Dogmatic teaching about the seven church sacraments in the works of the most ancient fathers and writers of the Church up to and including Origen

The Roman Catholic and Protestant views existing in the West on the historical data for the dogmatic teaching about the seven sacraments of the church, despite all the significant differences between them, however, represent several points of mutual contact. Protestants claim 1 that with the doctrine of the sevenfold number of sacraments, theological thought introduced several new truths that were not given in revelation. In St. Scripture, according to Protestants 2, gives the teaching of only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist. The name sacraments was primarily attached to these two sacred rites at the beginning, although it had a very broad meaning in the ancient church. Gradually, they say, the purity of the apostolic faith in the sacraments was lost, 3 because from a very early time the sacraments began to multiply, although at first rather slowly; the word sacrament (sacramentum = μυστήριον) began to be applied to other sacred rites; Moreover, it retained, however, still a very broad meaning. From time to time, these new sacred rites were sometimes placed on a par with the sacraments given to God, sometimes they were not 4. This continued, according to the Protestants, until, from the time of Augustine, a rapid increase in the sacraments began 5 and they appeared at the beginning of the 11th century. so many 6 that it turned out to be necessary to divide them into classes; The fruit of this classification was that seven sacred rites were finally singled out from the mass of all the sacraments. This last work belongs to the West, namely to the famous scholastic Peter Lombard 7, and from the West this doctrine of the sevenfold number of sacraments was transferred to the East 8. This is a brief summary of the Protestant theory of the formation of the doctrine of the sevenfold number of sacraments, in the complete form in which it has recently received. From this theory it is obvious that Protestants would then have recognized the doctrine of the sevenfold number of sacraments as the permanent teaching of the Church if they had found it expressed by the ancient fathers in the same way as it was expressed later in the Church and is now expressed among us. But doesn't this mean confusing expression with content? Doesn’t this mean taking the side of negative criticism, which, not finding in the first three centuries, regarding the dogmas about the Trinity and the Person of I. Christ, the formulas determined by the ecumenical councils, refuses to recognize in the Church the existence of faith in the trinity of Persons in God with the unity of being, or faith in I. Christ, as a single hypostasis with the duality of natures and wills? Would it really be true that believing Protestants would not have recognized the teachings about the Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ as universal if, for some reason, the formulation of this teaching had occurred several centuries later than it happened? Is it really possible that the relatively late time (12th century), when the formulation of the doctrine of the seven church sacraments was completed, can serve as sufficient grounds for rejecting this doctrine? In our contemporary Protestant historical theory of the education of the doctrine of the sacraments, another drawback is striking. Protestants do not notice a very important contradiction in their theory. Rightly asserting that the word “sacrament”, in the language of the ancient fathers and even after them until Peter Lombard, had a very broad meaning, they, however, base their historical theory of the gradual multiplication of sacraments on when this name is attached to which of the sacred rites. If this word in the meaning of a special term is a later phenomenon, and, therefore, the same is the concept for which it appeared as a term, then is it possible to make any assumptions about its use in the ancient patristic period? If the word μυστήριον = sacramentum, of all the sacraments, was applied most often in antiquity to baptism and the Eucharist, although at the same time this word denotes a lot that is not at all related to the liturgical field, then is this not a sign that the predominant name, in the works of the ancient fathers, of baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments does not have any special meaning? Doesn't this mean that the application of such a name to baptism and the Eucharist in itself, taken separately, does not yet indicate their sacramental meaning, and likewise, its non-application to other sacred rites also does not say anything against the recognition of these latter as organs of grace? Further, if the fluctuation of ancient church terminology forces Protestants to pay attention to how the fathers talk about baptism and the Eucharist, then should not Protestants adhere to the same method of research regarding other sacraments? This, however, they do not do, immediately deciding that the remaining sacraments are not sacraments, just as they do not find the name of the sacraments adopted by all of them from the very beginning, but add them to the two sacraments gradually, as this name is applied to them. Roman Catholics also admit something similar when using historical evidence about the sacraments. Against Protestants, they usually try to present, regarding each of the sacraments, such evidence in which the word sacrament would appear and mainly try to collect such places in greater number and ancient in time. True, they cite a lot of other, very diverse data to confirm the doctrine of this or that sacrament, as a sacrament; but at the same time they still sell special meaning to those places in which the name of this or that sacred rite is found as a sacrament. To explain the fact that in the works of the fathers there is neither a formula for the sevenfold number of sacraments, nor even (among many fathers) the name of most sacraments as sacraments, they point to the disciplina arcani and through this make it clear that, in their opinion, the fathers attached μυστήριον = sacramentum to the sacraments in the same sense as we do, but they just did not want, for special reasons, to speak before everyone, exactly how many Christian sacraments there are and what kind of sacraments Christians have. Recently, some Roman Catholics have been trying to abandon this approach, as shown by Grene's work 9 . The author of this work, having set out to trace the use of the word sacramentum in the works of the Western fathers up to and including Augustine 10, comes to the conclusion that this word in the patristic language had a very wide and varied meaning. But Grene also attaches more importance than it should to the assimilation of this name to the sacraments; in his opinion, the fathers, by the way, through the very application of this word to some of the sacraments, expressed the idea of ​​​​the presence in these sacred rites of a special grace, sanctifying a person through sensory signs. These are the two dominant views in the West on the subject under consideration, which owe their origin to the characteristic features of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics, by their inherent tendency to confuse the temporal with the eternal, the changeable with the unchangeable. they try to equate the very form that the doctrine of the sacraments received over time, to the degree of teaching given - from the very beginning of the existence of the Church - in tradition, but until time preserved in disciplina arcani. Protestants, too, although they hold a completely different view on this subject, but, in agreement with Catholics, look at the later form of the doctrine of the sacraments not as a form, but as a new element that introduces something supposedly essential into the content of faith, in a word, as a new dogma, a new teaching that was not previously in the consciousness of the church or tradition. Thus, despite all the differences, both are similar to each other in that they do not distinguish, but mix the form into the content of the revealed teaching about the sacraments. It seems to us that only the Orthodox East can treat with all scientific rigor the historical data relating to the subject under consideration, without compromising faith in the sacraments, without hiding anything and without allowing obvious exaggerations, like the Roman West, and at the same time without going so far as to reject the sevenfold number of sacraments, like the Protestants. He can do this thanks to the beginning of his religious life - Orthodoxy, which contains all the conditions for reconciling the requirements of faith with the requirements of science. Orthodoxy gives its place and meaning to both the divine and the human - without deifying the natural, the human, like Catholicism, and without expelling the human, which cannot supposedly be in union with the divine, without violating the holiness and purity of the latter, like Protestantism - and therefore it makes it possible to illuminate with full, true light the historical fate of the septenary teaching on the sacraments. Strictly distinguishing form from content in the doctrine of the sacraments, considering the formula and the very term “sacrament” to be an external, insignificant side of dogma, allowing changes until a certain time, subject to the laws of historical-dogmatic revelation, and the sacraments themselves and the Church’s view of them or the known church teaching about them as the divinely revealed content of church tradition 11, the theologian of the Eastern Church can admit without prejudice to faith and - as it seems to us - to historical truth is the following look at historical data related to the doctrine of the sevenfold number of sacraments. The same thing could happen with the dogmatic doctrine of the sacraments as with other points of Christian doctrine 12 . And with these latter, for example, with the doctrine of St. Trinity, it was the following. In the Orthodox Church, this teaching has always existed, in all the volume of its constituent parts, without however, until a certain time, concentrating all divinely revealed private thoughts in such precise and brief provisions and terms that came into use in the 4th century; These are the formulas concerning the doctrine of unity in essence and differences in persons, as well as the terms themselves: ούσία, ύπόστασις, όμοου̃σιος, etc. The same was true with the doctrine of the Person of I. Christ as the God-man. And this teaching, undoubtedly always existing in the Church of Christ in all parts that make up its volume, until a certain time was not, however, formulated in a few precise provisions that exhaust the entire teaching about the Person of the God-Man and the conventional terms in which it was clothed during the period of the ecumenical councils. In order for both teachings to receive such a form, it was necessary for revealed truths to go through a certain period of formal activity of the minds of the fathers and teachers of the church, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, which protected their minds from the admixture of human ideas with the content of the revealed faith. And the Church, having accepted the results of their theology and expressing these results in brief formulas and terms that were either not previously used at all or were not only in general use, without any doubt, did not change anything in the essence of the God-given teaching, did not introduce anything essentially new into it, but only expressed its eternal teaching in a new way. If we have no doubt that this was the case with the teaching about St. The Trinity and the Person of I. Christ, then is it not permissible to think that exactly the same thing happened with the doctrine of the sacraments? At present, your doctrine of the sacraments is completely formulated; we say: “there are seven sacraments of the church,” and the word “sacrament” becomes a conventional term with which a certain meaning is connected. This term is for us a general concept that unites four particular dogmatic thoughts, namely: 1) that in certain sacred rites certain, specific 13 gifts of grace are brought down to believers, 2) that these gifts are given through the visible side, a sensory element or sacred action, and not directly by God himself, so that grace in the sacrament is closely connected with its visible side 14 3) that such methods of communicating grace to believers are established by God himself and are provided for execution by special, designated persons (church hierarchy) and 4) that there are only seven such ways of bringing down known gifts of grace to believers, no more and no less. In all these particular features, sacraments differ from rites, 15 and all these private thoughts are now expressed with one word: sacrament. As soon as we say that the Church has sacraments and that we believe in the sacraments of the church, we thereby imagine all these four thoughts, which for us are the content that fills the concept of “sacrament.” Thus, the word “sacrament” is for us a conventional term, a general form, a general sign designating what is contained in it and under it. We are now so accustomed to this expression in one word of a whole series of honest concepts and ideas that we find it difficult to imagine that this would never have happened. We are inclined to think that this has always been the case in ancient times. Meanwhile, it is possible to imagine that such a method of summarizing many private thoughts in one general concept about the word corresponding to this concept may not have existed before until a certain time, although all private thoughts and ideas about the sacraments have always been in the consciousness of the Church, just as we have seen in the history of other dogmas. Thoughts and ideas could not exist as generalized ones, just as the very objects they touched existed. Thoughts could have the nature of specific ideas about each of the objects separately, that is, about each of the seven sacraments, as the highest sacred act, giving special grace in a sensual sign or image, and therefore rising above other liturgical actions - as about a sacred act established by God and, by virtue of both, requiring special grace-filled powers to perform it. Further, thoughts and ideas about the sacraments could have the character of not only specific and individual ideas, but also a certain connection and generalization; but this generalization could have a slightly different character; it could stem from special, very diverse points of view. Each of the known seven sacred rites, like every object in the world, could be considered from very many sides and represent from these sides points of contact with the most diverse objects, and therefore have something in common with the latter and therefore could be brought, together with them, under one general concept. It is possible that the ancient fathers could find a connection between some of the sacraments, looking at them not from the point of view of what is common between all seven sacred rites, as we now look, but from the point of view of the connection that exists between some of the sacraments according to the time of their performance or in some other respects. So, for example, the sacraments could be grouped as follows: 1) baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, 2) marriage and Eucharist, 3) repentance and Eucharist, 4) priesthood and repentance, 5) repentance and consecration of oil. The first, second and third groups represent the combination of the sacraments according to the time they were performed, the fourth - according to the simultaneous establishment of them by the Lord themselves, the fifth - according to the nature of both sacraments (repentance and consecration of oil). This is an example of a generalization operating within very narrow limits. But generalizations are possible that have very wide limits, including a huge number of objects. It is possible, for example, to look at the sacraments and at everything that the Christian faith represents in itself, from the point of view of mystery and incomprehensibility and sanctification in general, and then the sacraments will stand alongside a multitude of such objects with which they have little in common, except for this most common feature. Thus, in the church, the generalization of the sacraments up to a certain time could be either too narrow or too broad. Accordingly, the expressions attached to the sacraments, μυστήριον = sacramentum, could have either a too narrow or too broad meaning, but in any case different from the one in which we now use the word sacrament. Meanwhile, at the same time, all seven church sacraments could exist in church practice, and these sacraments could be understood precisely as sacraments, in the meaning that we give them now. The entire difference between the ancient fathers and us, in this respect, could depend solely on the fact that the fathers did not take our point of view. In order to unite all seven sacred rites under one general concept, for this you need to exclusively focus your attention on them alone and, moreover, on all of them, compare one with the other, take what is similar between them and give this similarity one name, which would mean only this and not another. The church fathers could not have asked themselves such tasks, and therefore they naturally could not have taken the point of view that the theologians of subsequent times took. But is this view of historical reality correct? Of course, only a thorough, comprehensive study of the works of the church fathers and writers can lead to a completely scientific solution to this question; At the same time, the dogmatist historian must constantly keep in mind the following main questions: 1. Was there a general concept of sacrament in the ancient Church, as a concept formed by generalizing all the sacraments, abstracting from them the features and properties common to all of them and combining them into one whole? 2. Does the word μυστήριον = sacramentum in the language of the ancients have the meaning of a term expressing this concept? If there was neither one nor the other, then 3. whether in the most ancient period of the existence of the Church there were all the data for the formation of the general concept of the sacraments, or - in other words - whether each of the seven sacred rites was considered established by God, from the very beginning of the Church of Christ, containing grace in a sensual sign or image, left to be performed by special persons (hierarchy) and therefore was considered a sacrament, despite the fact that it was not subsumed, together with other sacred rites, under one general concept, which is why the formula did not appear until a certain time: “There are seven sacraments of the church”? As a guide for himself, in solving all these questions, the historical dogmatist finds the following, far from rich, literature devoted to the study of the sacraments in the indicated direction. Something similar to our formulation of dogmatic questions about the sacraments is a new phenomenon even in the West, dating there to very recent times. The above-mentioned formulation of the study requires, as an indispensable condition for itself, three things: tranquility in the study, a strictly historical method of studying the subject, and focusing exclusively on dogmatic goals, with the elimination of all other goals: liturgical and canonical. Meanwhile, the polemics between Roman Catholics and Protestants for a long time had a passionate character, which prevented both sides from engaging in a calm and comprehensive study of the subject; she was in too much of a hurry to stock up on weapons to use them against her enemy. And then, although they referred to historical evidence, a strictly historical method of research was not the predominant method in the works of people who wrote about the sacraments until recently. Moreover, since the sacraments, in addition to the dogmatic one, represent several other sides (liturgical and canonical), related to the first one, and having in a certain respect important significance, and since each of these sides presents many questions for research, 16 the joint solution of all these particular questions on all three sides could not but harm the thoroughness of the study of each individual issue and each of the three sides, including the dogmatic one. For all the above reasons, all the numerous works that treat the sacraments and have appeared before the present century - starting with the famous work of Bellarmine, who dedicated the whole volume 17 to the sacraments and the remarkable work of Arcudius, who in the 17th century. published a large work on the sacraments 18 - with all its, in many respects, great merits, it cannot be counted among special, historical-dogmatic literature; they constitute a completely different kind of literature; they can learn the name of dogmatic-liturgical-canonical-polemical works. In the present century, thanks to very many circumstances, the polemical methods of Protestants have changed quite significantly, and after them the methods of Roman Catholic theologians begin to change. Both begin to show much more sobriety, restraint and solidity in their arguments and judgments about the sacraments. This change is most noticeable among Protestants. In a significant part of the Protestant world, since the 20s of this century, under the influence of various circumstances, the conservative trend has been strengthening, which reveals a desire to restore much that was rejected by the reformers of the 16th century. The fruit of this trend was: Puseyism in England and various kinds of reactionary movements in the field of church life in Protestant Germany. In Puseyism, the desire of English Protestantism manifested itself to renounce the very beginnings of Protestantism - from the recognition of a single justifying faith and a single source of faith, to restore the authority of the Church, hierarchy, church tradition and the objective meaning of the sacraments, together with the recognition of a greater number of sacraments as sacraments than had hitherto been recognized by the Protestant world, so that Newman was even ready to allow a sevenfold number of sacraments, although with some restrictions regarding the three sacraments: priesthood, marriage and consecration of oil, which he considered not entirely sacraments. A reaction was found in less drastic forms among German Protestantism. Here it expressed itself in a deep feeling of dissatisfaction with the structure of church life in Protestant societies. By our time, for the best people among Protestants, the bitter fruits of Protestant subjectivism, free-thinking and unlimited arbitrariness in doctrine, in liturgical practice and in church discipline have become very noticeable. At the same time, there was a desire to soften somewhat the principles of Protestantism: to limit the doctrine of a single justifying faith, to raise the authority of tradition, church symbols and beliefs, to revive worship through a setting more appropriate to human needs. Thus, along with the strengthening of unbelieving free-thinking and religious indifference, the Old Lutheran trend is strengthening in Germany, which is closer to Protestantism of all previous times than Roman Catholicism, so that people who are averse to it, with a significant degree of justice, call it katholisirende. After all this, it is not surprising that in the Protestant world many began to treat the Roman Church, its teachings and institutions not only with greater tolerance, but in some cases even with a significant amount of respect, they began to more carefully than before not only criticize, as before, but also study its teachings and institutions. Among such institutions are the sacraments, when studying the historical fate of which the newest Protestants try, from their own point of view, to explain the origin of their sevenfold number through natural historical development, while revealing a significant amount of restraint in judgment and trying to put the solution to the question on a strictly scientific basis. In this case, the very method of research, historical-dogmatic, which is included in all branches of theological knowledge in our time, had a moderating influence on Protestants. He also contributed to a more scientific, strictly dogmatic formulation of the question; he prompted Protestants to trace historically when and under what circumstances a certain sacred rite was elevated, in their opinion, to the level of a sacrament, and was added to the first two sacraments. This method of research very naturally led to a break with the previous dogmatic headings, among which there were many headings that were not strictly dogmatic in nature. To resolve the above question, Protestant scholars naturally had to focus exclusively on what is essential in the concept of sacrament, leaving aside what non-dogmatic sacraments represent. This concentration of attention exclusively on the dogmatic side of the doctrine of the sacraments had another not unimportant consequence. Monitoring whether the church fathers had exactly the same concept of all seven sacraments as is associated with this term at the present time, and whether this general concept was attributed to private sacred rites, the newest Western scientists, especially Protestants, had to wonder: what scope did the word μυστήριον = sacramentum used by the fathers have, and the study of the use of this word in patristic literature introduced learned theologians to the field philological penalties. What exactly has Western scientists done regarding the study of the subject under consideration - in this new direction, in the near future, precisely in this century? Not everything has been done yet; Moreover, there is still a lot left to be desired, even in order to be able to say that at least the main thing has been achieved. For now, at least for the first time, we have some philological research regarding the use of the word sacramentum by the Latin Church Fathers, but Western literature has almost nothing to show for it in relation to the study of the word μυστήριον in its use by the Greek Fathers. There are two studies specifically devoted to studying the sense in which the word sacramentum is used by the Latin fathers. One of them belongs to the Protestant Aug. Hanu has a journal article, 19 and another for Grenet, a Roman Catholic, and presents a separate brochure, 20, but both of these studies do not bring the study of this subject to the end. However, some replenishment in this case can be made in the work of another Protestant writer (not, however, specifically dedicated to this philological goal), G. L. Gan, a review of the use of sacramentum among the Latin fathers and writers, from Augustine to the Council of Trent 21. As for the use of the word μυστήριον and others related to it in the works of the Greek fathers, Western scientists have not presented a single, even small, treatise on this part. They touch on this subject only in passing, in passing, precisely when they talk about sacramentum, comparing this latter with the Greek μυστήριον and reporting the most general information about the use of the latter, supported by an extremely limited number and, moreover, random passages from the paternal works of the Greek East. As for the other, more significant side of the dogmatic study of the sacraments, namely, the extent to which Western scientists have developed, in relation to the new formulation of the question, the history of fatherly views and concepts about the sacraments, regardless of the history of terminology, here we will find an even more noticeable lack and large gaps in Western literature. Neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics have presented a single thorough and complete study of the patristic views on all seven sacraments. The Protestants, for their part, gave only general outlines of the gradual, as they put it, development - in the pre-scholastic period - of the concept of sacrament and the increase in the number of sacraments. We find such essays in the works of G. A. Gan, who, in addition to a rather large treatise (mentioned several times above), devoted a separate brochure to this subject 22). Steitz's article 23 presents a similar essay. In all these essays, there can be no talk of a detailed study of the fatherly teaching on all seven sacraments; Yes, it would be strange for a Protestant to demand research into the existence of which he denies. Another thing is the scholastic period, among which Protestant theologians find the origin of the doctrine of the sevenfold number of sacraments. This period may seem to the Protestant worthy of detailed study from the point of view of dogmatic views. This explains the phenomenon that even now we have a completely detailed presentation of the views of the scholastics, exclusively, of course, Western, since the medieval period of the Greek East is generally little studied by Westerners, and in relation to this issue has hitherto remained untouched. If Protestant scholars have not done much work in this respect, then Roman Catholic scholars have done no more. It is remarkable that the latter did not oppose to the Protestant essays similar essays on the historical fate of the dogmatic teaching on the sacraments from the Roman Catholic point of view, with the exception of an insignificant entry in the lexicon of Wetzer and Welte 24 . A comparatively quite informative presentation of dogmatic data concerning the sacraments during the period of the first eight centuries must be recognized as those sections of the history of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Schwane 25 that relate to this subject. But, no matter how thorough the author of this work tried to be, he necessarily had to focus his attention only on particularly outstanding historical evidence, since his work has a very broad task. It would be possible to mention here also the work of Probst 26 - although it covers the period of only the first three centuries - if this work did not pursue primarily liturgical goals, was more concerned with solving dogmatic issues and was less subject to the influence of old methods of research. Thus, the sum of the paternal dogmatic teaching on all seven sacraments is far from being made known, through careful historical and dogmatic research, in Western theological literature of modern times. Regarding individual sacraments, this literature represents more valuable historical and dogmatic research, but here too we encounter large gaps. Western attention was not equally focused on all the sacraments. A very limited number of monographs in modern times have been devoted to the historical and dogmatic study of most of the seven church sacraments, so we can point out very few works of this kind, and, moreover, they are far from remarkable. These are the works belonging to: the Roman Catholics Kle 27 and Furtner 28, the Old Catholic Watterich 29 and the Protestant Steitz 30. All these works, each of which is dedicated to one of the three sacraments (or marriage, or repentance, or the priesthood), are far from major works. To this we must add short sketches of dogmatic data for the history of one or another sacrament, placed in Protestant and Roman Catholic encyclopedias. In recent times, more historical and dogmatic monographs, which are also of considerable value, have been devoted to the sacrament of the Eucharist 31 . True, in some of these works a relatively small number of passages from the fatherly works are cited, and these passages are even less carefully examined and properly explained, such as the works of Meyer 32, Rudelbach 33, Ebrard 34. But for that, others present more paternal passages and a more thorough analysis of them; although for the most part they suffer from tendentiousness, and in many cases from insufficiently careful study of their father’s creations, such are Rückert 35, Dellinger 36, Kanis 37, Geffling 38. In our opinion, the best of all these works, in terms of scientific merit, is Leimbach's recently published brochure 39 and is devoted to the study of some passages related to the Eucharist in the works of Tertullian. This work, despite its small volume and the narrowest task, with its truly scientific techniques and study of the subject to its last foundations, stands out sharply from the field of all the latest historical and dogmatic literature related to the sacraments; at the same time, it reflects, like a mirror, the weaknesses of German theologians, with their haste in judgments, with a lack of careful study of the fathers, with their characteristic, despite this, amazing courage and decisiveness in judgments; At the same time, we are not talking about religious tendencies, which they declared as a shortcoming, which even Leimbach is not alien to. This is the situation in the West with regard to the processing of the dogmatic department on the sacraments at the request of a strictly historical method of research. Literature of this kind is only just emerging there; it is very insignificant not only in quantity, but also in quality, in comparison with historical-dogmatic literature in other departments of dogmatics, especially in the sections on the Trinity and the Person of I. Christ, which represent a very thorough treatment, in historical-dogmatic terms, and even major works of this kind, such as the well-known work, for example, by Dorner on the Person of I. Christ, and others. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that our domestic theological literature has not yet managed to present anything on its side that corresponds to the new formulation of dogmatic research on the sacraments. It is true that we have several works 40 devoted to this subject, but they do not belong to the new type of historical-dogmatic literature that is being discussed, although some of them have their merits. Given this state of literature on our chosen subject, we could not take the trouble to present a complete, complete history of the gradual disclosure and formulation of dogmatic teaching about all seven church sacraments in the works of church fathers and writers, Eastern and Western, until the 17th century. in the east and until the same time in the west. Such work at present could hardly be properly accomplished by the efforts of one person. We could not, having somewhat narrowed the scope of the study, take for ourselves the entire patristic period up to the time of scholasticism, since in that case the subject of our work would still be too broad; we would have to study more than a hundred of our fathers' creations. We have limited our task to the works of the church fathers and writers of the first two and a half centuries up to Origen inclusive; but even in such a limited form, fulfilling the research task presented great difficulties. We considered ourselves obliged to carefully study the dogmatic teaching of the fathers and church writers of the indicated time about all seven church sacraments and the ways of expressing this teaching in their works. At the same time, the main goal of the study was to collect as much data as possible for the dogmatic teaching about the sacraments from the patristic works of the time under consideration, than is usually given in the works existing in the West and in our country on this subject, to subject these data to the most careful analysis, to put them in connection with each other, to understand the general point of view taken by the ancient fathers and writers of the church when they discussed the sacraments in general and each one separately, and equally, to show what determined the peculiarities in the disclosure of the teaching on a given subject by one or another ancient father and church writer, to correctly understand, if possible, their mode of expression, which is different from our modern language, to trace what scope their concept of sacrament had. Fulfilling all these requirements is not easy if you set out to understand the ancient writer from his own works, and not impose on him your thoughts and way of expression, as Protestants and Roman Catholics mostly do, - if you try to present - fully, in connection and with careful analysis - what relates to the disclosure (in those cases, of course, when this disclosure exists) of the doctrine of all seven sacraments in the works of the fathers, and not to cite only some of their positions and places, fragmentarily and without analysis or with a more or less light commentary on them, as is constantly (with the smallest exceptions) found in the latest Western literature on this subject, in a word, if you carefully and independently study the fatherly works from the point of view of their dogmatic content and the way of expressing this content. We set ourselves these goals in our essay; they strived for the feasible implementation of all this; and therefore we could not expand the scope of our topic, especially since we took for the historical-dogmatic essay not just one sacrament, but all seven sacraments, which extremely complicated the work of fulfilling the proposed tasks and goals of the essay. We consider it necessary to note that we quote all fatherly works exclusively from the Migne edition – Patrologiae cursus completus. In conclusion of our preliminary remarks, let us say a few words about the method and order of presentation of the subjects of research. In order to make the fact more clear and convincing that in the works of the fathers, even from such an early period as the period of the first three centuries, there is not so little data for the doctrine of the sacraments, as Protestants try to present it, and as it seems on the basis of more or less superficial studies of even Roman Catholic theologians, we will try to present what relates to the dogmatic teaching about all seven sacraments in the works of the most ancient fathers of the church, in a consistent manner succession of the fathers, and not in the order of the points of dogmatic teaching. This method of presenting historical-dogmatic material has recently begun to come into use in historical-dogmatic works in the West. The advantages of this method are its convenience for the analysis of paternal sites and the fact that it contributes to the rigor and impartiality of the study. In view of the peculiarities of the mindset and language of one or another father, much is clarified through a cumulative presentation in a row of all the thoughts related to a given subject, which is especially important in such a complex subject of study as the doctrine of the seven sacraments. Further, this technique contributes to the rigor and impartiality of scientific research, not allowing the gaps existing in one father, regarding this or that point of dogmatic teaching, to be filled in by borrowing from the works of another father, which again is of particular importance for the subject of our research. It seems to us that the truth of the Orthodox belief in the sevenfold number of sacraments will find through such a presentation more obvious and more scientific confirmation than with another method of presentation. It goes without saying that from the works of the fathers and writers of the church we will take to study the works only those persons whose works represent a significantly extensive volume and content in relation to the issues that concern us 41, and therefore the subject of our study will be the works of the following fathers: I. The Apostolic Men, II. St. Justin Martyr, III. St. Irenea, IV. Clement of Alexandria, V. Origen, VI. Tertullian and VII. St. Cyprian. We preface the presentation of the dogmatic teaching about the sacraments in the works of these fathers and church writers with several comments about the degree of disclosure and formulation of the dogmatic teaching about the sacraments in St. Scripture and about the circumstances that determined both in the first three centuries. At the end of the work, in the form of an appendix, we present an analysis of the teachings of Dionysius the Areopagite on the sacraments, as well as evidence in which the septenary number of the sacraments appears for the first time. In this case, we mean the historical-dogmatic theory of the Protestants in its complete and complete form in which it appeared recently, mainly in the work of Hahn: G. L. Hahn - Sacramenten in іhrer geschichtl. Entwicklung innerhalb der abendländ. Kirche bis zum Concil von Trient. Bresl. 1864 (p. 79–133). In this case, we do not mean extreme Protestants, like Steitz (Herzog-Real-Encycl. Sacramente), who argues that the concept of “sacrament,” even when applied to baptism and the Eucharist, is in its very essence not a biblical, but a theological concept, supposedly transferred to Christian rites from the pagan mysteries. We touch on Steitz's view only in those cases when we are talking about the Greek East, to which Hahn does not pay attention. According to Hahn, the entire history of the septenary number of sacraments can be divided into four periods. The first period is before Augustine; the second period - from Augustine to the end of the 10th century; period three - before Peter Lombard; period four - from Peter Lombard to the Council of Trent. See Hahn, p. 79. According to this Protestant view, until the end of the 4th century. the use of the word sacramentum was very extensive and varied, but nevertheless, this name was applied to some sacred rites over others, namely baptism and the Eucharist. The dominant view was that there are only two sacraments (all Greek fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose); nevertheless, even in this period, preparations were being made for an increase in the number of sacraments through the adoption of church rites among them, although when enumerating the sacraments they were not named and were far from putting them on a par with baptism and the Eucharist. This is the laying on of hands, which from the time of Tertullian began to strive for independence and finally received it from Rome. ep. Melchiades (†314), and the washing of feet - in the time of Ambrose, recognized as a sacrament, however, only in the Mediolan church. This increase in the number of sacraments, according to Protestants (Han), began with Augustine. Augustine usually mentions two sacraments, but in one place he speaks of more of them, and in some places he clearly adds to the two sacraments a third one - anointing, although he does not attribute to it the character of a sacrament. Of the other writers of this period (IV-XI centuries), some list two sacraments, others three (baptism, Eucharist and confirmation, even more separated from baptism), and the third two sacraments are called priority sacraments, without indicating which sacraments they classify as non-preferential. However, during this period, not only three sacraments are mentioned, and not a small number of other sacred rites are called sacraments and even in the proper sense; only they do not yet dare to put them on a par with the above-mentioned three sacraments. These include: 1) the sacraments of the catechumens, i.e. various rites performed over the catechumens (the sign of the cross, anointing the ears and nostrils with saliva, blessing ashes and sprinkling them on the catechumens, blessing salt and receiving it by the catechumens, incantation and anointing with exorcism oil), 2) initiation of clergy, 8) anointing of kings, 4) anointing of the sick, which was at first a rite of one Roman church, but reached universal recognition in the 8th century, 5) the substance itself: water, oil, myrrh, bread and wine, salt, candles, etc., 6) repentance, which, if not completely became a sacrament, was at least being prepared to become one, 7) marriage. According to Steitz (Herzog-Real-Encycl. XIII Sacramente), the first impetus for the multiplication of the sacraments was given by the Greek church in the person of the writer of the 6th century. Dionysius the Areopagite, who counted among the sacraments and his imitator in the 9th century. Theodora Studite. So. arr., according to Hahn, the number of sacred rites and objects bearing the name of sacraments increased more and more during this period, although they also made a distinction between them, placing baptism, the Eucharist and confirmation in the foreground. See Hahn. r. 79–100. Most writers of this time (11th–12th centuries), according to Hahn, cite a long series of sacraments, without making any distinction between them. Many name a certain number, but no one agrees with the other either in the number or in determining which sacraments should constitute this number. The total number of sacraments during this period ranged from 5 to 12 or more. Everything that at that time bore the name of sacraments can be divided into five classes: 1) all those church actions through which, in accordance with the prevailing view, grace, power and rights are communicated, 2) all those actions through which a soulless object is consecrated for church use, 3) the very objects consecrated by the bishop and priest, 4) all liturgical rites and ceremonies in general, and finally 5) much more, which have little in common with each other, except for their mystical nature or the power to forgive sins (repentance, confession, faith, martyrdom, marriage). Of all these, the majority recognized as sacraments: the sacrament of catechumens, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, repentance, confession or resolution, consecration of presbyters and lower clergy, consecration of bishops, consecration of churches, anointing of the sick with oil, marriage and washing of feet. (Hahn. pp. 101–106). According to the Protestant theory we are presenting, the sevenfold number of sacraments was not found before Peter Lombard, and none of his contemporaries accepted this number, so he remained alone in this regard, and even after him until Alexander Gales (†1245), although this number attracted great attention, it did not, however, receive universal recognition and was not considered a dogma. Thus, Peter Lombard is the inventor (Erfinder) of the sevenfold number of sacraments, which completely corresponds to the position that he occupied in the development of dogmas, since, even if he did not discover creativity in this regard, he did not treat dogmas exclusively receptively, but became critical of the dogmatic material, compared authorities, and then independently, for the most part with true tact, formed his own opinion. What prompted P. Lombard to develop this question of the sacraments? First of all, the common desire of all scholastics is clarity and certainty. It was necessary to define the concept of “sacrament”; but the definition of this concept is closely connected with the definition of what should be considered a sacrament; It turned out to be necessary to do this first of all. The distinction between the sacraments and their division into classes was not completely unknown to some of the earlier writers (Hugo Saint-Victor, Abelard, Hugo Rouensky, Hero of Reichersberg). Secondly, the rejection by heretics of many sacraments accepted by the church naturally prompted the teachers of the Western Church to agree among themselves regarding the number of sacraments obligatory for everyone. At the same time, it is not at all strange that they did not return to the number of sacraments of the ancient Church, to the recognition of only two sacraments. “The reason for such undeniable inconsistency,” Hahn notes, “obviously lies in the strength of church tradition, thanks to which many sacred rites gradually acquired equal importance with baptism and the Eucharist.” Tradition, obviously, revealed even greater power than the concept. The scholastics allowed themselves, both in general and in this case, to define themselves in activity through the concept as much as possible, without completely breaking the connection with tradition). But, Gan asks himself, why, in this case, are not accepted among the sacraments, instead of repentance, priesthood, marriage and consecration of oil, other sacred rites, namely the sacrament of catechumens, the washing of yoga, the consecration of churches and the consecration of bishops, “who in church tradition stood at the same height”? They were not recognized as sacraments due to attention not to their nature, since the seven sacraments accepted by Lombard do not represent unity in nature (marriage and repentance compared with other sacraments), but for reasons, as it seems, often external. It is most likely that Lombard accepted among the sacraments those for which more authoritative people happened to speak out and regarding which, therefore, there was least possible fear of objections. It is difficult to say for sure by what authorities he was guided in this case. One can only guess that he compared the views and opinions of: Abelard, Hugo S. Victor and Rob. Pullein on the number of sacraments and in this way developed his own view. Moreover, the number seven has long enjoyed special significance and respect. As for the later adoption of the septenary number by later scholastics, it is explained by the significance that Lombard’s dogma received, which served as the basis for all further dogmatic works (ibid. pp. 107–119). Gan, who is exclusively occupied with the Western, does not say anything about the Eastern Church, and therefore we supplement his theory from the writings of other Protestants. “There is no doubt,” says Steitz, that in the catalog of Job (a 13th-century monk) the influence on the Eastern Church of the Western Church, which, in terms of the number of sacraments, ended a century earlier, is declared, while the Greek in the 13th century. sought completion for itself, as is shown by the difference (in determining which sacraments should constitute the number seven) presented by Job.” (Herzog – Real-Encycl. XIII). The Western Church had an influence on the Eastern Church, according to Perrone (Praelect. theol. t. II, p. 1, p. 15), through Latin missionaries, who from the 12th century. dispersed throughout the countries of the East. The Western septenary number of sacraments was finally approved at the Council of Florence amid negotiations on the union of churches (Hagenbach-Dogmengesch. 8 AufI. 1853, p. 448). The Council of Florence tried to induce (Marheineke-Symbolik. Berlin. 1848, p. 168) the Greeks to accept the sevenfold number of sacraments. Therefore, notes Steitz (Herz. R. Enc.), when Cle and others rely on the agreement of the Greeks with the Latins about the sevenfold number of sacraments, it turns out that these writers in this case are making too subtle an argument. All this, however, does not prevent the same Steitz from saying that “the course of development of the Greek Church in the Byzantine period has been studied too little to be able to clearly trace the continuity of this development in all dogmas” (ibid). V. Gröne-Sacramentum oder Begriff und Bedeutung in der alten Kirche bis zum Scholastic. Brilon. 1853. Without being concerned with the content of the teaching of the fathers on the sacraments, he focuses his attention on its external side, namely on the word sacramentum. See a more detailed discussion of these two sides of dogma in our article: “On the historical presentation of dogma” (Chronicle Thu. 1871. May). Grene also refers to this analogy (p. 24), but in the most general terms, without a detailed designation of the most particular features of similarity in the historical disclosure of the doctrine of the sacraments with a similar disclosure of the doctrine of other dogmas, while in these details lies the power and significance of such an analogy. See Dogma. God. Philaret Ave., §234. Right there. The same idea is expressed by the Last. east Patr. about faith (Part 15), when he says that “the sacraments are not only signs of God’s promises, but are instruments that necessarily act by grace on those who approach them.” Rituals, as distinguished from sacraments, can be defined as follows. They 1) are only signs of God’s grace; Through them, grace does not necessarily act on a person, in other words, grace is not necessarily connected with them. 2) If God gives grace to a person participating in rituals, then this grace does not have the character of a private, specific type of sanctification of a person. 3) Not all rituals were established by Christ the Savior himself and the Apostles. 4) There are many rituals. Thus, what is denied in relation to the sacraments is applicable to rituals. This includes all the headings that deal with who and how exactly this or that sacrament is performed, and what is required of those approaching it. So eg. into the dogmatic treatise on baptism, discussions about immersion and pouring, and much like that were introduced. In the treatise on Confirmation, they discussed a lot about the identity of the celebrant of the sacrament (bishop or presbyter) and the time of its performance (over an infant or an adult), etc. In the treatise on the Eucharist, they talked about the properties of bread (leavened or unleavened), about the method of communion (under two or one type), etc. Also in the treatises about other sacraments. Bellarmini – De controversiis Christianae fidei, t. Venet. MDCCXI. Petri Arcudii – Libri VII de concordia Ecclesiae occidentalis et orientalis in septem sacramentorum administratione. Lutet. Paris. DC. XXVI. Aug. Hahn – Sacrament in Sinne der alten Kirche (Theologisch-hirchl. Annalen, – herausg. von A. Hahn, Bresl. 1842. 1 Band, S. 75–105, 157–185). Val.Gröne – Sacramentum oder Begriff und Bedeutung in der alten Kirche bis zur Scholastic. Brilon. 1853. The author, however, does not bring his study to scholasticism, but ends it with Augustine. G. L. Hahn in several chapters (I, II, VI Abschn.) of his work: Die Lehre von den Sacramenten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung innerhalb der abenländischen Kirche bis zum Concil von Trient. Bresl. 1864. Georg. Lud. Hahn – Doctrinae Romanae de numero sacramentorum septenario rationes historicae. Vratisl. 1859. A very small brochure (66 pages), which is more of a summary than a detailed essay. Bittner wrote a refutation against this work (Bittner - Epistola critica, quam ad Georgium Ludovicum Hahnium scripsit Franciscus Antonius Bittner. Vratisl. 1859), where he proves that Tertullian already mentions seven sacraments (De Praescr. P.40). Herzog - Real-Encycl. (Sacramente – Steitz). Wetzer und Welte – Kirchen-Lexicon. V. IX. J. Schwane – Dogmengeschichte der vornicänischen Zeit. Munst. 1862. – Patristischen Zeit (325–787 Jahr.). Munst. 1869. J. Probst – Sacramente und Sacramentalien in der drei ersten christ. Jahrhunderten. Tubing. 1872. Klee – Die Ehe; eine dogmatisch-archälogische Abhandlung. Mainz. 1833. It has the character of a semi-dogmatic and semi-archaeological monograph and is distinguished by old methods of research, like Dogmatics of the same author. Furner – Das Vorhältniss der Bischofsweihe zum heil. Sacramente des Ordo. Munich. 1861. Given its small volume, outlining the entire history of the subject, this work cannot be called a thorough study. Watterich – Die Ehe, ihr Ursprung, ihr Wesen in ihre Weihe nach Gottes Wort und That. Nordl. 1876. While dealing with the biblical period itself, this work provides very little data for the church period. G. Steitz – Das romische Buszsacrament nach sein. bibl. Grunde u. seiner geschichtl. Entwicklung. Francf. a M. 1854. Despite its significant content and new method, this work is imbued with extreme negative views. We do not point to the literature on baptism, since numerous works of this kind are not so much dogmatic as liturgical in nature. The best is recognized as Höffling’s – Das Sacrament der Taufe, dogm. hist. u. liturg. dargestellt. Erlang. 1859. I u. II Bde. Meier – Vérsuch einer Geschichte d. Transubstantionslehre. Heilb. 1832. Rudelbach – Die Sacrament-Worte, oder vesentl. Stücke d. Taufe u. d. Abendmahls. Nordl. 1851. Ebrard – Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl u. seine Geschichte. Francf. a M. 1845. Ruckert – Das Abendmahl. Seine Wesen u. seine Geschichte. Leipz. 1856. Döllinger – Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den drei Jahrhunderten. Mainz. 1826. Kahnis – Die Lehre vom Abendmahle. Leipz. 1851. Höfling – Die Lehre vom Opfer im Leben und Cultus den Christen. Erlang. 1851. Leimbach – Beiträge zur Abendmahlslehre Tertullians. Gotha. 1874. Of the writings on the sacraments that we still have, we can point to the following: a very venerable work of its kind, Pr. Eusebius, Discourses on the Seven Sacraments of the Church. St. Petersburg 1850; ed. 2. – Ave. Pgnatius "On the sacraments of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, archaeological experience." St. Petersburg 1863. – Rubtsova “Discourse on the Sacrament of Baptism.” St. Petersburg 1860. – Pospelova “On the Sacrament of Confirmation.” M. 1840. – Burlutsky “On the Sacrament of Repentance.” St. Petersburg 1848. – “On the saving sacrament of repentance”, M. 1857. – S. Mikhailovsky “Discourse on the three degrees of hierarchy in the Orthodox Church.” Tver 1850. – From journal articles: “The origin and liturgical nature of the sacraments (Trud. Kyiv. Ak. 1874. Dec., 1875 Jan.). “On the sacraments of the Orthodox Church” (Prav. Obozr. 1874, part 1). A series of articles about all the sacraments in Christ. Thurs. (1836. II. III – for edifying reading). “The sacrament of baptism according to the order of rights. church" (Stran. 1864. Jan.). “On baptism through immersion and pouring” (Appendix to the Tv. of the Holy Fathers, 1855 XIV). “On the baptism of infants” (ibid., 1857 XVI). “On the Sacrament of the Eucharist against the Reformed” (Chronicles, Reading, 1860, part 2). “On the divine establishment of the three degrees of the church hierarchy” (Page 1860, Mar.). “On the Sacrament of the Blessing of Anointing” (Appendix to the Works of the Holy Fathers. 1858, XVII). “Marriage is a sacrament” (short note in Chronicle Thu. May 1869). Finally, there are several brochures about the sacraments for children's and popular reading. And therefore will not be included in our study: Tatian, Athenagoras, St. Theophilus of Antioch, writer of the last. to Diognetus, Hermias, Melito, Menutius Fel. and others, since their creations do not at all provide dogmatic material for the doctrine of the sacraments. You might be interested in: