT: 245 lbs
WHITE MALE
DISTINGUISHING MARKS: GOLD CAPPED TEETH
DATE OF ARREST: JULY 3, 2004 [SATURDAY]
TIME: 1900 HOURS
ENTITY: U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL
1st HEARING: AUGUST 3, 2004 [TUESDAY]
WHERE: FEDERAL COURT, NY, NY
CRIME: SMUGGLING [Currency, foreign and domestic]

Upon his return to Russia, the Metropolitan immediately opened a Synod meeting to present new accusations against me. Most of the previous accusations of Ukaz #130 were craftily set aside because it was obviously a letter of malice, and it accomplished nothing other than making his shame a spectacle to the world. In a letter that I sent to the Holy Synod on July 6th, I asked for the repentance of Metropolitan Valentine for writing such a slanderous letter, and I ended this letter by saying "... I await his wholehearted repentance in writing and I expect from you, the Holy Synod, the fortitude, the morality and the ethical conduct of bishops professing piety." I received no answer. On July 21st, I again wrote the Synod a letter in which I said: "Do not doubt in the least that God is beholding your actions. Understand this very clearly that the sin of schism will be marked on your souls if you pass judgment on me unjustly." I again received no answer.

How can one explain why this lamentable tragedy has occurred? I believe that Metropolitan Valentine was spiritually corrupted by the power hungry remnants of the Grabbe family, Retired-Bishop Anthony Grabbe, Fr. Vladimir Shiskoff, and Matushka Anastasia Shatilova. They quickly and accurately determined that Metropolitan Valentine was not well educated in Canon Law and that he could be manipulated by them. Slowly, Metropolitan Valentine was convinced by them to make Fr. Vladimir an "administrator," and then to accept their ideas about using the never-used Kniga Consistorium and their all-encompassing false theories about receiving everybody into the Church by economia to build up the Church in record time. The false and improper use of economia, we all know, will lead to the heresy of Ecumenism. It is therefore my responsibility to warn the flock entrusted to me of the canonical transgressions of Metropolitan Valentine. Listed briefly they are:

He believes he is not subject to the Holy Canons but rather to a document called the Kniga Consistorium which contradicts and overthrows the Canons, and makes him a mini Pope. I first heard about this book of rules approximately a year ago through the Grabbe family [which use over the Rudder is in violation of Canons 1 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, 2 of the 6th Ecumenical Council, and 1 of the 7th Ecumenical Council, as well as the 3rd confession of faith and oath of a hierarch at his consecration and Ukaz #362 of the Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Church.]

It is by virtue of the Kniga that he imagined he could write his Ukaz #114 and enter my diocese and take my clergyman for his own use without my permission [in violation of Canons 63 and 88 of Carthage; 15 and 16 of the Holy Apostles; 15 of Sardica; 17 of the 6th Ecumenical Council; 3 of Antioch; 15 and 16 of the 1st Ecumenical Council; 14 and 20 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, etc. as well as 34 and 39 of the Holy Apostles].

It is by virtue of the Kniga that he imagined he could write his Ukaz #130, and think that he has the authority to retire me from serving the Holy Mysteries and to remove me from my diocese with no canonical justification and without the prior approval of the Synod. This is not the Latin Church, and he is not the Pope!

It is by virtue of the Kniga that he imagined he could write his Ukaz #130, and believe that he might take people from my diocese and ordain them on his own authority (Nicholas Stanosheck to the diaconate).

He used KGB tactics by viciously slandering me publicly and before the Holy Synod, saying I am guilty of the acts of simony, false accusations, lying, stealing, and forgery. [A Bishop or clergyman shall be deposed if he bears false witness, Canons 6 of 2nd Ecumenical Council and 25 of the Holy Apostles].

He is harboring a priest, unfit to stand before the holy altar, who holds a Cyprianite ecclesiology, Father Vladimir Shiskoff; and, after canonical accusation was presented against this priest, the Metropolitan even dared to promote him to the rank of protopresbyter [violating Canons 45, 46, 47, and 68 of the Holy Apostles]. Father Vladimir, as administrator, also permits intermarriage between Orthodox and Roman Catholics (violating Canon 14 of the Second Ecumenical Council), and instructs members of ROAC to commune in other pseudo-Orthodox Churches (the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism). By not reprimanding and stopping this activity, Metropolitan Valentine is condoning his actions.

He wishes to govern and maintain foreign rule of America by an administrator-priest, Fr. Vladimir, even though a canonical, Orthodox ruling-bishop already exists here, all of which overthrows the hierarchal order of the Church and also contradicts St. Patriarch Tikhon's Ukaz #362.

By receiving approximately 180 Haitians with their Protestant-style "baptisms" by effusion, he has accepted a Latin idea that Holy Baptism exists outside the Church, which is contrary to Orthodoxy and is ecumenical/heretical, according to the Holy Fathers (Canons 45, 46, 47, and 68 of the Holy Apostles; and 50 and 49 of the same; Canon 1 of the 3rd Regional Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian; Canons 1 and 91 of St. Basil the Great); by doing this he falls under the Anathema of the Russian Church Abroad of 1983 in failing to distinguish the mysteries of the heretics from those of the Orthodox, for he professed before witnesses that "everybody is baptized today."

According to the opinion of Father Vladimir and the other newly accepted clergy, Metropolitan Valentine believes that the Jerusalem Patriarchate and other "true" unidentified Orthodox Churches have the grace of the Holy Spirit.

We see, therefore, that a new Grabbe-Lourye type ecclesiology has been accepted by Metropolitan Valentine. This new faith says that all those who call themselves True Orthodox are in fact truly Orthodox. According to Metropolitan Valentine's Protocol #48 against me, dated July 15, 2004, they are to be received into the Church without examination. It says: "The Russian Orthodox Church simply receives, without examination, all those True Orthodox Christians who considered themselves to be as such in other True Orthodox Churches."

Rightly therefore did those who followed Metropolitan Valentine change the name of their Church from ROAC to AROC, to reflect their new way of believing. This explains why Father John Claypool was ordered by Metropolitan Valentine to immediately remove from his web site references to the Jerusalem Patriarchate and other uncanonical groups as graceless, while Olga Mitrenina in Russia is able to maintain on her web site references to HOCNA and their leaders as "Orthodox Pillars." Metropolitan Valentine has links to her website on his official Russian website. Therefore, the AROC, because it does not rightly distinguish the boundaries of the Church, receiving all without an examination, should be considered ecumenically minded.

What is the future for us? This question should not overwhelm any, for we have not changed our Faith. We confess true Orthodoxy the same today as we always have. Practically all of our faithful have remained true to the Faith and the Holy Canons. Unfortunately, a few convert clergy, their families, and a few laymen who have not yet understood that the Canons reign over the bishops and not the bishops over the Canons, have been disobedient, deceived and for the present time, lost.

On Saturday, July 24th, the final decision was made by Metropolitan Valentine and those with him. We had been waiting to see how they would act; and they have decided to pass judgment on me, and not the Metropolitan. They announced that they were breaking communion with me. Metropolitan Valentine has then caused a schism and he will answer for it. We call upon the faithful in Russia not to submit to this lawlessness and this schism created by Metropolitan Valentine. He has betrayed his Church, his bishops and his people. They must resist the stealing of their Church by a few corrupt individuals in America and Russia. They must search out the ROAC bishops in Russia who may not know what is happening, to inform them. We cannot communicate with them because their addresses and phone numbers have never been given to us, even though we have requested them numerous times.

We will have no prayerful contact with AROC in this country or ROAC in Russia until they show true repentance and submit to the laws of the Church. We the faithful of the Orthodox Church will let them depart on their destructive ways, but we will remain and continue to walk in the straight and narrow way of Christ our Savior. It is up to us to remain immovable in the Faith, that we might behold God's care and loving providence for us. I have not been hindered, and will not be hindered by any of the actions taken in Russia. We rightly consider ourselves the true Orthodox Church in America, and will work for the growth of Orthodoxy. Amen!

With much love for all of you, asking for your holy prayers,

+ Gregory

Archbishop of Denver and Colorado

at Dormition Skete, July 13/26, 2004 -- Feast of the Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel; "Axion Estin" Icon of the Theotokos.

++++++++++++++ References ++++++++++++++

ANATHEMA OF 1983
OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD

      TO THOSE who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, ANATHEMA.

CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

CANON XV (15)
      If any Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the list of clerics, abandoning his own province, departs to another, and after deserting it entirely, sojourns in another, contrary to the mind of his own Bishop, we bid him to officiate no longer; especially if his Bishop summons him to return, and he has not obeyed and persists in his disorderliness; however, he may commune there as layman.
(Cf. cc. XV, XVI of the lst; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; cc XVII XVIII of the 6th; cc. X, XV of the 7th; c. III of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI XVII of the Sardican; and cc. LXIII, XCVIII of Carthage.)

CANON XVI (16)
      If, on the other hand, the Bishop with whom they are associating, admits them as clergymen in defiance of the deprivation prescribed against them, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder.
(Cf. cc. VII, XVIII of the 6th; c. III of Antioch; and cc. LXIII, LXIV of Carthage.)

CANON XXV (25)
      Any Bishop, or presbyter, or Deacon that is taken in the act of committing fornication, or perjury, or theft, shall be deposed, but shall not be excommunicated, for Scripture says: "You shall not exact revenge twice for the same offense." The same rule applies also to the rest of clergymen.
(c. IX of the 1st; cc. IV, XXI of the 6th; c. I of Neocaesarea; c. XXXV of Carthage; cc. III, XVII, XXXII, XLIV, LI, and LXX of Basil.)

CANON XXXIV (34)
      It befits us bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him.. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(cc. V I, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.)

CANON XXXIX (39)
      Let Presbyters and Deacons do nothing without the consent of the Bishop. For he is the one entrusted with the Lord's people, and it is from him that an accounting will be demanded with respect to their souls.
(c. XIV of the 7th; c. LVII of Laod.; cc. VI, VII, XLI, L of Carthage.)

CANON XLV (45)
      Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that only joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as Clergyman, let him be deposed.

CANON XLVI (46)
      We order any Bishop or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretic's baptism or sacrifice be deposed; for "what consonance has Christ with Belial? or what part has the believer with an unbeliever?"

CANON XLVII (47)
      If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and for failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.

CANON XLIX (49)
      If any Bishop or Presbyter baptize anyone not into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Lord's ordinance, but into three beginningless beings or into three sons or into three comforters, let him be deposed."

CANON L (50)
      If any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform three immersions in making one baptism, but only a single immersion that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed . For the Lord did not say, Baptize into my death, but, "Go you and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

CANON LXVIII (68)
      If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon accepts a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen.
(Apostolic Canons XLVI, XLVII; c. VIII of the lst; c. VII of the 2nd; c. XCV of the 6th and cc. LVII, LXXVII, and c. I of Carthage.)

FIRST ECUMENICAL SYNOD

CANON XV (15)
      Because of much disturbance and the mutinies which took place, it has seemed best to do away altogether with the custom which obtained contrary to the Apostolic Canon in some places, so as not to allow either a Bishop or a Presbyter or a Deacon to go from one city to another. If after the holy and great Synod's definition, anyone should attempt to do such a thing, or has actually undertaken to do such a thing, let the resulting affair be invalidated by all means, and let him be reinstated in the church in which the Bishop or Presbyter in question was ordained.
(Apostolic Canons XIV, XV; c. VI of the 4th. cc. III XXI of Antioch; cc. I, XVI of Sardica, c. LVII of Car.)

CANON XVI (16)
      Any Presbyters or Deacons, or other persons covered by the Canon, who take the risk, without having the fear of God before their eyes, or keeping aware of the ecclesiastical Canon, of departing from their own church, they must not be admitted at all in another church, but they must be stringently forced to return to their own parish, or, in case they insist, it is proper for them to be excluded from Communion. If on the other hand, anyone should surreptitiously snatch away one belonging to another and ordain him in his own church, without the consent of his Bishop, from whom the one covered by the Canon departed, let the ordination be invalid.

SECOND ECUMENICAL SYNOD

CANON VI (6)
      Because many men, in a spirit of enmity and for purposes of slander being desirous to confound and subvert ecclesiastical discipline, connive to fabricate certain charges against Orthodox Bishops managing the churches, in an attempt designing nothing else but to sully the reputation of the priests and to raise disturbances among peoples who are at peace; on this account it has pleased the holy Council of the Bishops who have convened in Constantinople, to decree that informers are not to be admitted without examination, nor are all men to be allowed to bring accusations against those managing the churches, nor yet are all to be excluded. But if anyone lay a personal grievance, that is a private complaint, against a Bishop, on the ground that he has been a victim of the Bishop's greed or other unjust treatment, in the case of such accusations, neither the personality nor the religion of the accuser is to be inquired into. For then the conscience of the Bishop must be clear in every respect, and the man who claims to have been wronged should receive justice whatever be his religion. But if the indictment brought against the Bishop be of an ecclesiastical nature, then the personality of the informers must be considered, in order, first of all, not to allow heretics to make charges against Orthodox Bishops in regard to ecclesiastical matters. We call heretics those who have of old been proscribed from the Church, and those who have thereafter been anathematized by us and in addition to these those who, though pretending to confess the sound faith, have schismatically separated and have gathered congregations in opposition to our canonical Bishops. Further, as regarding those who have previously been condemned by the Church on certain charges and have been ousted therefrom or excluded from communion, whether they belong to the clergy or to the ranks of laymen, neither shall these persons be allowed to accuse a Bishop until they have first cleared themselves of their own indictment. Likewise as regarding those who are themselves being accused from before, they are not to be permitted to accuse a Bishop, or other clergymen, until they have first proved themselves innocent of the charges placed against them. If, however, certain persons are neither heretics nor excluded from communion, nor condemned, nor previously charged with any offenses, should declare that they have an accusation of an ecclesiastical nature against a Bishop, the holy Council bids these persons to lodge their accusations before all the Bishops of the province and before them to prove the charges against the Bishop involved in the case. But if it so happen that the provincial Bishops are unable to or incompetent to decide the case against the Bishop and make the correction due, then they are to go to a greater synod of the Bishops of this diocese summoned to try this case. And they are not to lodge the accusation until they themselves have in writing agreed to incur the same penalty if in the course of the trial it be proved that they have been slandering the accused Bishop. But if anyone, scorning what has been decreed in the foregoing statements, should dare either to annoy the emperor's ears or to trouble courts of secular authorities or an ecumenical council to the affrontment of all the Bishops of the diocese, let no such person be allowed to present any information whatever, because of his having thus roundly insulted the Canons and ecclesiastical discipline.

FOURTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

CANON I (1)
      We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.

CANON XIII (13)
      Strange and unknown clergymen without letters commendatory from their own Bishop, are absolutely prohibited from officiating in another city.

CANON XIV (14)
      Since in certain provinces it is permitted to the readers and singers to marry, the holy Synod has decreed that it shall not be lawful for any of them to take a wife that is heterodox. But those who have already begotten children of such a marriage, if they have already had their children baptized among the heretics, must bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church; but if they have not had them baptized, they may not hereafter baptize them among heretics, nor give them in marriage to a heretic, or a Jew, or a heathen, unless the person marrying the orthodox child shall promise to come over to the orthodox faith. And if any one shah transgress this decree of the holy synod, let him be subjected to canonical censure.

CANON XX (20)
      It shall not be lawful, as we have already decreed, for clergymen officiating in one church to be appointed to the church of another city, but they shall cleave to that in which they were first thought worthy to minister; those, however, being excepted, who have been driven by necessity from their own country, and have therefore removed to another church. And if, after this decree, any bishop shall receive a clergyman belonging to another bishop, it is decreed that both the received and the receiver shall be excommunicated until such time as the clergyman who has removed shall have returned to his own church.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

CANON II (2)
      This too has appeared best to the this holy Synod, as well as most important, that the 85 Canons handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, and as matter of fact accepted and validated by the holy and blissful Fathers preceding us, be henceforth retained and left firm and secure for the care of souls and the cure of diseases. But inasmuch as we are ordered in these Canons to accept the Injunctions of the same holy Apostles (as transmitted) through Clemens, into some of which certain spurious passages destitute of piety have been interpolated long ago by the heterodox to the detriment of the Church, and have tarnished the becoming and natural beauty of the divine dogmas for us, we have suitably weeded out such ordinances in furtherance of the edification and security of the most Christian flock, not in the least way being minded to approve the fantastic inventions of heretical mendacity that have been inserted in the genuine and uncorrupted Didache (or teaching) of the Apostles. On the other hand, we ratify all the rest of the holy Canons promulgated by our holy and blissful Fathers, to wit: the three hundred and eighteen foregathered in Nicaea, those convened in Ancyra, and furthermore also those who met in Neocaesarea, likewise those who attended the meeting in Gangra, but in addition to these also those who convened in Antioch, Syria,, and furthermore also those who held a Synod in Laodicea; further, again, the one hundred and fifty who convened in this God-guarded and imperial capital city, and the two hundred who assembled at an earlier time in the. metropolis of Ephesus, and the six hundred and thirty holy and blissful Fathers who met in Chalcedon. Likewise those who convened in Sardica; furthermore those in Carthage. Further and in addition to all these those now again convened in this God-guarded and imperial capital city in the time of Nectarius the president of this imperial capital city, and of Theophilos who became Archbishop of Alexandria. Furthermore also of Dionysius who became Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and of Peter who became Archbishop of Alexandria and a Martyr withal, and of Gregory the Thaumaturgus (Miracle-worker) who became Bishop of Neocaesarea., of Athanasius the Archbishop of Alexandria, of Basil the Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of Gregory of Nyssa, of Gregory the Theologian, of Amphilochius the Archbishop of Iconium, Timothy a former Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, of Theophilos an Archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, of Cyril an Archbishop of Alexandria, and of Gennadius who became a Patriarch of this God-guarded imperial capital city. Furthermore, the Canon promulgated by Cyprian who became an Archbishop of the country of Africa and a martyr, and by the Synod supporting him, who alone held sway in the places of the aforesaid presidents, in accordance with the custom handed down to them; and no one shall be permitted to countermand or set aside the Canons previously laid down, or to recognize and accept any Canons, other than the ones herein specified, that have been composed under a false inscription by certain persons who have taken in hand to barter the truth. If, nevertheless, anyone be caught innovating with regard to any of the said Canons, or attempting. to subvert it, he shall be responsible in respect of that Canon and shall receive the penalty which it prescribes and be chastised by that Canon which he has offended.

CANON XVII (17)
      Inasmuch as Clergymen of various churches have abandoned their own churches, in which they were ordained, and have run over to other Bishops, and without the consent of their own Bishop have had themselves enrolled in the others' churches, and as a result of this they came to be insubordinate, we decree that, beginning with the month of January of the last fourth indiction, not a single one of all the clergymen, regardless of what rank he happens to be in, has permission, unless furnished by a written dimissory of his own Bishop, to be enrolled in a different church. For, whoever fails to abide by this rule hereafter, but, on the contrary, so far as lies in his power disgraces him who bestowed the ordination on him, let both him and the one who illogically accepted him be deposed.

CANON XVIII (18)
      Clergymen who on the pretext of an incursion of barbarians, or as a result of any other circumstance, have emigrated, whenever their exigency has ceased, or the incursions of barbarians, on account of which they made their departure, are commanded to return to their own churches, and not to stay away from them for a long time without a good excuse. If anyone fails to conduct himself agreeably to the present Canon, let him be excommunicated until he returns to his own church. Let this same rule apply also to the Bishop who is keeping him.
(Apostolic Canon XV; cc. XV, XVI of the 1st; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; c. XVII of the 6th; c. XV of the 7th; c. III of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI, XIX of Sardica; cc. LXIII, XCVIII of Carthage.)

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

CANON I (1)
      For those who have been allotted a clerical dignity, the representations of canonical ordinances amount to testimonies and directions. Gladly accepting these, we sing to the Lord God with David, the spokesman of God, the following words: "I have delighted in the way of your testimonies as much as in all wealth," and Your testimonies which You have commanded witness justice . . . Your testimonies are justice forever: give me understanding, and I shall live" (Ps. 119:14, 138 and 144). And if forever the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God, and to live in them, it is plain that they remain unwavering and rigid. For Moses, too, the beholder of God, says so in the following words: "To them there is nothing to add, and from them there is nothing to remove" (Deut. 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, exulting in them, cries: "which things the angels would like to peep into" (I Pet. 1:12). And Paul says: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8). Seeing that these things are so and are attested to us, and rejoicing at them "as one that finds great spoil" (Ps. 119:162), we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, arid we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six Holy Ecumenical Synods and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our Holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. Accordingly, we too anathematize whomsoever they consign to anathema; and we too depose whoever they consign to deposition; and we too excommunicate whoever they consign to excommunication; and we likewise subject to a penalty anyone whom they make liable to a penalty. For "Let your conduct be free from avarice; being content with such things asare at hand" (Heb. 13:5), explicitly cries the divine apostle Paul, who ascended into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words. (II Cor. 12:2-4).
(c. I of the 4th; c. II of the 6th.)

THE CANON OF THE THIRD HOLY REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD IN CARTHAGE IN THE TIME OF CYPRIAN INTERPRETED

      While assembled in a parliament, dear brethren, we have read letters sent by you concerning those who are presumed among heretics or schismatics to have been baptized and who are joining the catholic Church, which is one single institution in which we are baptized and are regenerated, concerning which facts we are firmly convinced that you yourselves in doing so are ensuring the solidity of the catholic Church. Yet inasmuch as you are of the same communion with us and wished to inquire about this matter on account of a common love, we are moved to give you, and conjoin in doing so, not any recent opinion, nor one that has been only nowadays established, but, on the contrary, one which has been tried and tested with all accuracy and diligence of yore by our predecessors, and which has been observed by us. Ordaining this also now, which we have been strongly and securely holding throughout time, we declare that no one can be baptized outside of the catholic Church, there being but one baptism, and this being existent only in the catholic Church. For it has been written: "They have forsaken me who am a fountain of living water, and have dug themselves shattered pits, which can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13). And again the Holy Bible forewarningly says: "Keep away from another's water, and from another's fountain drink not" (Prov. 5:15) For the water must first be purified and sanctified by the priest, in order that it may be able to wipe away with its baptismal efficacy the sins of the person being baptized. Through Ezekiel the prophet the Lord says: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and will cleanse you; . . . and a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I bestow upon you" (Ezek. 36:25-26). But how can one who is unclean himself purify and sanctify water, when there is in him no Holy Spirit, and the Lord says in the Book of Numbers: "And whatsoever an unclean person toucheth shall be unclean" (Num. 19:22). How can anyone that has been unable to deposit his own sins outside the Church manage in baptizing another person to let him have a remission of sins? But even the question itself which arises in baptism is a witness to the truth. For in saying to the one being baptized, "Believest thou in an everlasting life, and that thou shalt receive a remission of sins?" we are saying nothing else than that it can be given in the catholic Church, but that among heretics where there is no Church it is impossible to receive a remission of sins. And for this reason the advocates of the heretics ought either to change the essence of the question for something else, or else give the truth a trial, unless they have something to add the Church to them, as a bonus. But it is necessary for anyone that has been baptized to be anointed, in order that, upon receiving the chrism, he may become a partaker of Christ. But no heretic can sanctify oil, seeing that he has neither an altar nor a church. Not a drop of chrism can exist among heretics. For it is obvious to you that no oil at all can be sanctified amongst them for use in connection with the Eucharist. For we ought to be well aware, and not ignorant, of the fact that it has been written: "let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head" (Ps. 140:6); which indeed even in olden times the Holy Spirit made known in psalms, lest anyone, having been sidetracked and led astray from the straight way, be anointed by the heretics, who are opponents of Christ. But how shall one who is, not a priest, but a sacrilegist and sinner, pray for the one baptized, when the Bible says that "God heareth not sinners; but if anyone be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth" (John 9:31). Through the holy Church we can conceive a remission of sins) But who can give what he has not himself? Or how can one do spiritual works who has become destitute of Holy Spirit? For this reason anyone joining the Church ought to become renewed, in order that within through the holy elements he become sanctified. For it is written: "Ye shall be holy, just as I myself am holy, saith the Lord" (Lev. 19:2; 20:7), in order that even one who has been duped by specious arguments may shed this very deception in true baptism in the true Church when as a human being he comes to God and seeks a priest, but, having gone astray in error, stumbles upon a sacrilegist. For to sympathize with persons who have been baptized by heretics is tantamount to approving the baptism administered by heretics. For one cannot conquer in part, or vanquish anyone partially. If he was able to baptize, he succeeded also in imparting the Holy Spirit. If he was unable, because, being outside, he had no Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize the next person. There being but one baptism, and there being but one Holy Spirit, there is also but one Church, founded by Christ our Lord upon oneness and unity. And for this reason whatever they do is false and empty and vain, everything being counterfeit and unauthorized. For nothing that they do can be acceptable and desirable with God. In fact, the Lord calls them His foes and adversaries in the Gospels: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matt. 12:30). And the blissful Apostle John, who kept the Lord's commandments, stated beforehand in his Epistle: "ye have heard that the antichrist shall come; but even now there have come to be many antichrists" (I John 2:18). Hence we know that it is the last hour. They came out of us, but they were not of us. Hence we too ought to understand, and think, that enemies of the Lord, and those called antichrists, could not give grace to the Lord. And for this reason we who are with the Lord, and who are upholding the oneness and unity of the Lord, and after the measure of His worth imbuing ourselves therewith, exercising His priesthood in the Church, we ought to disapprove and refuse and reject, and treat as profane, everything done by His opponents, that is, foes and antichrists. And to those who from error and crookedness come for knowledge of the true and ecclesiastic faith we ought to give freely the mystery of divine power, of unity as well as of faith, and of truth.

SECOND COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

CANON XXIII (23)
      It has pleased the Council to decree that Mauritania Stifensis, on account of the vastness of its territory, has been permitted, as it requested, to have a primate, or chief Bishop, of its own, with the consent of all the Primates of the African provinces and of all the Bishops thereof (as Primate of the Numidian territory assigned to him by the Council).

CANON LXIII (63)
      It is decreed that no Bishop shall appropriate another's Cleric contrary to the wishes of his former Bishop. But if any Bishop should do so nevertheless, let him not commune any longer with others. (Ap. c, XV; cc. XV, XVI of the 1st; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; CC. XVII, XVIII 01 the 6th; c. XV of the 7th; c. III of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI, XIX of Sardica; c, XCVIII : of Carthage.)

CANON LXXXVIII (88)
      It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone admits or offer reception to anyone from a strange Monastery, and should wish to induct him into the clergy, or should appoint anyone an abbot (or, in Greek, one called an hegumen) of his own Monastery, let the Bishop who does so and thereby separates himself from communion with the rest, content himself with communion of the laity. And let that person be no longer either a Cleric an Hegumen (Abbot).

CANONS OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD AT ANTIOCH

CANON III (3)
      If any Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else at all of those who belong to the priesthood, shall depart for another parish after leaving his own, and subsequently, having changed his position altogether, tries to stay in another parish for a long time, let him no longer celebrate liturgy, especially in case he is summoned by his own Bishop and admonished to return to the parish he belongs to, and fails to obey. But if he persists in the irregularity, he must be utterly deposed from liturgy, on the ground that there is no longer any possibility of his being reinstated. If, after he has been deposed from once for this reason, another Bishop admits him, the latter too shall be punished by a common Synod, on the ground that he is violating the ecclesiastical laws.

CANON VII (7)
      Let no stranger be admitted without letter pacifical (of admittance).

CANONS OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD AT SARDICA

CANON XV (15)
      We enact that if any Bishop from a different diocese wants to appoint another's servant, without the consent of his Bishop, to any grade or rank, any such appointment shall be deemed invalid and ineffective. If any of us should permit themselves to do this, they ought to be both reminded and corrected by their brethren and fellow Bishops.

CANON XIX (19)
      These rules having been laid down in a saving and consistent manner, and with due regard for our honorable position as priests, and having pleased both God and men, they will not be able to acquire their full power and efficacy unless the decisions arrived at also entail a fear. For we ourselves have more than once known the divine and most reverend name of holy orders to have come into condemnation on account of the shameless behavior of a few. If, therefore, anyone should dare to do anything contrary to what has seemed best to all of us, in an endeavor to please egoism and self-conceit rather than God, let him know right now that he will be rendering himself answerable for a crime, and that he will forfeit both the honor and the office of the episcopate.

CANONS OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT

CANON I (1)
      So far as concerns the question of the Cathari, though it had been said previously you did well to mention the subject, since it is necessary to follow the custom obtaining in each particular country because of their treating baptism differently. After having at that time threshed out the matter concerning these men, it seems to me that there is nothing further to say in regard to the Pepuzeni. According I was amazed to find that the matter had appealed to great Dionysius in spite of his being canonical. For the older authorities had judged that baptism acceptable which disregarded no point of the faith. Hence they have called some of them heresies, and others schisms, and others again parasynagogues (i.e. conventicles). Heresies is the name applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and curable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves. Parasynagogues is the name applied to gatherings held by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and those held by uneducated laities. As, for instance, when one has been arraigned for a misdemeanor held aloof from liturgy and refused to submit to the Canons, but laid claim to the presidency and liturgy for himself, and some other persons departed with him, leaving the catholic Church--that is a parasynagogue. Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those of the Manichees and Valentinians and Marcionists, and that of these Pepuzeni themselves; for the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed best to those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that on the one hand heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church; as for those on the other hand, who were in parasynagogues, if they have been improved by considerable repentance and are willing to return, they are to be admitted again into the Church, so that often even those who departed in orders with the insubordinates, provided that they manifest regret, may be admitted again to the same rank. As touching the Pepuzeni, therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently blazoned Montanus and Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comforter). They deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are wont to deify themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; according they are thus liable to everlasting condemnation, because of the fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable (Matt. 12:31). What reason, then, is there for approving their baptism, when they are baptizing in (the name of) the Father, the Son, and Montanus and Priscilla? For persons have not been baptized who have been baptized in names that have not been handed down to us by the traditional teaching; so that if this fact has escaped the notice of great Dionysius, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to guard against imitating the mistake. For the abusurdity is self-evident and perspicuous to all who have any share at all of ability to reason even in a small way. As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities--those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian--to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. Inasmuch, however, as it has seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or "economy") to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted. As for the case of the Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime, since as though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appears to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition' actually prevent men from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism. But if they keep our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve the Canons with exactitude. But let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries. I am aware that we have admitted to the chief seat of bishops the brethren in the party of Zonius2 and Satorinus who used to belong to that class. So that we are no longer able to distinguish those who were attached to that order from the Church, as much as to say that as a result of the acceptance of the bishops we have ipso facto made it a canonical obligation to allow them communion.

CANON XCI (91)
      Of the dogmas and preachings kept safely in the Church, we have some from written doctrine, and some from tradition handed down to us by the Apostles we have received in mystery, both of which have the same validity and force as regards the piety (i.e., the religion); accordingly, no one gainsays these, at least no one that has any experience at all in ecclesiastical matters. For if we should undertake to discard the unwritten traditions of customs, on the score that they have no great force, we should unwittingly damage the Gospel in vital parts, and should rather be left with preaching confined to the mere name. Such a custom, for instance (to mention the first and most common one first), is that of sealing or stamping with the sign of the Cross those who have set their hopes in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who has taught it in writing? That of turning towards the east when praying-what writing has taught us to do this? The words uttered in the invocation connected with the exhibition of the Eucharist (ineptly called by Roman Catholics "the elevation of the Host") and of the chalice of the blessing, what Saint has bequeathed them to us? For indeed we are not even content with these, which the Apostle or the Gospel has mentioned, but we add other ones before and after them on the ground that they contribute greatly to enhance the Mystery, which words we have received from unwritten teaching. We bless the water of baptism and the oil of the anointment (or chrism), and in addition thereto even the person being baptized, with reference to what documents? Is it not with reference to silent and mystic tradition? But what else? What written word has taught us the use of the oil in the anointment? And whence comes the idea of baptizing a person three times (in succession)? But, in fact, whatever is connected with baptism, renouncing Satan and his angels, from what Scripture is it? Is it not from this unpublished and confidential teaching which our Fathers have kept as a guarded secret in unmeddlesome and incurious silence, they having rightly enough taught to preserve the respectable parts of the Mysteries in silence? For when it comes to things which the uninitiated were not allowed even to lay eyes on, how could the teaching thereof be expected to triumph if embodied in writing? And not to speak of other things, this was the reason for unwritten tradition, as not having been thoroughly studied, to render knowledge of the dogmas a distasteful subject to the majority of men because of custom. For dogma is a thing that is quite different from preaching. For dogmas can be slurred over in silence, but preaching has to be given publicity. Vagueness of expression too is a sort of silence, much used in Scripture and rendering the sense of the dogmas difficult to grasp for the convenience of those who happen to hit upon it. For the sake of this it is that all of us look eastwards when engaged in prayers; few of us realize that in doing so we are seeking after an ancient fatherland, called Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East (Gen. 2:8). And we stand up when praying on the first of the week, though not all of us know the reason. For it is not only that it serves to remind us that when we have risen from the dead together with Christ we ought to seek the things above, in the day of resurrection of the grace given us, by standing at prayer we remind ourselves, but that it also seems to serve in a way as a picture of the expected age. Wherefore being also the starting-point of days, though not the first with Moses, yet it has been called the first (in Greek, "one"). For, it says, "the evening and the morning were the first (in Greek, "one") day" (Gen. 1:5), on the ground that it returns again and again. The eighth, therefore, is also the first (or "one"), especially as respects that really first and true eighth day, which the Psalmist too has mentioned in some of the superscription of his Psalms (e.g., Ps. 6, Ps. 11), serving to exhibit the state which is to succeed this period of time, the unceasing day, the anhesperous day, the successorless day, the interminable and insenescent age. Necessarily, therefore, the Church educates her foster children to fulfill their obligations to pray therein while standing up, in order by constantly reminding them of the deathless life to prevent them from neglecting the provisions for the journey thither (otherwise known as the viatica). And every Pentecost is a reminder of the expected resurrection in the age to come. For that one first day, being multiplied seven times over, constitutes the seven weeks of the sacred Pentecost (meaning, in Greek, "the Fiftieth Day"). For, by starting from the first (and in accordance with Greek reckoning omitting this), one winds up on the same day, when one comes to the end after counting fifty days evolved by running through the series (thus making forty-nine, or seven weeks in all). Wherefore it is evident that it imitates even an age, precisely as in circular motion by starting from the same points it arrives at the same points in the end, wherein the laws of the Church have educated us to prefer the upright posture at prayer, thus transporting our mind, so to speak, as a result of a vivid and perspicuous suggestion, from the present age to the things to come in the future. And during each genuflection and straightening up again we are actually showing by deeds (i.e., by our actions) that it was through sin that we fell to the earth, and that through the kindness of the One who created us we have been called back to heaven. In fact, a whole day would not suffice me to narrate the unwritten Mysteries of the Church. I leave the rest unsaid. But out of what written works have we obtained the Creed itself, the confession of the faith, the recital of a belief in a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit? if it be from the tradition of baptism, as suggested by regard for the subtle consecution of piety, as we are baptized, so ought we also to believe, and therefore deposit a confession similar to the baptism. Let it be permitted to us in agreement with that same consecution to render glory like faith. But if they insist upon discarding the mode of the doxology on the ground that it is unwritten, let them cede us the confession of the other points in regard to the faith of which we have enumerated the proofs in writing. Finally, seeing that there are so many unwritten ones having such great force in regard to the mystery of the piety (i.e., of the religion), will they not permit us one word come to us from the Fathers? which we have come across still remaining among the unperverted churches as a result of an unaffected custom, having no small reason for its existence, nor contributing any short adjuvance to the power of the Mystery?