Transferring to the soil of the Russian theological school the Catholic systems of theology and the scholastic system of reasoning, the Kievan theologians of the seventeenth century were the first to acquaint Russian Christians with the teaching of the seven sacraments. Containing nothing contrary to pious tradition and not alien even to Greek theologians of the times of decadence and dependence on the West (see Katansky's "On the Seven Sacraments"), this teaching - Catholic, both in origin (Peter of Lombard) and in its undoubtedly legal tendency - could not meet with protest from the simple-minded Russian people, although, as can be seen from a review of the systems of St. Joseph and Bl. In the sixteenth century, the Russian Church knew nothing about the sevenfold number of sacraments. The very definition of the sacrament is taken entirely from the Catholic catechism. "The mystery is a visible sign invisible to the grace of God, handed down to us from God for our sanctification" (306), says Lavrenty Zizanius. "A sacrament is a sacred action, which, under a visible image, communicates the invisible grace of God to the soul of the believer, having been established by our Lord, through Whom each of the faithful receives Divine grace," teaches Metropolitan Petro Mohyla. It is not difficult to notice the arbitrariness and artificiality of the concept itself: all theologically educated people know that in the language of the Holy Scriptures and the best monuments of the Holy Fatherland, both Eastern and Russian, the word sacrament does not have the sacramental meaning ascribed to it by the scholastics. Not only in poetic and rhetorical works, but also in theological patristic systems, the sacraments mean all manifestations of Divine grace, regardless of the formal conditions of their celebration. Manifestations in the life of the Lord are also called sacraments, and the Christian teaching is also called a sacrament; St. Gregory the Theologian calls the feasts of Christmas and Epiphany a sacrament; other manifestations of the Divine life and tonsure into monasticism are also mentioned in the sacred hymns. The Russian fathers of the sixteenth century retained the broad universal meaning of this concept, and it was only in the seventeenth century that Russian theological science assimilated a new meaning of the word "sacrament" or "mystery."

Lavrenty Zizanius and Peter Mogila, following the Latin theologians, consider the Divine institution to be a distinctive feature of a "mystery" or "sacrament". If we wanted to define this sign precisely and clearly, we would have to study the Holy Bible long and carefully in this direction, but if we take the word of the scholastics, we would have to come to the conclusion that in the matter of choosing the sacraments, their disposition was more important than the direct and precise indications of the Divine will on this matter. In other cases, for the recognition of the Divine institution, one hint from the Gospel or the accidental presence of Jesus Christ during the occurrence of certain manifestations of life, remote and alien to its spiritual content, is sufficed, and in others even the example of the Lord, which laid the foundation for some Christian sacred rites, is hushed up. In addition, the principle of the Divine institution of the seven sacraments of the Church degrades other rites and sacraments, which are no less important and also have a Divine institution; is the positive testimony of St. Basil the Great, which establishes the Divine origin of manifestations of church life that were not included in the seven sacraments. "Of the dogmas and sermons preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we have received from the Apostolic Tradition, by succession in secret, both have one and the same power for piety. And no one will contradict this, even if he is poorly versed in the institutions of the Church. For if we undertake to reject unwritten customs, as having no great force, then we will imperceptibly damage the Gospel in its main subjects, or even more shorten the sermon into a single name without the thing itself" (Book of the Holy Scriptures, ch. 27). Other signs of the seven sacraments, i.e. the external form and the inner grace, do not stand up to criticism either, because in church practice there are other sacraments that fully satisfy these conditions, but for some reason were not honored by the scholastics with the name of sacraments. There is even a sacrament that has the greatest importance for the entire life of those who receive it and is always recognized together with baptism, the Eucharist and consecration - a great manifestation of Divine grace, but nevertheless recognized by scholastics as lower than simple confession, lower than unction. We have in mind the tonsure into monasticism, which is called a sacrament both in the tonsure rite and in the spurious creation of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in the writings of St. Theodore the Studite, and in the monk Job, the first of the Eastern writers of the thirteenth century, who received a sevenfold number of sacraments. Thus, the external and internal signs that should distinguish the "sacrament" from other sacred actions cannot be recognized as valid. Turning to the "sacraments" themselves, it is impossible not to notice that here are indicated sacraments of different nature and significance, which caused a strange division into mysteries "necessary" and "necessary" for salvation. "Such a division is only possible from a formal point of view of our salvation. "There are three things necessary for salvation: baptism, communion and repentance; And there are two things that are needed for salvation, the holy myrrh, and the last anointing of the sick. Marriage is also necessary for those who use it for the sake of help and preservation from fornication, and it is necessary to eat childbearing for the sake of the Church of God. The priesthood is the same. For it is necessary for those who have been consecrated to eat in order to please God by this service, but it is necessary to eat for the sake of the church and the building of the Holy Spirit. of the Mysteries of God" (301). The incomprehensibility and confusion of such a division of the sacraments, which, by virtue of the unity of the name, should have the same meaning, are noticeable even to the author of the "Great Catechism" himself, because he writes further: "Yes, it is better and more convenient for you to understand, listen to this other division. For all the seven mysteries have consumed the essence, but not to every man, they are less uniform. For marriage and priesthood, if it is necessary to need the essence of the Church, but from another country, in the will and election of everyone, so that neither marriage nor consecration can be saved. The other five mysteries are necessary for salvation and for salvation, but not uniformly. For baptism, communion, and repentance, are necessary for everyone's salvation, that he may be saved, as a ship sails through the depths of the sea, and without them he alone can be saved; unless it is possible to use them by lusting after them. And the holy myrrh and the last anointing of the sick are for salvation, so that we may have salvation, our boldness is known and firm, for it is not only salvation, but let the holy myrrh be boldly and established, for the holy chrism boldly disposes us to suffering, and the last anointing of the sick and forgives the remains of sins. For this reason I am despised, weak, and unknown below confirmed in my salvation, unless I coveted and were unable to use them" (ibid.). Unable not to note the different meanings of the "sacrament," Lawrence Zizanius nevertheless insistently affirms the sevenfold number of sacraments: "Know without any doubt, for in the Church of God there are not two exact mysteries, but the all-perfect seven." In spite of the persuasiveness of the tone, any impartial reader familiar with the spirit of patristic writings remains convinced that the very idea of the sacrament as a sacramental act, quite special in comparison with other sacraments, belongs to Latin theology, that the number of such sacraments is indicated by the scholasticists arbitrarily and artificially, that reasoning about the greater or lesser necessity for the salvation of this or that sacrament is foolish, since salvation is not accomplished individual sacraments, even the most important ones, but unity with the entire life of the Church, where there is nothing unimportant, that some sacraments, for example, the great blessing of water, the tonsure into monasticism, and the funeral of the departed, have no less power and significance than most of the sacraments, although we personally do not like the comparison of sacraments from the point of view of "importance" to the highest degree. What determines the importance of the rite? Is it the quantity or, better, the degree of grace? But if we reason on this basis and do not take into account the higher spiritual meaning of the sacraments, then the successive performance of several sacraments will be incomprehensible. Why then is chrismation after baptism, communion after confession, and sometimes even after the anointing of the sick? In general, there is no need or reason to apply the vain point of view of human concepts to Christian rites, which should be discussed strictly spiritually. In addition to all that we have said, the attachment of the Kievan theologians to the formula of the sacraments is striking. The influence of legal Latinism is also felt here. In discussing the sacred rites of Sts. the Fathers, as we have seen from the review of universal dogmatic systems, say nothing about the formula of the sacraments, referring it to the liturgical rule, and not at all to the dogmatic teaching of the Church. The formula of the sacrament, as its external celebration, is recognized as immutable, but the difficulty and even the impossibility of a precise definition of the "moment" and the "formula" manifested itself in the teaching on the Eucharist. In this teaching there is a contradiction between Lavrenty Zizanius and Metropolitan Peter: the former considers the pronunciation of the words of the Lord to be the "modification" of the mystery together with the Catholics, while the latter, coming closer to the meaning of the Liturgy, recognizes the blessing of bread and wine as the formula of the sacrament. It should be noted, however, that the lofty, strictly spiritual meaning of the Divine Liturgy, composed by the Apostles and handed down to writing by the two greatest pillars of the Church of Christ, does not make it possible to pose the question so crudely and in this sense of carnal wisdom. And after the blessing of the Holy Gifts, the deacon says: "Break up, Vladyka, the holy bread."

In general, with regard to the teaching of the Kievan theologians of the seventeenth century regarding each sacrament separately, it should be noted that it is devoid of the sublime spirit of patristic theology and is very reminiscent of the medieval scholastic doctrines, from which it was borrowed. The teaching of the "Great Catechism" on the sacrament of the Eucharist and repentance is imbued with a particularly earthly character; The inclusion of the "Great Catechism" and the "Orthodox Confession" in the number of sacraments of marriage sharply distinguishes it from the "Enlightener" Joseph of Volotsk and the divinely wise work of St. Joseph of Volotsk. John. As for the teaching on the Eucharist, after spiritual reflections on it, Sts. The "Great Catechism" of Lavrenty Zizanius strikes the Fathers of Eastern piety in this respect with a kind of crude literalism. First of all, the teaching about the Eucharist as a sacrifice satisfying God is striking. We have already spoken of the validity of the idea of satisfaction itself, but even after accepting this idea, it is strange why God, once infinitely satisfied, should be satisfied with each new offering of the blood and flesh of His Son. Moreover, in the Eucharist the bloody sufferings of Christ go far beyond the boundaries of Golgotha; even the slight relief that circumstances and the Roman soldiers gave to the deceased Christ, the coarse scholastics did not want to show Him. "But on the cross it is not for this, but also for that which is contrary to it, for his bone, he says, shall not be broken, but if he has not suffered on the cross, he suffereth in the prosthyra, that is, in the offering for Thy sake, and we suffer this breaking, that he may fulfill all" (33). The latter expression shows what a coarse and sensual character distinguishes the views of the Kievan theologians on the Eucharist.

We have already had occasion to note the idea of "satisfaction" introduced into the field of repentance and having a basis in the general worldview of Latin theologians. Now we will confine ourselves to remarking that the teaching about "repentance" as the main content and beginning of the Christian life has been replaced by the teaching about confession as a legal form of cleansing sins. Undoubtedly, the custom of confessing one's sins to spiritual fathers is as ancient as the Universal Church, but the sacred teachers of the faith, in expounding the laws of repentance, paid the main attention to the soul of the penitent, and not to the external environment of repentance. Of course, confession is one of the most important sacraments and already an indubitable "sacrament" in the broadest sense, but still, in expounding the teaching on repentance, to confine oneself to an exposition of the conditions of confession, and at the same time to introduce legal elements into it, means to move away from the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers and to approach Latin scholasticism. In the East, in general, repentance was understood more broadly and was not limited to confession. The monk Job even identifies the anointing of the sick with repentance, and it must be agreed that there is much given in the inner content of both sacraments to allow such an identification. The "Great Catechism" and the "Orthodox Confession" recognized "marriage" as a sacrament, i.e. a religious sacrament, a phenomenon that has no definite relation, existing apart from religion in non-religious societies. Of course, Christ could not fail to express anything about such an important phenomenon in human life and, as the Evangelist tells us (Matthew 19:12), gave preference to virginity. The Apostle set forth the same in more detailed terms (1 Corinthians 7). In the dogmatics of St. Gregory, St. St. John and Bl. Zinovy says nothing about marriage, only bliss. Theodoret mentions it, but not at all as a Christian sacrament, but as a phenomenon quite possible in the Church. Lawrence Zizanius somehow hesitates about the "need" or "need" of marriage and is inclined to consider marriage "necessary" for the Church. We will only note that the recognition of the necessity of marriage for the Church somewhat contradicts the Apostle, who wanted to see all Christians as virgins (1 Corinthians 7:7). True, the Apostle called marriage a "mystery" (Ephesians 5:32), but not Christian marriage, but any marriage in general, so that here, by mystery, we must understand: the mysterious incomprehensible law of life. Finally, the very content of these words of the Apostle does not refer to the sacrament, which is not mentioned at all, but to the psychological and even physiological act of conjugal love. What is considered the sacrament of marriage, the wedding ceremony itself or marital cohabitation? This is not evident from the "Great Catechism". True, at first it is said that in the sacrament of marriage "the bride and groom are united in a common and inseparable life, like Adam and Eve before the fall without carnal intermingling" (sheet 342), but when defining the "substance" of the mystery, the author considers the bride and groom to be the one themselves. We refuse to make any explanations, since the stretches made are obvious by themselves. The instructions to those entering into marriage are very respectable, but they belong more to the realm of pastoral instruction than to dogmatic theology; the same, of course, must be said about the sacraments of betrothal and wedding.

Moreover, with regard to the teaching of the seven sacraments, it must be said that we have already spoken of the three ministries of the Lord, i.e., that the teaching which has its source in the creation of heretics