Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem

Contents A) Life B) Creations I A) Dogmatic-polemical B) Moral-dogmatic B) Historical D) Eulogies II In our Orthodox Church, one might say, there is not a single dogma against which the spirit of delusion and lies does not rebel in words transfixing human wisdom; Predominantly, before other dogmas, it was attacked by the anti-Christian spirit - the dogma about the incarnation of the Son of God, - about the union of two natures - Divine and human - in a single hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ. But, on the other hand, history does not know a single disputed dogma of the Orthodox faith that did not have, among the Teachers of the Church, zealous champions who thoroughly refuted heretical teachings and incontestably proved, contrary to the speculations of false teachers, its truth. Following the appearance of every heresy, strong denouncers of false teaching and unshakable defenders of Orthodoxy immediately appeared. Thus, the heresy of Arius found a tireless opponent in the person of St. Athanasius the Great, the heresy of Nestorius - in St. Cyril of Alexandria, the heresy of Ephtychius - in St. Flavians, and others. The same strong resistance was caused by the error of the Monothelites - in the person of the pious and learned Sophronius, and the Christian faith found in him a strong defender of the purity of its teaching. Devoted to the faith of the fathers, an ardent zealot of Orthodoxy, a tireless enemy of the Monothelites, a learned and eloquent father of the Church 2, a strong man, according to the words of his contemporaries themselves in word and deed 3, St. Sophrony, in fairness, should occupy an important place among the true champions and teachers of Orthodoxy, especially since Divine Providence raised such a man among the turmoil and disagreements of both state and church, amid the general decline of enlightenment. Life of St. Sophronia consisted mainly of 1) traveling to different places in order to acquire spiritual enlightenment 2) fighting heretics. 1) Sophrony was born in Damascus, from pious Christian parents 4, and received his initial education in the truths of the Orthodox faith under their guidance. He himself testifies (in his letter to Sergius) “that he explains what he learned from the very beginning, and what he accepted from his most tender infancy, being born and raised in the holy Apostolic Church 5 . The year of his birth is unknown. We can only say with certainty that he was born in the first half of the 6th century. The son of noble and wealthy citizens, he received a sufficient education due to his condition. In the native city of Damascus, he studied, according to the then custom, dialectics, rhetoric and other secular sciences 6 and studied them so deeply and thoroughly that he received the honorary title of Sophist 7, which was given by some scientists 8, and which serves as clear evidence of the high education of Sophronius. However, earthly wisdom could not satisfy the requirements of his pious soul, thirsting for higher, spiritual wisdom. Therefore, among the very studies of philosophical sciences, he practiced with special care in reading and studying sacred books and the works of the fathers, wanting to enrich his mind with knowledge of Divine objects 9. This spiritual education of him was carried out under the guidance of the experienced elder John Moschus. Hearing about the piety of the monks who labored in the Palestinian monasteries, about their experienced wisdom, strengthened Sophrony's natural disposition towards spiritual enlightenment, and aroused in him a strong desire to acquire higher wisdom. For this purpose, and perhaps for the worship of St. places, he, leaving Damascus, went to Palestine, and soon arrived at the Lavra of Theodosius the Great 10. Here he met with Presbyter John Mosch, a monk of this monastery 11, who was famous both for his learning and especially for his spiritual wisdom and experience 12. In him, Sophrony found what his soul, thirsting for true enlightenment, was striving for. It took a little time and words for both zealots of piety to become intimately close to each other. Captivated by the godly instructions of Moschus, Sophronius immediately gave himself into perfect obedience to Blessed John. From this time on, both lovers of wisdom began traveling to different monasteries filled with godly monks. Conversations with experienced elders, advice and instructions from men who were experienced in faith and deeds of piety, learning their lessons, in a word - acquiring true enlightenment was the main goal of the travels of both John and Sophronius 13. The first, with all his many years of experience, did not cease to learn spiritual wisdom; the latter followed the example of the teacher with all zeal, soon becoming his friend from the student. 14 In Palestine, where they were then located, there were a considerable number of monasteries, famous for their experienced elders, and seekers of spiritual enlightenment began to study their great science in the very monastery of St. Feodosia, in which they came together and became close to each other 15. He listened here to stories about men who spent their lives in deeds of virtue, and having received many edifying lessons from the great monks of the famous Lavra 16, John and Sophronius with the same love sought instructions in the monasteries of St. Gerasima 17, St. Peter 18, in the Lavra of Euthymius V. And in other Palestinian monasteries 19. Having walked around St. places of Jerusalem 20, they listened with special attention to the elders of the new Lavra of St. Savva, in which both travelers lived for a long time, eating abundant food from the spiritual meal of the godly monks, 21 worthy disciples of the great mentor and founder of the famous monastery. From Palestine, friends sent their friends to Antioch, where they, having visited all the wonderful places that could bring them some spiritual benefit 22, were edified mainly by the pious stories and instructions of the hermits of Cilicia 23. Egypt flourished no less than Palestine in its monasteries. There were monasteries in it, famous for the names of the great ascetics - Anthony, Macarius, Pachomius - in which the ancient way of monastic life never ceased to be preserved 24 . John Moschus, even before meeting Sophronius (578), visited this country, having been sent there by the head of the Theodosian Lavra on monastic affairs 25 . There is no doubt that in conversations with Sophronius he did not fail to inform his friend about this country, 26 and thereby strengthened in him an irresistible desire to seek wisdom from the Egyptian fathers. Having thus left Antioch, John and Sophronius arrived through Sinai 27 to Alexandria. Here they lived for a considerable time, visiting various monasteries and feeding on the spiritual food of the pious elders. Soon after entering Alexandria, Sophronius received advice from an unknown monk to accept monastic orders 28. This means that until now he had traveled in worldly clothing. And John, calling him for several times Master and Sophist 29, directly exposes him as a layman 30. Sophronius’s zeal for enlightenment is all the more worthy of attention because, without relinquishing his mantle as a philosopher, he patiently endured all the hardships of traveling through the sultry deserts just to acquire true wisdom. Tonsured by the hand of his mentor 31, Sophrony, together with John, visited the learned monks - Presbyter Palladius, the philosopher Theodore, the reader Zoila and the Sophist Cosmas, who labored in all kinds of Christian virtues 32. In the deserts near Alexandria, they listened to the instructions of a certain elder John, who spent about 80 years living an ascetic life, and other hermits, famous for the high perfections of Christian life and spiritual wisdom 33 . Moving from monastery to monastery, they finally found not only monasteries located in the vicinity of Alexandria, but also visited the distant famous Thebaid 34, everywhere, like bees, collecting things useful for souls seeking true enlightenment and eternal salvation. But the travelers had already gained such experience that they themselves were able to instruct others in the truths of the Christian faith and forcefully defeat the unjust. In educating Sophronius to fight heretics, Providence was pleased to open the opportunity for the discovery of the wisdom he had acquired, especially in order to provide him with experience in arguing with false teachers in advance. In Alexandria, John and Sophrony, with their piety and knowledge, attracted the attention of the then Patriarch, Blessed. John the Merciful 35, and soon earned the love and respect of the virtuous Shepherd. Treating them as friends 36, John decided to use their learning as a weapon against the heretics who were then besieging the Church of Alexandria. And the zealots of the faith with all diligence fulfilled the desire of the many-caring Hierarch, diligently striving for Orthodoxy. Their labors in favor of the Church of Alexandria were attested to by their contemporary, Leontius of Cyprus, who in his description of John the Merciful says: “through the prayers of him (the Patriarch), God sent him wise and respected men John and Sophronius: they were for him faithful advisers, whom he listened to as fathers, and was grateful to them as steadfast warriors who labored diligently and with strength for piety and faith. Strengthened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, they with their wisdom argued with the Severians and other wicked heretics who were in our country - and many monasteries and monasteries and many churches were snatched from the mouths of these beasts, like good shepherds 37 . But soon John and Sophronius were forced to leave Egypt, without visiting, it seems, even some of the famous monasteries of this country 38. For the Persians, having conquered (614) Palestine, Jerusalem and other Greek regions, moved towards Egypt, and soon (about 617) approached Alexandria itself 39 . No matter how regrettable it was for lovers of enlightenment to leave a country rich in spiritual sages, they had to, in order to preserve their lives, part with not only Egypt, but also with their beloved shepherd of Alexandria (who, for the same reason, himself retired to the island of Cyprus 40), and seek wisdom in safe places. Both friends set out from Alexandria, probably before John the Merciful 41. On the way, they learned about the death of the Patriarch and hurried to the island of Cyprus to pay their last respects to their beloved Shepherd 42 . Having pronounced a word of praise to John the Merciful, in which the greatest mercy and other virtues of the blessed one are described with special vividness. Hierarch 43. And having fasted his death with many tears 44, Sophronius (together with John) undertook a long journey. Having received quite edifying lessons in Samos from the monks who lived there, and having venerated the sacred places of the city of Constantine, the travelers finally arrived in Rome 45. Here is the mentor of Sophrony, blessed. John, died 46. Having lost his leader and friend, Sophrony saw the need to abandon his further intention to acquire wisdom in travel. Returning from Rum to Palestine, he settled (around 622) in the monastery of St. Theodosius, where he remained until the very time when Providence called him to the universal service of the Church 47. This is how the spiritual formation of St. Sophronia and preparation for the fight against monothelites. In this way of education one cannot help but see a special action of Providence. The unexpected meeting of Sophrony with the deeply learned and experienced John, the perfect submission of the first to the latter, the firm determination of both to seek wisdom in the monasteries, despite any obstacles - all this involuntarily leads to the idea that Providence itself brought Sophrony to John, so that the first, under the guidance of the latter, could worthily prepare for the feat ahead of him. And examples of pious hermits, stories about great ascetics, adorned with all Christian virtues, lively conversation with monks who experienced the deep mysteries of the Christian faith, 48 the heartfelt participation with which Sophronius accepted wise instructions - all this serves as clear proof that St. Sophrony deeply studied the truths of the Orthodox faith and was ready to enter the field of activity for the benefit of the Church, if circumstances so required. 2) Not long St. Sophrony enjoyed the peace and quiet of life within the walls of a peaceful monastery. A new error that arose in the depths of the Church caused the zealot of faith to undertake an unforgettable feat for the sons of Orthodoxy: this is the fight against the false teaching of the Monothelites. The Monothelite error, by its origin, was a natural fruit of the Monophysite heresy, and was established and spread as a result of short-sighted policies and desires - with the teaching of one will in Jesus Christ to reconcile the heretics (especially the Eftikhans) with the Orthodox Church. The heresy of Euthychius rejected the reality of the unfused and unchangeable union of two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, recognizing in him one nature - Divine, which absorbed human nature. But not to recognize in Jesus Christ the unchangeable and immutable union of human nature with the Divine means not to recognize at the same time two wills and actions in His person. If, according to the teachings of Eutychian, the Divinity of the hypostatic Word, born in the flesh, completely absorbed humanity, then it is clear that the latter does not have in itself any desire and action characteristic of it; as well as vice versa: if i.e. Since the incarnate Son of God does not contain the main properties of human nature, it is impossible to affirm in Him the immutability of human nature. Consequently, to deny the existence of human will and actions in it means to affirm the error of Eftikhius. Therefore, soon after the condemnation of the Monophysites at the Council of Chalcedon (IV Ecumenical) Council, which took place in 451, some of the secret followers of this heresy began to express the opinion that in Jesus Christ there is one action and one will - Divine 49. The discord that arose between the followers of Euthychius and gave rise to many sects - Theodosians, Jacobites, Severians 50 - further contributed to the spread of a new error, and had, among other things, the consequence that from them a special sect was formed, known under the name of the Moronites, who directly affirmed one will in Christ 51. These heretics remained unknown for a long time because, without a doubt, they themselves, for fear of being brought to trial 52, hid their errors, trying only to secretly spread them. But when the cruel wars that raged at the beginning of the 7th century between the Greeks and the Persians 53 diverted the attention of the Greek government from church affairs, the minds infected with false teaching were not slow in clearly revealing their thoughts. There were found in the depths of the Church itself Bishops who, in accordance with the Council of Chalcedon, recognized two natures in the person of the God-Man, at the same time asserting that, according to the unity of the Hypostasis, one action and one will should be attributed to Him 54 . The first to express his false ideas was Bishop Theodore of Paranoia in a letter to Bishop Sergius of Arsinoe (in Syria), where he directly affirmed one will in Jesus Christ - the Divine 55. Sergius was not slow to follow his example. The Patriarch of Constantinople, named Sergius, who ascended to the high priestly see of Constantinople from the secret followers of the Jacobites 56, also contributed to the spread of the new heresy. Assuming the doctrine of one will to join the Monothesites to the Orthodox Church, Sergius of Constantinople demanded from one Bishop positive evidence from the Holy Scriptures and St. Fathers about one will and one action in the person of the Divine Redeemer, in order to have evidence in defense of their error 57. And in order to win over Emperor Heraclius to his side, he decided to first convince Bishop Cyrus of Phasitus, respected by the Sovereign, of his error. To this end, he immediately wrote him a message in which he directly expresses the idea that it is necessary to recognize one will and one action in our Lord Jesus Christ 58 . Despite all the instability and unfoundedness of Sergius’s evidence about the new teaching, Cyrus did not hesitate to accept his thoughts; - and both of them, together with Athanasius, Patriarch of Antioch, managed to win over Heraclius to their side, presenting to him that with this effort it was easy to reconcile the heretics with the Church 59. The Emperor, trying to pacify everyone, willingly adopted a way of thinking that seemed best able to calm both the Orthodox and the Monophysites. Therefore, soon (630) he promulgated a decree by which he encouraged everyone, both Orthodox and heretics, to confess in the person of the Divine Redeemer two natures, but one will and one action. Athanasius of Antioch and Cyrus, now Patriarch of Alexandria 60, accepted the Imperial Edict 61 unquestioningly. Thus, the error of the Monothelites not only had on its side, in addition to many Bishops, three Eastern Patriarchs, but was solemnly declared and prescribed to everyone by the monarchical power, as a teaching that was to become dominant. This publication of false teaching caused St. Sophrony, the intrepid champion of Orthodoxy, from the monastery. And he was destined by providence to be the first opponent and denouncer of the disastrous heresy, which until now had not encountered any resistance. As soon as the news of the new false teaching reached Sophronius, he immediately left his peaceful home and went to Alexandria, 62 known to him for the large number of heretics. His arrival in this city was most opportune. Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, wishing to reconcile the Monophysites or Theodosians with the Church, convened (633) a Council of his Bishops 63, and at it drew up an act of reconciliation of nine members, of which the first six contained the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and two natures in one Hypostasis of Christ the Savior; but in the seventh, Cyrus anathematizes “whoever does not confess that one and the same Christ and Son performs Divine and human works by one Divine action (μίᾳ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ).” And a little lower he adds, “that division appears only to our reason 64.” It is obvious that such a conclusion leads to an imaginary only difference between two actions, and from this there is a natural transition to the same imaginary only difference, or, what is the same, to a perfect merging of natures in the God-Man. For, “the difference of natures (as St. Sophronius asserted after) is revealed only from the difference of actions 65.” Why was it not difficult for the heretics to agree with this teaching, who recognized in Jesus Christ one nature as Divine? And Cyrus, of course, was confident in the success of his enterprise. He could only fear resistance from those Orthodox who penetrated into the subtleties of the disastrous new heresy. In order to give force to his new act from this side, he proposed it for consideration by Sophronius 66, who already enjoyed great respect not only in Alexandria, where the memory of his former exploits was vividly preserved, but throughout almost the entire East for his holiness of life and love of Orthodoxy 67. After reading the act, Sophrony could not help but cry; with bitter weeping, he threw himself at the feet of the Patriarch, hugged his knees, demanded, begged, begged - not to make these members public, because they are contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church and contain the false wisdom of the wicked Apolinarius 68. But the Patriarch did not listen to the meek and pious advice, and hastened to legally establish the lawless deed. The people in great numbers gathered in the Alexandria Church and, after reading the members of the act, everyone - both Orthodox and heretics, partook of the Holy Mysteries as a sign of consent and peace 69. The Jacobites and Theodosians triumphed and said publicly: “We did not go to the Council of Chalcedon, but the Council came to us; for whoever affirms one activity in Jesus Christ confesses one nature in Him 70.” Having accomplished the work of reconciliation so successfully (as he himself said) in Alexandria, Cyrus immediately sent, along with his own message, the act of reconciliation for consideration and approval in Constantinople 71 . All the more sorrowful was this for the zealot of the faith - St. Sophronia. Seeing no hope of defending the right teaching in Alexandria and feeling all the danger that threatened the Church from growing error, he hastened to Constantinople, hoping to find there supporters of Orthodoxy or to convince at least the Patriarch of the capital city to reject the point that Cyrus did not want to abandon. Having presented with meekness befitting his condition, some evidence in defense of the true teaching, Sophronius used the same prayers before Sergius with which he addressed Cyrus: he fell at his feet, and, reminding him of the life-giving suffering of Christ the Savior (suffered by him as the God-man), with tears begged him to accept the doctrine of two actions and exclude from the reconciliatory act member (VII), which clearly contains the thought contradicting the dogma of two immutable natures in the person of the Divine Redeemer. Zeal for the purity of faith even inspired him with the courage to directly tell Sergius that, otherwise, he would become the culprit of the uprising extinguished by the former saints. the fathers of the (Eutychian) heresy - a new disturbance and division in the Church 72, which should have been the inevitable consequence of the error introduced into church dogma - and which could not hide from the penetrating gaze of Sofroniev. But Sergius, as a firm and long-standing Monothelitite, was not easily dissuaded from his thoughts and won over in favor of Orthodoxy. The annexation of all the heretics in Egypt by Cyrus into the Church, which took place on the basis of the confession of one action in Jesus Christ, was for Sergius the most plausible excuse to refuse the just demands of the champion of the faith: he answered Sophronius that it was impossible without sin before God to blot out the main member from the act and thereby destroy such a useful thing as the reconciliation of heretics with the Church - and in turn advised Sophronius better to remain silent about the actions the God-man, so as not to give rise to controversy and not to destroy the barely restored peace, 73 which in the eyes of Sophronius, as an impartial and true Christian, could not help but seem more dangerous than the very division and excommunication of heretics from the Orthodox Church. Sergius did not discuss the consequences; he saw one real imaginary benefit that could come from the feigned reconciliation of heretics; therefore, not heeding the prayers of Sophronius, he immediately confirmed the teachings of Cyrus and everything he had done for the imaginary accession of heretics to the Church 74. Thus, the defender of Orthodoxy, despite all his efforts, did not achieve his desired goal, and with deep sadness in his soul he returned to Palestine. But Providence prepared for him a place from which the voice of the champion of the true faith could be stronger and his zeal for the purity of the teaching of the Church could be more useful for the Orthodox. After the death of Patriarch Modest of Jerusalem, despite his own reluctance and renunciation of the Bishopric, he was elected (633) to the see of Jerusalem by the common vote of the clergy and people (633). Meanwhile, Sergius of Constantinople, having learned from a rumor that had reached him about the elevation of Sophronius to the Patriarchal throne 76, and foreseeing that he would not hesitate to raise his voice in defense of Orthodoxy, decided to warn him and sent a lengthy message to the Roman High Priest Honorius, trying to agree with his teaching and prejudice him against the new Patriarch. In addition to the fact that Sergius incorrectly states the origin of the question of unity, he (in this message) claims that its solution in the East is according to the teaching of the fathers; touching on the opposition to this decision of Sophronius, he tries to present him as the culprit of the strife that arose only as a result of his resistance. To more conveniently win Honorius to his side, he refers to the forged letter 77 of Patriarch Mina of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius, also to the Roman Pontiff St. Leo the Great, who taught about one action. Trying to instill in him the idea that it is better not to touch on the issue of wills in Jesus Christ, Sergius writes: “although some fathers speak of one action, such an expression for many seems new and dangerous, as if it leads to the rejection of the doctrine of two natures. Many, on the contrary, rebel against the assumption of double actions in Christ - God, because such a teaching is not found anywhere in the Fathers, and it follows from it that it is necessary to recognize two opposing wills, just as the Word wanted to suffer for the human race, but human nature did not want, that in this case it would be necessary to admit two principles - and this is absurd 78.” It is all the more absurd to assert the opposition of wills in Jesus Christ, when they never contradicted one another. The Savior prayed to God the Father, that the cup of suffering may pass from Him, but at the same time he added: not as I will, but as You will. Thy will be done 79 - Clear proof of both the human will in Christ, and the fact that it is not only not opposite, but also subordinate to the Divine. It is clear that Sergius was not concerned about the thoroughness and correctness of his conclusions, but rather about convincing Honorius of the need for silence regarding the controversial subject. For this purpose, of course, he adds: “we agreed that Sophronius should not mention either one or two wills; and he promised us this 80” - false evidence, refuted by the further actions of the saint. Sophronius against the Monothelites and his actions in defense of the doctrine of two wills. Sergius's intention, however, was crowned with complete success. Honorius responded to his message with complete agreement. He recognized Sergius’ opinion about one will in Christ as fair; but since neither Scripture nor the councils say anything definite about this subject, then Honorius, considering, moreover, the question of actions to be a matter of oral debate rather than piety, considers it best not to preach to the people about either one or two wills. “For if we say (he concludes) that there are two wills in Christ, then we will give the Nestorians a reason for the opinion of two hypostases; and if we allow one action in Him, then they will think that we and the followers of Eutyches confess one nature in the God-Man 81.” But the light of truth, like a burning lamp, could not and should not remain hidden; the purity of the faith of Christ had to be preached, and not drowned out under the darkness of empty considerations and unfair conclusions of a false mind. And St. Sophrony, indeed, soon raised a strong voice in defense of Orthodoxy, only without denouncing heretics and with love for them, worthy of a meek and pious Shepherd. Having ascended the Patriarchal Throne, he immediately (in 634) formed a Council of the Palestinian Bishops subordinate to him, in order, on the one hand, to protect his flock from the impending heresy, and on the other, to conciliarly expose the error of the Monothelites. Having condemned their false teaching there, Sophronius, following the custom of the Church - to notify other Bishops of the purity and correctness of their faith by a circular message, sent, along with the acts of the council, his own message to the other Patriarchs and to Sergius and Honorius 82, in which he outlined all the members of the Orthodox faith, especially the dogmas, especially the dogmas about the two natures, actions and wills in Jesus Christ. Here, as if with intention, in many places he speaks about the actions of the God-man, about which the heretics increasingly tried to keep silent, so as not to fall into the heresy of Nestorius or Eutyches; openly preaches two actions, but one hypostasis in the incarnate Word. “We do not recognize in him, like Nestorius, two Christs and sons... We do not allow separation at all, although we teach that two natures acted with mutual participation, each in accordance with its natural property; but we also do not imagine, like Eatichius, any confusion; We recognize one and the other activity of both natures, i.e. activity that is essential, natural and akin to every natural and essential quality, and introduces the inseparable and at the same time unfused assistance of one or another nature. This differentiates the action in Christ. Recognizes both actions (Divine and human) of both natures, from which an unfused unity arose in Christ, and presented one and the same Christ as perfect God and perfect man - we recognize so as not to merge the unfused natures, since only from actions are natures known 83.” So wrote St. Sophronius to Sergius and Honorius with this purpose, among other things, in order to show one the constant teaching of the Church and the unfoundedness of the opinion he defends, and convince the other to stand for the purity of the faith of Christ and show himself as a defender of the Church, outraged by the heresy of the East 84. Unfortunately, his intention was not fulfilled. Honorius, warned and predisposed by Sergius in favor of error, limited himself only to advising Cyrus of Alexandria to remain completely silent about the two wills, and also asked Sergius that, in case of Kirov’s disagreement, he would convince him not to talk about the controversial subject; but at the same time he demanded from the Sophronius ambassadors a promise not to talk more about two wills, and he urged Sophronius himself not to stop at the expression: “one or two actions, but to say that one and the same is Jesus Christ, who, having two natures, performs both the Divine and the human 85.” This answer was disappointing for St. Sophronius, who was already beginning to experience attacks from new heretics, and clearly foresaw to what extreme they could bring the Church if they were allowed to freely preach their teachings. Seeing that the gentle admonitions with which he tries to turn the erring fathers from heresy to the faith remain almost fruitless, Sophronius resorted to more decisive and effective means. Not fearing the power of strong enemies, he collected in two books and sent to different places 600 testimonies from the patristic writings to refute and shame the Monothelites, who thought to confirm their heresy with the teaching of the fathers, as proof that the dogma of two wills in the person of the Redeemer was constantly maintained by the Orthodox Church. But the heretics were only irritated by such a denunciation and armed themselves against him with new slander, trying to present him as a violator of peace and tranquility, the culprit of indignation and division in the Church. The zealot of faith, however, did not lose heart; fully feeling the justice of his cause, according to his bishop Stephen, “he was not afraid of fear where there is no fear, but like a lion, he stood for the height and truth of orthodoxy. 86" Not finding unanimity with himself in the East, where all the Patriarchs and the Emperor were on the side of error, St. Sophrony himself was ready to go to Rome in order to at least find supporters of Orthodoxy there. But a storm of savage Muslims was then gathering over Jerusalem. In these circumstances, he called to himself Bishop Stephen of Doria, the first of the Bishops subordinate to him, and decided to entrust to him a task that he himself could not perform. In order to arouse in his messenger a holy zeal for the defense of the right faith and to oblige him to the exact fulfillment of the office entrusted to him, the Patriarch greeted Stephen at Golgotha, and there, at the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, commanded him, according to the testimony of Stephen himself, the following: “Remember that you will give an answer to the Crucified One in this holy place, when he comes in glory to judge the living and the dead, if you neglect or neglect the danger in which His holy faith now finds itself. Do what I myself cannot do due to the Saracen invasion. If necessary, go around the entire universe, try to overcome all obstacles, just to reach Rome; open there before St. men, in truth, everything that is happening in our countries, and do not stop begging until they give the final decision to defeat the enemies of the faith, and completely reject the newly introduced teaching.” Touched by the convictions of St. Patriarch, Stephen decided to fulfill his will, and, despite all the dangers, both from the Monothelites, who, having learned about this embassy, ​​tried in every possible way to stop it, and from the evil Muslims, he immediately headed to Rome 87. The capture of Jerusalem by the Saracens put a strong obstacle in Sophronius's fight against the heretics. The compassionate shepherd turned his attention from the main subject of his activity to finding means to alleviate the lot of the suffering flock - and through his intercession he managed not only to save the city from destruction, the inhabitants from slavery and death, but also interceded for freedom of religion and the inviolability of Christian churches throughout Palestine 88 . However, even amid these disastrous circumstances, amid concerns about healing the wounds inflicted by Muslims on the Church of Palestine, St. Sophrony also took time to repel heretics. According to the testimony of Theophan the Confessor (a writer of the 8th century), he victoriously fought not only with Emperor Heraclius and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, but also with the latter’s successor Pyrrhus - and, without finishing the fight, he ended his life (not earlier than 640) 89 Saint Sophronius was not destined to see the desired fruits of his selfless activity in defense of Orthodoxy; but the actions of a zealous champion of the faith had the most beneficial consequences. Striving in deed and word against numerous Monothelites, fearlessly pursuing their heresy, despite the fact that all the Patriarchs and the Emperor were inclined to the side of the wrong teaching, Sophronius showed the importance and fatality of the error, based on a plausible pretext - the reconciliation of heretics with the Church, and thereby aroused many to stand for the purity of the Christian doctrine, and with his fearlessness, his with his exploits he set an example and paved the way for others to defend Orthodoxy, which at the beginning Sophronius was destined by Providence to be the only champion. And if the activity of the Saint was not crowned with complete success during his lifetime, it brought the desired fruits after his death. Bishop Stephen, frightened (as he himself says) by the obligation of the patriarch entrusted to him in such a sacred place, and with such a formidable spell, in the name of the shepherd of Jerusalem, on the way to Rome, begged the Eastern Bishops and the people to stand unshakably for the faith of the fathers 90. This appeal was not without success. Many not only declared themselves on the side of Orthodoxy, but, following the example of a zealot of the faith, clearly rebelled against false teaching, and together with Stephen hurried to Rome to seek protection there for Orthodoxy, which was oppressed in the East 91 . St. Maxim, who knew both the exploits of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Saint himself, 92 armed himself with all zeal for the purity of the Christian doctrine and became a confessor for the unshakable defense of the dogma of two wills and actions in Jesus Christ. As for the West, Sophronius's embassy had the most brilliant success there. Stephen's three-time intercession before the Roman High Priest John IV and Martin I, his prayers and demands to provide help to the Eastern Church outraged by the heresy, the touching depiction of the danger in which Orthodoxy is located, living stories about with what zeal, with what ardor the saint of Jerusalem urged him to use all his efforts to defend the faith 93 - all this was one of the main motivations for what John IV convened (640) a Council, at which he condemned, together with the Edict of Heraclius (ἔκθεσις), the error of the Monothelites - then Pope Martin I, at a large Council (648) in the Lateran, anathematized not only the error of the Monothelites, not only the former heretics, but also anyone who would affirm one will and one action in the person of the God-man 94 . In general, on the said St. Sophronius. Many zealots of Orthodoxy, both in the West and in the East, actively worked as the first denouncers of false teachings, until the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which, having finally defeated the Monothelite error, not only approved the exploits of the saint of Jerusalem, but also used the doctrine revealed by him in favor of the affirmation of a controversial dogma, which he found completely Orthodox, and anathematized as heretics, opponents of Sophronius (Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius and others), deciding to include his name in the Church diptychs 95, and grateful to the merits of the zealot of the right teaching, the Holy Church annually honors (March 11) the memory of the great Teacher and Shepherd who fought a good deed and kept the faith until the end of his life. Worthy of honor as a champion of Orthodoxy, due to his actions against the Monothelite heresy, St. Sophronius is nevertheless remarkable for the works he left behind. Unfortunately, most of them have been lost 96. And among those that have come down to us, in addition to those that truly belonged to him, there are also doubtful ones. Thus, the following should be subject to our consideration: 1) Genuine creations, 2) Doubtful ones with a list of lost ones 97. All original creations of St. Sophronia, in its content, can be arranged in the following order: a) dogmatic-polemical; b) moral and dogmatic; c) historical, and d) laudable, which includes, in addition to words, church songs and poems. A) Dogmatic-polemical a) Council Epistle (To Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople) 98. The motive for which it was written is revealed by the author himself. “There is, he says, in the holy Churches throughout the entire universe an ancient Apostolic tradition, according to which those who are elevated to the level of clergy are obliged to openly explain to the oldest clergy how they philosophize and how they maintain faith.” Following such an ancient custom, the newly installed Patriarch, immediately after occupying the Jerusalem See, decided to set out his faith in writing and send it to all the patriarchs, at their discretion, so that it could be seen, as he himself puts it, whether he is not transgressing the eternal limit that our fathers laid down 99. But from the contents of this letter we can conclude that it is directed against the modern Monothelitian heresy, and therefore it was written with a special purpose - to present the doctrine of the natures and actions in Jesus Christ, against the error regarding these articles of faith. St. Sophronius, due to his meekness and the direct purpose of the message, does not directly expose new heretics and does not reveal this intention; nevertheless, it is true that it was meant when the message was written. For the statement of faith in the epistle is directed against precisely those false thoughts on which the Monfelites thought to base their error. Thus, the heretics did not allow two actions in the Savior, for fear of falling into the heresy of Nestorius, who shared the one hypostasis of Christ God; tried to base their false teaching on the expression of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, respected by the Church, “Godly action - θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια.” St. Sophronius, without a doubt, directs his thoughts against this imaginary fear when he directly affirms that in Jesus Christ there is one hypostasis, but two natures and two actions, and when from the word itself - God-mighty - he deduces, as a necessary consequence of the literal meaning of this word, the doctrine of two actions. The contents of the extensive epistle constitute a detailed exposition of all members of the Orthodox Faith. We present the main truths contained here in the very order that the Author follows. After the introduction, where Sophrony speaks of the pleasantness and tranquility that he enjoyed during his quiet life in a peaceful monastery - before his elevation to the Patriarchate, the Holy Father expounds: a) the mystery of the Holy Trinity, reflecting heresies that are contrary to the teaching of the Orthodox Church about this dogma; b) the dogma of the incarnation of God the Word, affirming at the same time the unity of the hypostasis against Nestorius, and the difference of properties in Jesus Christ against Eutyches; c) the doctrine of two kinds of actions in one person of the Redeemer - human and Divine, listing both; d) about the original origin of the world, the fall of Adam, and about the end of the world - about the resurrection of bodies and eternal life, condemning the error of Origen; e) confesses that he accepts the five Ecumenical Councils, through which the Holy Spirit himself spoke, as well as all the writings of St. Cyril (Alexandrian) and other fathers; f) lists and anathematizes all heretics anathematized by the Church, starting from Simon the Magus until his time, as well as errors contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox faith. In conclusion, he asks the Patriarchs to favorably accept this scripture, fill in what was not said, and correct what is faulty. At the VI Ecumenical Council, at the proposal of the presbyters George and Theodore, representatives of the Church of Jerusalem, the entire epistle was read as belonging to Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem, and the fathers of the Council recognized it in accordance with the teaching of the Apostles and the Church and recognized it as worthy of a pious Shepherd 100. This speaks more than anything about the dignity and authenticity of the message 101. But the question is, is he the only compiler of this message? By its name Συνοδική, and by the fact that it was sent to the patriarchs along with the acts of the council, compiled by Sophronius in Jerusalem 102, it suggests the idea of ​​allowing at least some participation in it by those present at that Council. But the author himself eliminates this idea, saying that he writes, following the custom of the Church - to express his faith to the newly installed Hierarch before his elder brothers, and in many places pointing to himself as the only culprit of this creation 103. b) Treatise on the incarnation of one of the persons of the Holy Trinity 104. Judging by its purpose and main direction, it can be reliably believed that it was written by Sophronius after he published 600 passages of the fathers against the Monothelites, when the latter began to clearly rebel against him, and when Sophronius himself openly armed himself against the spreading false teaching, while before he acted more in the spirit of meekness and condescension towards the erring. For the whole creation is chiefly directed against the new false teaching. The purpose of the treatise is to prove, contrary to the heretics, that the Son of God accepted true human nature with all its properties, and therefore with the human will. Therefore, the holy father says that “the only begotten Son of God truly accepted our entire composition: flesh similar to us and a soul of the same essence with our souls, and a mind similar to our mind, and a will similar to our will, and became a perfect man from the very moment of conception, and now resides at the right hand of God the Father with the same properties (human) that He assumed in the incarnation.” In accordance with the purpose of St. Sophrony first affirms the truth of the unchangeable and complete existence of two natures in the person of the incarnate Word of the Hypostasis; then, as a necessary consequence of this truth, he deduces the truth about two wills in Jesus Christ, a truth as undoubted as the reality of two natures in Jesus Christ is undoubted, and concludes with surprise at the strangeness of how those who accept (Monothelites) the first dogma reject the latter, without noticing the obvious contradiction in their thoughts. Modern and closest to St. The writers do not mention Sophronia about this creation. It is clear that the treatise was not widely known for a long time. This could have happened mainly from the fact that the Monothelites, noticing the power of this work against their false teaching, took their measures to hide and destroy it, just as they destroyed the 600 testimonies in defense of Orthodoxy collected by Sophronius from various fathers, which did not reach us, no doubt, for this very reason. But if there is no doubt that Sophronius fought not only with Sergius, but also with Pyrrhus (as we have seen), then is it not fair to think that the zealous defender of orthodoxy did not stop writing against dangerous heresy even in the last years of his patriarchate, as he wrote for the first time? And how can we explain St. Theophan and St. A church that glorifies Sophronius for his exploits against Pyrrhus, unless we assume that the treatise on the Incarnation not only belongs to him, but it was he who delivered to Sophronius the victory that Theophanes attributes to him over Pyrrhus? The very content of the treatise speaks in favor of historical circumstances and vouches for the authenticity of the creation, especially since there is no such work by St. Maximus, nor among other opponents of the Monothelitian heresy. Its similarity with the members of the faith (in the epistle), which contains the teaching on the same subject, leaves no doubt about its authenticity; and the difference in the tone of presentation and in the direction (in the first there is a spirit of meekness, in the latter there is a more spirit of severity and the strangeness of the basis of the Monothelite error is directly expressed) eliminates any reason to think that this is the same treatise 105. c) Word about the baptism of the Savior 106. The narration in this word about the wars and cruelties of the Saracens indicates that the creation was written after the invasion of the barbarians in Palestine and Jerusalem. The common subject is the gospel event - the appearance of St. Trinity at the baptism of Jesus Christ. Private writers affirm (against Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches and other heretics) the truth that Jesus Christ, consubstantial with God the Father and the Holy Spirit by nature, the true God, is consubstantial with us in humanity - and that despite the duality of natures, He has one Hypostasis. Showing the equality of the Son of God with the other persons of the Holy Trinity in all the properties of the Divine, the Author affirms the one will in Him with the Father and the Spirit; and revealing the idea of ​​the Savior accepting true human nature, he says, among other things, that He also had human will. From this we can conclude that the goal of the Shepherd-preacher is to expose from the church pulpit, along with other heresies, the error of the Monothelites and to warn his flock against both the former and the latter. B) Moral-dogmatic a) Conversation at Christmas, which happened on Sunday. It was said by Sophronius during the capture of Bethlehem and during the siege of Jerusalem by the Saracens. For it repeatedly speaks of the cruelty of these enemies, as well as the impossibility of celebrating, as usual, this day at the birthplace of the Savior, in Bethlehem, occupied by barbarians. The double celebration served as an occasion for the very content of the conversation. Christmas Day and together Resurrection Day, on which, as Sophrony says, the words of the psalmist were fulfilled: mercy and truth will meet, truth and the world will kiss 107 - first fills the heart of the writer with a deep feeling of joy, which he tries to pour into the hearts of Christians; then he gives him the opportunity to talk about the birth of the Lord Jesus, who became incarnate for the redemption of people, as the beginning of our salvation, and about his resurrection from the dead, as the final completion of this work; Finally, the invasion of the Saracens and their cruelty turn the speaker’s gaze to the moral cause of this disaster - to the sins of Christians. Therefore, in conclusion, he begs with tears to maintain the purity of faith and through repentance to cleanse oneself from sinful defilements, in order to ward off the righteously punishing wrath of God. b) Conversation on the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and on St. Resurrection (on Sunday). And here, as in the previous conversation, Sophrony begins with an expression of the joy that Christians draw from the cross of Christ, on which the Lord nailed the handwriting on us 108 - and from His Resurrection, by virtue of which we undoubtedly received the hope of a future resurrection and a guarantee of bliss in the life to come. Hence, in the conversation itself, the same truths are set forth, namely, that by the death of the Lord Jesus freedom from sin and the Devil, who has the power of death, was granted to believers, and by His rising from the dead, eternal life. The revelation of these saving and longed-for truths is followed by the conditions that are required of a Christian to assimilate the fruits of the death on the cross and the resurrection of the Savior: this is the crucifixion of the old man with Him and the resurrection into a new life, or the constant renewal of the grace-filled man. In conclusion, the pious Shepherd exhorts his listeners to begin a new life in Christ, and, assuring that he who has endured everything for us will accept their conversion, prays to the Lord himself to dwell in the hearts of believers and grant them eternal bliss in heaven. c) Conversation on the veneration of the honorable and life-giving Cross (on the week of the Veneration of the Cross). At the heart of this conversation is the idea that we are all infected with the disease of sin. Just as the healing of physical illnesses usually requires abstinence, devotion to the doctor and peace of mind, so to heal us from spiritual illnesses, the merciful Lord offers fasting and the cross. The first, by mortifying the flesh, weakens the power of sin; the latter calms the spirit amid the difficult feats of fasting with the hope of future bliss given to us by the merits of Christ God on the cross. Revealing these two thoughts that make up the content of the conversation, the preacher punishes exactly how fasting and the cross weaken the effect of sin, and, preparing us for the great day of Easter, at the same time prepare us for a worthy uprising on the day of the last resurrection. On the part of Christians, unquestioning obedience to the heavenly Physician and the proper use of the means He offers are required 109 . a) Life of the Venerable Mary of Egypt. That it belongs to Sophronius, there is no doubt about it. For a) the passages cited at the Seventh Ecumenical Council from this work (albeit without indicating the name of the writer) are literally read in the very form in which the biography of St. Mary under the name Sophronia 110; b) both the ancients and most of the new writers recognize the author of the work of the same Sophronius 111. There are very few who dispute its authenticity. Some doubt it because in the life of Mary of Egypt itself there is nothing from which one could reliably either reject it or attribute it to Sophronius, and that the style here is completely different from the style of other works that undoubtedly belong to him 112. The other 113 completely take it away from St. The father is attributed to a later time, adding to the previous basis that the biography itself mentions a person (Zosimas the heretic) who lived under Leo the Armenian - against the first, we note that to doubt the authenticity of the work just because its syllable does not coincide with the syllable of other creations is unfounded. The Life of Mary was written by Sophronius upon his return from Rome, during his stay at the monastery of St. Theodosius the Great 114. The difference in the time and circumstances of the writer imperceptibly influences the difference in the style of the writings. What reason is there to doubt the authenticity of this creation just because its style is different from the style of works written by him either earlier - during his travels 115, or in the later years of his life - especially if the difference is insignificant 116? In general, the language of narration should naturally differ from the language of dogmatic teaching and polemics. As for the historical inconsistency on the basis of which they want to take away from St. Sophronia is beautiful, completely worthy of the pen of an attentive and reverent observer of the destinies of God in the salvation of people: then it is very easily and thoroughly destroyed by the compiler of our Chet-Minea, St. Dmitry Rostovsky. He says that this place 117 was introduced later by copyists, with that pious thought, to distinguish the name of the Monk Zosima, who talked with Mary, from the heretic of the same name, and so that readers (especially those who knew the wickedness of the latter), seeing the name of Zosima, would not take him for a hated heretic, and through this would not lag behind the exercise in such useful reading 118. b) Discourse on the Presentation of the Lord 119. The general content of it consists of some Gospel events, as evidence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. In particular, it is divided into five chapters. The first lists places (Nazareth, Bethlehem, etc.) remarkable for their extraordinary phenomena in the life of the Savior, which are nothing more than a revelation of the main thought of Creation; the second describes the Meeting of the baby Jesus in the Church, the rite of dedication to God performed on Him and the purpose of this accomplishment; also the prophecies of those who met Him; the third is the excitement of the Orthodox to the spiritual Meeting of the Lord and the removal of heretics from this; the fourth contains an explanation of the prophecies of Simeon and Anna; finally, in the fifth, the virtues with which Christians must adorn themselves in order to worthily meet Christ God are presented. a) Archangels, Angels and other powers (heavenly) 120. This is nothing more than a speech of praise to the entire heavenly army, filled with prayers, in which, moreover, all the ranks of Angels are counted in order, starting from the highest (Seraphim), who borrow light directly from God Himself, and to the lowest, to whom light is gradually imparted from the highest. In conclusion, the preacher extols glory to God, the Creator of such lofty and perfect beings. b) An excerpt from a word of praise to John the Theologian 121. Hippolytus the Theban says that Patriarch Sophronius, glorifying the Evangelist John, conveys to the Church of Christ that the Theologian’s father was Zevedia, and his mother was Solomiya 122. Of the new writers, this passage is attributed to the same Sophronius Cotelerius 123, Fabricius 124, Cave 125 and others. Here is the beginning of it: “John, the son of thunder, this thunders: in the beginning was the Word” 126. However, here St. Sophronius talks not about John alone, but in general about the relatives of the Lord (ἀδελφέους 127) according to the flesh, and says that their godly life (Solomia, James and Judah and Simeon of Zebedee) fully corresponds to their high lot - to be in fellowship with Christ God. c) Two excerpts from the eulogy to the martyrs Cyrus and John, read at the VII Ecumenical Council 128, contain - one a description of various types (building churches, decorating icons, etc.), in which the piety and zeal of Christians tries to glorify the glorification and veneration of the Saints; the other is a story about the miracle of healing a sick person, which took place through the prayer of Cyrus and John 129. As a hymn writer, St. Sophronius owns several troparions for the royal hours before the Nativity of Christ and Epiphany 130. Before the feast of the Nativity of Christ, three troparions are inscribed in the name of Sophronius (in the first hour). In one of them (Bethlehem, prepare), the blessed patriarch turns his speech to Bethlehem with an appeal to worthily prepare to receive the Eternal Truth, which deigned to appear in the den of Bethlehem for the salvation of the human race. In another (Now the prophetic prophecy is coming to be fulfilled..) the very coming of the Truth is glorified - the appearance, according to prophecy (Micah V, 2.) in the city of Judah of the Leader who will shepherd his people - the new Israel. In the third (This is what Joseph says to the Virgin...) the hymnographer puts speech into Joseph’s mouth and with particular force expresses the deep feeling of bewilderment, surprise, sorrow and horror with which the betrothed of the Immaculate Virgin was amazed, seeing her not being idle. Before Epiphany, at the first hour, in the rite of the consecration of water, four troparions are attributed to Patriarch Sophrony. In the first (the voice of the Lord cries on the waters...) with the voice of God himself, he calls everyone to accept the gifts of the Holy Spirit, poured out as a result of the appearance of Christ the Savior. In another (today the waters are sanctified by nature...) it expresses first the thought that the waters were sanctified by the baptism of the Lord Jesus, then the fear and trembling of the waters themselves when the Lord was immersed in them. In the third (as Christ came to the river) the truth is that Christ the King accepted baptism from the hands of our servant for the sake of sins. Finally, in the last (to the voice of one crying in the wilderness..) the content of the two previous troparions is briefly repeated and through the lips of the baptizer himself his trepidation is expressed, as a slave who did not dare to lay his hand on the Lord 131 - the exact application of prophecies to events, a deep feeling of gratitude for the great benefits of the Redeemer who was born and gave us salvation, the sublime and permeated with the spirit of piety tone of presentation - this is the essential character hymns of St. Sophronia. The speech he puts into the mouths of others is so natural and befitting of persons speaking in the language of the songwriter that the words seem to come out of their own mouths. Therefore, that prayerful appeal to God, which Sophronius makes at the end of almost every troparion, becomes the appeal not of just one hymn writer, but of every believer who longs for a visit from Christ and sanctification from the Holy Spirit. - there is no doubt that St. the father, who loved to exercise his tender soul in spiritual hymns, left other songs; but time has erased the name of the author, although his creations, in all likelihood, still resound in our churches. This assumption has all the more credibility because in our Church there are songs whose authors are unknown. Therefore, it is not without reason that St. Sophronius and some church canons 132. A significant number of words of praise (most of which have been lost) dedicated to the exploits of the saints again leads to the idea that he praised at least some of them in church hymns. And the pastor’s concern for church deanery, with which he tried to find the Charter of St., lost during the Persian invasion (614). Savva, corrected, supplemented - and then introduced it into use in all Palestinian Churches 133; also, the care with which he collected and corrected the Greek menaions 134 vouches for the reliability of this opinion, especially if we take into account the then needs of the Church. This should also include those that have come down to us from St. Sophronia's poems, namely: a) Anacreontic about Semeon the God-Receiver, in which the virtues attributed in the gospel to the righteous old man and his happy lot are sung with particular pleasantness and elegance 135. b) The same verses written by Sophronius during his travels (namely, during his stay on the island of Samos) on the death of one pious woman 136, as a consolation to her worthy son 137. Despite the small number of surviving works of Sophronius, the versatile education of St. is fully revealed from them. Father of the Church and deep knowledge of the truths of the Christian faith - a thorough study of the subjects about which he discusses, strict consistency in their presentation and depth of thoughts constitute the inalienable dignity of all works in which truths that require deepening are set forth. According to Patriarch Photius, Sophronius has knowledge of sacred dogmas; Most of all, he dwells on this and other opinions, after carefully examining which of them is correct and true 138. – Let’s write down some thoughts from his writings. Trying to understand the high dogma about the Holy Trinity, Sophrony says: “We believe in the Trinity in Unity, and we glorify the Unity in Trinity; - into the Trinity - according to the three Hypostases, and into the unity - according to the unity of the Divinity. For St. The Trinity is counted according to personal Hypostases; and the all-holy Unit is beyond all calculation. The first (Trinity) has an inseparable division and an unfused union; dividing according to personal properties, She is united by the triumph of being and nature, and does not at all allow division into parts (μερισμόν). And the Unit is singular, uncomplicated and alien to any essentially calculation.” A little lower he adds: “and this is truly wonderful and amazing: one and the same and countable and alien to calculation according to the unity of the Divinity 139.” Revealing the teaching about the incarnation of Jesus Christ, he writes: “we glorify the one God the Word incarnate, - but not as Euthychius, Appolinarius and Dioscorus say, but as the wise Cyril conveyed to us; for we teach that the properties of natures are preserved, and we preach the difference of united natures, seen and existing in natural quality (ἐν φυσικῇ ποιότητι), and in essential quantity (ἐν οὐσιώδει ποσότητι)" 140. In one of his conversations (at the Presentation of the Lord), pointing out in the very teachings of the ancient Philosophers some mysteries (mysteria), he concludes that it is all the more fitting and inevitable for there to be mysteries in Christian - God-given revelation. Thus, we see not only the extensive learning of St. father, not only a deep study of the objects of faith, but also the high art of using various knowledge and the ability, with all the depth and sublimity of the teaching, to express it clearly and intelligibly. In addition, in the writings of St. Sophrony we find the natural beauty of style, ease of expression and nobility - qualities that determine the external character of most of his creations. On the other hand, the meek spirit of the shepherd, brought up in sorrows, and the heart tender before God are also fully expressed in the Scriptures: they are all imbued with a high sense of piety, breathing meekness and edification, so that no matter how much you read, each time you feel a special pleasure, you receive benefit and edification 141. This is, predominantly, the internal character of the writings of this father. - But when it comes to defending the true teaching of Christ, then St. Sophrony, from a meek preacher, becomes a bold and zealous denouncer of errors contrary to Orthodoxy. From here - from an ardent zeal for the purity of Orthodoxy - comes another distinctive feature in the internal character of his creations: this is strength, determination, courage and even a certain severity worthy of a great shepherd and strong defender of the true faith. These qualities are mainly found in those places of the scriptures where errors and heresies are refuted and reflected. In this regard, one passage in his message is especially remarkable. Having anathematized by name, as he puts it, with soul and heart and lips and mind, and thoughts and words, all the heretics whom the Orthodox Church anathematizes, Sophronius says about one of them: “together with all these and before all and after all and above all and primarily before all, let the North be anathematized, the most ferocious tyrant before all new and ancient acephalites, the worst enemy of the saint The most lawless desecrator and the most wicked corrupter of the Catholic Church, and the most holy Church of Antioch.” In addition to the genuine creations of Sophronius, the following are attributed to him: a) those that, contrary to the nature of his writings, cannot be attributed to him; b) those that, although in content are worthy of the name Sophronius, were not written by him. a) essays of the first type include: 1. Passage on the baptism of the Apostles 142. His main idea is that Jesus Christ baptized Peter alone with his own hands, then Peter baptized Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, and so on. But the opinion about the baptism of Peter by Jesus Christ, and only one at that, immediately attracts suspicion as having no basis either in the Holy Scriptures or in the ancient tradition of the Church. Tertullian, based on the words of the Evangelist John: Jesus himself did not baptize, but His disciples 143, says: “Let no one be indignant because He (the Lord) himself did not baptize. For - into whom would He baptize? To repentance? But then he would be no different from the Forerunner. For the forgiveness of sins? But he gave it by word. In Yourself? But He didn't die yet. In the Holy Spirit? But the Holy Spirit has not yet been sent from the Father. To the Church? But it was not created by the Apostles. So, the disciples baptized, and with the baptism of John the Baptist - let no one think otherwise 144.” We find similar evidence from St. Chrysostom, who, during the life of Jesus Christ, allows one baptism of John, i.e. baptism of repentance 145. The blessed one speaks about this even more clearly. Augustine: “Jesus did not baptize Himself, but through His disciples, who had already been baptized either by the baptism of John, as some think, or by the baptism of Christ 146.” Therefore, according to the teachings of the Church, Jesus Christ did not baptize anyone. The most learned, well acquainted with the monuments of antiquity, St. Sophronius could not be the culprit of an opinion not only unknown in the Christian Church, but also not in agreement with the ancient tradition - and we have sufficient grounds, based on this thought alone, to reject the authenticity of the passage, especially since no one from the ancients mentions it. Therefore, even the most moderate of Western critics doubt its authenticity, despite the fact that the thought contained in it favors the teaching of the papists about the primacy of the Apostle Peter. Kave directly states that Lambetius, without any reason, attributes this passage to Sophronius, frivolously trusting the art (cunning) of others 147. 2. An excerpt about the labors, exploits and travels of the Apostles Peter and Paul 148, which, however, contains a brief description of the life and travels of Peter alone. It is attributed by some Westerners to the presbyter Sophronius, a friend and contemporary of Blessed Jerome 149. Baronius, referring to this work, names the author as Patriarch Sophronius 150. But it belongs to neither one nor the other. Jerome, having listed, after the description of life, the writings of his friend Sophronius, does not mention this creation 151; therefore it was not there. It is even less likely that Patriarch Sophrony was the author of a book containing obvious inconsistencies and errors. Here are some passages from the passage itself: “An eyewitness to the Transfiguration of the Lord, Peter was the first to hear a voice: - he is entrusted with the leadership of the world and given the keys of heavenly treasures; placed over the society of the Apostles, he appoints Matthias to the Apostleship.” This alone is enough to see the contradiction of the thoughts contained here with the teachings of not only the Church, but also with the direct narration of the Holy Books of the New Testament 152. Thus, to attribute the passage to Sophronius would mean to bring the accusation of ignorance of the teachings of the Church and even Scripture itself to the holy father. The thoughts contained in it, clearly imbued with later Western concepts about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, themselves distinguish the dishonesty and zeal (not according to reason) of Roman scholars for Papal authority and bring upon them a fair suspicion of forgery. Therefore, some of the Western scientists, who are more impartial, think, not without reason, that this passage was taken from there 153. b) creations of another kind include: 1. Biography of the Venerable Martyr Anastasius of Persia 154. It is considered dubious solely due to the lack of historical evidence about the author. One Baronius 155 mentions the writer of this creation; but he also affirmatively testifies only to the fact that the acts of the martyr were conveyed by a contemporary of St. Anastasia, about the writer himself, says this: “One can guess that the life of Anastasia was described by a certain Antiochus (monk), then a famous biography writer, or Sophronius, who was also famous then among church writers.” In the biography itself, nothing can be found that could reliably confirm its authenticity or inauthenticity. 2. Song “Quiet Light”: - in Greek and our books of hours it is inscribed as follows: song of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. But he was not its creator: it is a work of great antiquity 156. St. Basil the Great speaks of it as ancient. Here are his words: “Our fathers decided not to enjoy the pleasantness of the evening light in silence, but to immediately thank (God) when evening came.” I cannot say who was the author of these words, which ones are pronounced at the candlelight or in the evening thanksgiving. But from ancient times the people raised a voice: we sing of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, etc. 157. In the Alexandrian manuscript of 70 interpreters and some ancient copies of the Greek Psalter, this song is also read in the very form in which we now have it 158. The inscription with the name of Sophronius entered and remained, in all likelihood, due to the fact that he introduced it into use in the Palestinian Churches. 3. Spiritual Meadow. Saint John of Damascus 159 and the fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council 160, citing passages from this book, call Sophronius its author. But known for his piety and learning, Patriarch Photius says that “its writer is John, nicknamed Moschus” 161. And truly, from the Lug itself it is clear that its author is not Sophrony. In the preface the book is dedicated (by John) to “the sophist Sophronius, beloved in Christ,” and the latter is called the spiritual son of the former. In the meadow itself, the writer - Moschus - speaks of Sophronius as an outsider 162, imagines him speaking and himself writing 163, and calls him either a sophist, then a brother, then a father 164. However, from the meadow itself it is also clear that Sophrony took some part in this work 165. Therefore, if some, borrowing evidence from Lug D., call it the work of Sophronius, then this happened either because they recognized him as a participant in the compilation of Lug, or even because Lug D. was dedicated to Sophronius, especially because Sophronius handed it over to the Church 166. There are also indications of other works authentically written by St. Sophronius, but have not reached us. These are the words of praise: To the Apostles Peter and Paul, St. John the Baptist, St. John the Merciful, and St. forty martyrs, also two books with 600 patristic passages 167. But if, according to the testimony of Le Quien 168, the number of those lost exceeds the number that have reached us, then St. Sophronius worked on the writings no less than other famous Fathers of the Church, who left many creations. B) Main Points of Teaching 169 The heresy of the Monothelites, against which Sophronius rebelled, itself determines the essence of the teaching defended and revealed by the holy father in the fight against the enemies of Orthodoxy; This is a dogma about two actions and wills in one Hypostasis of Christ the Savior, which (dogma), although it has always been contained by the Orthodox Church, was not revealed by the fathers and Teachers of the Church until the end of the 7th century with such clarity as this dogma was revealed by St. Sophrony. But since the dogma of two wills and two actions in Jesus Christ is in close connection with the doctrine of two natures in the God-man and follows from it as a necessary consequence, then St. the father first sets out - a) the dogma of the duality of natures in one hypostasis of Christ God; then b) on this truth of Christian doctrine he affirms another truth - the reality of two wills and actions, which are inseparably and unfused, like natures, united in one and the same Person of God the Word. A) After the dogma about the true incarnation of the Son of God, Sophronius teaches about two natures in one Hypostasis of the Redeemer: “God the Word became incarnate in our likeness - not so that He was united with previously created flesh, or clothed in a previously existing body, or formed with a pre-existent soul; but in such a way that body and soul began to exist when God the Word united with them; their union (i.e., soul and body) is contemporary in nature (φυσικῶς) with their being, so that they did not exist in themselves before the actual union of the Word with them, but have a being contemporary with the natural union of the Word with them, so that neither one nor the other (neither being nor union) preceded each other for a moment. For as soon as the flesh began to exist, then it became the flesh of God the Word, animate, rational. For in union with Him, and not on its own, it received its existence. All this (soul and body) was brought into being together with the conception of the Word (in the womb of the Most Holy Virgin) and united with it by Hypostasis at the same time as it was soon brought into being. Therefore, the natures (divine and human), hypostatically united with each other, know neither transformation nor dissection, but also do not know confusion, as Nestorius and Eutyches thought, who did not understand the power of the hypostatic union, by which the Word was incarnate, and the animate and rational flesh was immutably deified; and therefore the latter does not want to recognize the duality of nature, the former is afraid to recognize one complex (of two natures) hypostasis of Him. We, having reflected the insane fear of both of them, preach the hypostatic union of God the Word with our rational and animated flesh, we confess Him in two natures; but at the same time we honor the Word incarnate as one Christ and Son, we recognize His one Divine hypostasis. We reject both confusion and division; and we sincerely accept the unfused and indivisible union of Divinity and humanity, which is the only natural hypostatic union that can be. We recognize Christ as perfect both in Divinity and in humanity, and we teach that He consists of two natures, that He is one and the same, as God, consubstantial with the Father, and as man, consubstantial with the Mother and us; but at the same time we confess that He remains one, in no way dividing into two, and without division or transformation, manifesting the natures of which He consists. This is a hypostasis or a complex Person, formed through unfused dissolution (ἐξ ἀσυγχύτου ἀνακράσεως) and addition that knows no division, and is and remains one indivisible. It is not two because it has become one; but it also does not merge and is not brought into one unity, into the natural and essential identity of those natures from which it was naturally united; but one and the same thing is both one and two - one according to hypostasis or person, two according to those natures and their natural properties, of which it is one and always remains dual in nature. it is obvious that St. Sophrony directs everything here mainly to the understanding that in the incarnate God the Word two natures were united, and moreover, in such a way that the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ are unfused and inseparably united in the unity of His Divine Nature. B) If, therefore, the dogma of two natures in Christ the Savior does not at all contradict the teaching of one hypostasis, then it naturally follows that the dual mode of activity of Jesus Christ also does not contradict the unity of His hypostasis. In the God-man there are both two natures with one inseparable hypostasis, and two actions also with one inseparable hypostasis: this is another point of the teaching revealed by St. Sophronius. “The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, being undivided in two natures, also performs actions naturally characteristic of the Divine and human nature, in accordance with the essential quality and natural property of both; - which He would not have done if He had a single and uncomplicated nature, like a hypostasis or a person, or - He would not have produced the same things that are characteristic of both natures. For how could the Divinity, not being involved in the body, perform the works naturally characteristic of the body? Or how could the body, not being a partaker of the Divinity, perform works that are essentially characteristic of the Divinity? But Emmanuel, being God and man, performed the true works of both natures.” 170 In order to more conveniently imagine the separation and certainty of dual activity in Christ, Sophronius counts separately the works of human and Divine activity, and says that Jesus Christ is born like us, feeds on milk, grows, passing through bodily ages until he reaches perfect human age; like us, it feels hunger, thirst, fatigue, the need for sleep and food, and satisfies these natural requirements; but at the same time, as the true God, He performs deeds that exceed human strength, such as the miracles He performed during His earthly life. All this, testifying that each nature has its own activity, obviously shows in Christ a twofold mode of action - human and Divine. But having indicated separately for the sake of clarity those and other actions of the God-Man, St. the father eliminates all bewilderment and fear of falling through such a teaching into the heresy of Nestorius, asserting that all deeds - Divine and human - were performed by a single inseparable person. “Because Jesus Christ,” he continues, is one and the same, God and man: then one and the same did, exactly as he said, both divine and human, not so that one performed miracles, and the other performed human deeds and endured suffering, as Nestorius thinks; but in such a way that one and the same Christ and Son performed both Divine and human deeds, only one with one, the other with another nature; because He had the power to perform these and other actions, a power (will) unfused, but also inseparable; for in Christ, just as each nature retained its action without damage (ἀνελλιπῶς), so each species (μορφή) acted with the participation of another, namely, the Word did what was peculiar to it, with the participation, however, of the body (human nature); and the body produced what is proper to the body, with the participation of the Word in action. And all this must be recognized in one form, rejecting insane division; for the natures did not perform their own actions separately, so that one could notice a division in them. Let Nestorius not admire the fact that in one Christ and the Son, both natures, with mutual participation, accomplished what is characteristic of each of them; because in Him, although each nature accomplished what was proper to itself, it was not separate from one another. Likewise, let not Eutyches triumph. For each nature accomplished what was proper to itself with the participation of the other - both without allowing separation and without experiencing transformation. We do not say that the activity of God the Word and rationally animated flesh is the same essential and natural, and completely indifferent; on the contrary, we recognize the one and the other action of this and that being and nature, so as not to merge unfused natures, since only from actions are natures known, and the difference of natures is revealed from the difference of actions. We teach that every word and every action, whether Divine and heavenly, or human and earthly, comes from One and the same Christ and Son, from His one complex and single hypostasis, which is the incarnate Word of God.” Finally, Sophronius also refutes the basis of the Monothelites, on which they thought, among other things, to establish their error: these are the words of St. Dionysius the Areopagite that they misunderstood: “Every action of Jesus Christ,” he adds, must be attributed to Him as to the Only Son. Therefore, the godly wise men very well determined to confess the One Immanuel, and to him alone, and not to two different ones, to attribute without any distinction all actions, great and small, from which the unmerged duality of His natures is actually known, although He Himself is by no means divided into two hypostases or persons, but is one and the same Son and indivisible Christ, inseparably cognizable in two natures. And therefore we assimilate everything that belongs to him to the One Son. This, in our opinion, is the so-called general or Godly action (Θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια) 171, which is not of one, but of heterogeneous properties. About this action, the God-wise Dionysius, converted to faith from the Areopagites, says that it is, at the same time, befitting of both God and man, and with its beautiful complex name it clearly means every activity of one and the other essence and nature.” Since the force by which this or that action is performed is free will or desire, the dual mode of activity in Jesus Christ - Divine and human - necessarily presupposes not only two natures, but also two wills. Consequently, with the affirmation of the dogma of two actions, the doctrine of two wills is also affirmed; what is said about the first also applies to the last. Therefore, it is not surprising that St. Sophrony does not reveal the doctrine of two wills in such detail. However, this point was not left unattended by him 172. Here are his words about this subject: “The only begotten Son of (God) the Father according to Divinity, the Lord Jesus has... and an omnipotent will; and having received flesh and soul, consubstantial with us, He also accepted the same will as ours.” After such a precise and complete disclosure of the controversial dogma, there is nothing left to say other than to exclaim with St. Sophronius: “It is wonderful and incomprehensible why those who recognize two natures in the person of God the Word reject the doctrine of two actions and wills, not noticing that they contradict themselves.” Therefore, Patriarch Photius, who read the letter of Sophronius to Honorius, says that the testimonies of the fathers collected here are very useful for repelling heretics who affirm one action in Jesus Christ 173. And truly, subsequent Fathers, who continued the struggle against the Monothelites begun by Sophronius, revealed with greater or less integrity and detail the teaching contained in the works of the first opponent of heresy 174. So, St. Sophrony rendered a very important faithful service to the Orthodox Church. At the beginning, the heresy of the Monovelites was hidden behind dark, indefinable expressions, which apparently were not even contrary to the spirit of Christian teaching 175 . It was difficult to see through this shell the lie hiding underneath. It was necessary to have the most insightful mind, deeply imbued with the spirit of Orthodoxy, in order to see the danger hidden in the words and expressions of such a famous father as Dionysius the Areopagite. On the other hand, the Monothelites relied on the most plausible pretext - reconciliation with the Church of the most numerous heretics, which, under the circumstances of that time, was not only useful, but extremely necessary. Pure Christian self-sacrifice was needed in order for the benefit of Orthodoxy to despise all the external benefits that were promised by joining the Church of heretics. St. Sophronius had both a penetrating mind and a sense of complete selflessness. Just as he was the first to reveal an imperceptible error to the Orthodox, he was also the first to rebel against it. Subsequent opponents of the Monothelites followed the path indicated and laid out by St. Sophronius. There is no detailed teaching in the works of St. father against the false conclusion according to which the Monothelites (Sergius) argued that with the assumption of dual actions in Christ, it is necessary to recognize in Him two opposing wills. But it is not revealed partly because Sophronius did not know about the letter of Sergius to Honorius, in which (the message) alone this idea is contained; partly because the true teaching about this naturally follows from those places where Sophronius asserts that in Christ human nature is deified 176. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, briefly repeating in its definition the teaching set forth in detail in the writings of St. Sophronius, about two undivided and immutable natural wills and actions in one hypostasis of Jesus Christ, made up for this deficiency by professing: “two natural desires are not contrary (let them not be), like the wickedness of the heretic; but His human will is subsequent (ἑπόμενον) and subordinate to his Divine and omnipotent will 177 . Le Quien. Orient. Christian. 1. III. pag 279. Leont n. et. Joan. Elecmoryn. apud. Lolland. lantuan. XXIII. T.III. num. 2. Apud, Bolland, act, Ss. Mart. XI. T. II. num. I. Epist, ad Sergium – in actione XI, Sext, – Synod. Fleury. Hist. Eceles. T.S. p.668 Spiritual Meadow, ch. 68, 76, etc. St. Macarius V. Says that every educated and eloquent person was called a Scholastic or Sophist (Demon 26) Sigibert about Frank: “Frank Scholastic (Sophist) was famous both for his education and for his honesty of life (Chon. Ad. An 1018) In this sense, Blessed Jerome calls St. Serapion the Bishop of Gmuite a Scholastic or Sophist (de vir. Illustr c 99), in the same sense, without a doubt, are called in Luga D. Sophists - Cosmas, monk Stephen and St. Sophronius ch. 7, 101, 170, 171. Apud, Bolland, act, Ss. Mart. XI. M. T. II. Num. I p. 63. Biblioth. Phot. cod.199 p. 519. In Luga we read: “Mr. Sophrony and I went to the Sophist’s house to learn from him.” Sophrony, thanking his mentor for giving him this example of edification, says: “Thank you, Abba: you listened to a very good lesson.” Ch. 76. We find an indication of the order of travel in Patras. Photius - in Bibl cod.199 - where he says: “John, nicknamed Moschus, lived first in the monastery of St. Theodosius, then with the monks who labored in the Jordanian desert, and in the new Lavra of St. Savva. From here he traveled to Antioch, to Alexandria, and collected information there about the great deeds of various fathers. With the same intention, he visited the islands on his way to Rome. Having collected information here and there, he proposed it in this work (in Luga D.), which he dedicated to Sophrony, his student.” And since the latter was the inseparable companion of the first (Fleury. Hist. Eccles. T. 8. p.668), then this order is common to both. We will follow it, using mainly the D. Meadow, in which travelers, recording events, point to the places themselves (see the publication of this book in Russian translation 1848. S. N. Burg); only they present their stories more in order of content than of time, as can be seen from the Meadow itself. Meadow D. Ch. 4, 91. 102, etc. L.D. Chapter 12. 106. 140. etc. Ch. 3. 11. 51. 127. 166. 184. Ch. 30. 31. 50. 55. 78. 89, etc. Fleury. II. E. T. 8. P. 614. The latter says about himself “having heard about Alexandria, the capital of Egypt and Libya, I arrived there.” And a little lower, “Having arrived at a certain church and entering it, we (meaning, of course, John) saw a wondrous icon, etc.” Sophron. de Ss. Cir et Ioan. mirac. – ap. Bin. In act. 4 VII Synod. T.V.p. 641. “We came to Alexandria, I and Mr. Sophronius the Sophist, before he renounced the world.” Ch. 68. Thu Min. Mar. II and from Lug D. we see that Sophrony is already telling Abvoy (in Alexandria) a vision that he was awarded just before taking monastic orders. Ch. 101. 102. His memory is celebrated by our Church on November 12, and by the Western Church on January 23. Fleury. H.E. T. 8. p. 662, 663. Apud. Bolland. Act. Ss. T.III. Ianuar. XXIII n. 60. In Luga D. there are indications of monasteries famous for the names of great ascetics - Macarius, Anthony, Pachomius, no doubt because the travelers had not been to these places. Nicephor. H. lib. XVIII. p.43. Fleury H.E. T. 8. p. 653. Leont. ap. Bolland. In loc. Citat. num. 89. For neither the writer Luga D., nor Leonty, despite the fact that they describe in detail the events in Alexandria, do not say that travelers accompanied the Patriarch on the way to Cyprus. This is led to by Sophronius’s laudable (funeral) word for John the Merciful, which is mentioned by Leonty (he generally says that John and Sophronius wrote about John the Merciful, but by this, of course, he means the word written by Sophronius) apud. Bolland. In loc. Citat. num. 89., Fabricius in Bibl.Grec. T. VIII. p. 200. etc. Le Quien. Orient. Christ. T. 3. p. 265. Le Quien. Orient. Christ. T. 3. p. 263. Meadow D. Ch. 107. 183. 186. 190. 149. 150. etc. Fleury. H.E. T. 8. p. 689. Before his death, John bequeathed to transfer his body to Sinai; If it is impossible to fulfill this due to the invasion of barbarians, bury yourself in the monastery of St. Feodosia (near Jerusalem). Fulfilling the last will of his beloved teacher, Sophronius went (together with the other 11 students of Moschus) to the East, and having learned in Ascalon that the path to Sinai was occupied by enemies, he arrived in Jerusalem. After communication with the abbot of the monastery of St. Theodosius, the monks carried the body of the blessed one. John to this monastery and interred (Fleury. H.E. T. 8. p. 689 et. Sq.). Having thus arrived at this monastery, Sophronius joined the ranks of the monks of the Lavra of St. Theodosius, and, practicing deeds of piety, wrote here, among other things, some of his creations. Le Quien. Orient. Christ. T.III.p.265. Meadow D. is filled with all this, where travelers wrote down all the wonderful events that they encountered in order to pass on to others the moral lessons that they themselves received: “we wrote about this in order to give you a lesson” Ch.76. Hist. Sext. Sin. Apud. Bin. Concil. T. 5. p. 6. Baron Annua T. VII.ad an.335. num. 69. 73. Eutyeh. Patriar. Alex. annal.T. 2. p. 191. Against heretics, in addition to conciliar definitions, civil laws were decreed, subjecting them to punishment (Christliche Kirchen-Geschichte von Sehroekh. Theil. 20. p. 386). Although the Monothelites, who accepted two natures, were not subject to the definitions decreed against former heretics, but as leaders of a life that directly led to error Monophysite, they had to hide their thoughts, so that - if not directly, then indirectly, they would not appear as followers of Eutyches, and so on. Don't be judged. Сedrin. Hist. compend. T.I. p.293, 522, 552, etc. edit. Vetel. Fleury. Hist. Ecles T. 8. P. 755. Hist. Sext. Syn. In loc. Citat. Epist. Theodor. Ad Serg. In act. 13. Sext. Syn. apud Bin. T.V.p. 219–221. In agreement with this, Bishop Stephen, sent to Rome by Sophronius in the case of the Monothelite heresy, tells the story at the Lateran Council. Vid. Later. Syn. sub Martino. 1. Secret. 2.ap. Bin. T.IV. p. 672. Hist. Sext. Syn. apud. Bin. T. V. 6. Fleury. Hist. Ecles T. VIII. P. 756. Epist. 4. Serg. ad. Cyr. In act. 12. Sext. Syn. ap. Bin. T.V.p. 194. Bergier. diction. de Teolog. T. V. Monothel. Hist. Sext. Syn. in loc. quote. He taught the Patriarchate in 630, after the death of George of Alexandria, Fleury. H.E.T. VIII. p. 760. Berg. diction. de Teolog. T. V. Monothel. S. Maxim.un. epist. ad. Petr. Opp. Max. T. 2. p. 75. edit. Parts. Vid. Syn. Alexan. a Cyrocoactam. ap. Bin. T.IV. p. 377. Vid. artic. Cyr. in act. 13. Sext. Syn. ap. Bin. T.V.p. 217–219. In the letter to Sergius Chr. Thurs. 1840 Part IV. Page 326. Christ. Kirchengesch. Schrockh Theil. 20. p. 396. Diction. de Teolog. Bergier T. V. p. 434. S. Maxim. un. in loc. cit. Appolinary falsely thought that the Lord Jesus Christ took on one flesh as man. without soul and mind. Epist. II. Cyri. ad Serg. In. lec. cit. p. 216. Fleury. H.E.T. 8. p. 762. Theophan. Chronogr. p. 274. Epist. Cyr. in loc. cit. p. 216. Annal. Ercies. Barou. T. VIII. ad. an. 633.num 4. S. Maxim. in disput. cum. Pyrrho. Vid. Maxim. Bibl. pp. T. 12. p. 503.item – epist. Serg. ad. Honor. In. act. 12 sex. Syn. ap. Bin. T.V.p. 199. Epist. Serg. in loc cit. p. 200. Fleury H.E.T. 8. p.763. Baron. Ann. Eccles. T. VIII. ad. an. 633. p. 3. Fleury in. loc. quote. p.764. Sob. village St. Soph. Chr. Thurs. 1840.H. IV.page 208. Epist. Serg. Ad Honor. in act. 12. Sex. Syn. ap. Bin. T.V. p.27. The forgery of this book was discovered after the 6th century. Sob. act. 5.ap. Bin. T.V. p.27. Epist. Serg. Ad Honor. in loc. cit. p.195–201. Epist. Serg. Ad Honor. in act.12. Sex. Syn. ap. Ben. T.V. p.201. Epist. Honor. in. loc. cit. 202 – 205. Theoph. Chronogr. p. 274. Epist. S. Sophron. in act..II Sex..Syn. Bin. T.V. p.169. 171. 172. etc. and Chr. Thurs. 1840. Part IV. Art. 323. The evidence from the patristic writings collected in this epistle, proving the truth of two natures and actions in I. Christ, suggests the very thought with which they are placed here. Vid al. Epist. S. Sophron ad Honor. m. Bibl. Pbot. Code.234. Honor. Epist. II. ad.Serg. in. act. 13. Sext. Syn. T.V.p. 226. 227. Apub. Bin. et. Secretar. 2. Lat. Syn. sub Martino 1. T. IV. P. 673 S. Maxim in disput. cum Pyrrho.. Ibid. P. 631.. Apub. Bin. In loc.cit.p. 673. Theoph. Chronogr. p. 281. Ibid. p. 282. These are his words: In ea rerum calamitate Sophronius verbis et gestis Hierosolymorum Ecclesiam amplificans, de Heraclio et Monothelitarum ipsi addictorum pravitatibus et commentis, deque Sergio et Pyrrho confubatis, ellarissima trophea referens, defunctus est. Writers do not determine the years of Sophronius' death in the same way. Some (Baron Annal ad. an. 636. n. 3. Fleury. H. E. T. 9. p. 26) date back to 636; others (Fabr. In. Bibl. Graec. T. VII. p. 483., Le Quien. orient. Christian. T. III. p. 279.) to 638, and Lequien even to 644. Following the narrative of Theophanes, as an ancient witness, one can see from his own words that Sophronius really died, at least not earlier than 640, if not later. For - a) Sergius died in 639 (Fleury. H. E. T. 9. p. 60.), and at the same time he was succeeded by Pyrrhus, for his exploits against whom, in addition to the testimony of Theophan, St. Sophronius is glorified by our Church (see in Min. Greek and ours - 11 Mar. can. Sophronius); Consequently, the latter was alive at least at the beginning of the Patriarchate of the former. Moreover - b) Pyrrhus himself (in disput. S. Maxim. cum Pyrrho) uses the following image of expression: Σοφρόνιος ὁ μικρῷ πρόθεν Πατριάρχης, [In ed. προθεν, ver., vm. πρόσθεν. - Ed. AB. ] which clearly shows the proximity of the time that elapsed from the death of Sophronius to the dispute with St. Maximus, which took place in 645 (Consil. Bin. T. IV. p. 623.). Compiled by Sergius and promulgated in 639. Emperor Heraclius, under his own name, another edict (ἔκθεσις), commanding that no one should dare to teach about one or two wills in Jesus Christ (Ap. Fleury. In. loc. cit. p. 59, 80.), was promulgated, no doubt, as a result of resistance to error - Sophronius, as the only opponent of false teaching Monofelites. And that there is no detailed evidence of the exploits of the zealot of the faith after the embassy in Rome: this is partly because many ancient monuments were destroyed in troubled times of Muslims and iconoclasts, and partly because the invasion of the former prevented Sophronius from acting as before, so openly that it would be visible to everyone... In Secret. 2. Later. Syn. sub Mart. 1.apud. Bin. T. IV p. 673. At the Lateran Council, in addition to Stephen, a significant number of Greek clergy were present. Ibid. p. 675. S. Maxim. epist. Ad. Petr. opp. T. 2. p. 77. Apud. Bin. In. loc. cit. p. 673. Hist. Sex. Syn. ap. Bin. T.V.p. 7. Concil. Roman. sub. John. IV. ibid. T.IV. p. 621. Later. Syn. sub. Mart. 1. p. 675., where Pope Marinus, after listening to Bishop Stephen, addressing the fathers of the Council, says that one hundred Stephen has now revealed to everyone what had previously been repeatedly presented to him. In. act. II. Sex. Syn. ap. Bin. T. V p. 158. 59.et in act.13 p. 212. Le Quien. orient. Christ. T.III. p279. On the publication of the works of St. Sophronius, we note that we do not have a single complete collection of his writings. Some of them (conciliar epistle, etc.) have been preserved and are included in the acts of the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils; others are placed in the Library of the Fathers (T. 12.) some published by Bolland in the Acts of the Saints (Vid. April. 2. Vit. S. Marie. Et Februar T. I p. 274.) and Combefnesius in the Library Preaching (T. 1. p. 672); one (verses about Simeon the God-Receiver) is given by Allacius (in diatriba de Simeon p. 5.) and an excerpt from the other (a eulogy to John the Theologian) was published by the Dutch in the Library of the Ancient Fathers (T. III. p. 252.). There are still unpublished works of Sophronius - which is a treatise on the incarnation of one of the persons of the Holy Trinity (Du Pin.Hist. Eccles. Vol. IV.p. 17.et Cav. H.litter. Vol. 1.p. 579). Intending to review the creations of St. father, we will read them according to these various editions, without entering into a critical analysis of the editions themselves. In. act. II. Sex. Syn. App. Bin. Concil. T.V.p. 158–185. And Chr. Thurs. 1840. Part IV pp. 204, 322. Ap. Bin. In. loc. cit. p. 155. 158. 212. Vid. Phot. Bibl. cod. 231. p. 887. Photius says that he read the letter to Honorius, the Pope of Rome, and not to Sergius of Constantinople. But the same message was sent to Sergius, and to Honorius, and to the other Bishops (Vid. Fabr. Bibl. Graek. T. 9. p. 484 et 485). Track. Photius speaks not against, but in favor of the authenticity of creation. For example “I decided to state….I believe” and so on. Apud. Lab. Nov. Bibl. Ms. p.90 Tillem. memor. Eccles. Vol. 5. Ad vit. Cyri. This treatise has not yet been published and is kept in manuscript; Kaveh, apparently, read it, and in our judgment about this creation we use his review (Vid. T.1. p. 579.) and Dupin (Vol. IV. p. 17.). It is attributed to Sophronius, in addition to Tillenon, Kave, Dupin and others. Vid. Hist. Litter. Vol. 1. p. 579. Du Pin. Hist. Eccles. Vol. VI. p. 17. In Bible Concionat. Combef. T.1. p. 672–677. He omnes Oration. edit. in Max. Bibl. PP. T.12 p. 206–214. In act. 4.apud Bin. T.V.p. 658, where, by the way, we read: ἀνακηρύττειν ἔνδοξον. This is how it begins and this is how other passages in the Menaion are read - Latin. and ours. “Keep the king’s secret well, but reveal the works of God gloriously.” Vid. act. SS. ap. Bolland in April. Ad vit. S. Marie. Ioan. Damascen. In orat. 1. De Imag. Ad fine. Nicephor. Hist. lib. XVII. c. 5. Fabr. in Bible Graec. T. VIII. p. 204. Cave in Hist. litter. p. 579. Le Quien. Orient. Christ. T.III. p. 265. Act SS. Mart. IX. T. II. num. 23. Paperbrochius in April. T. II. p. 65. Possinus – Thes. Ascet. In prolegom. n. 11. 12. Like for example Words of praise to the martyrs John and Cyrus, and St. John the Merciful. The opinion that the syllable here is completely different...unfair. The beauty, lightness and nobility noticeable in this creation are the common (as we will see) qualities of all the works of Sophrony. It reads like this: “let no one think that this was Zosima the heretic, although both have the same name, etc.” See 1st Apr. note At the end of the life of Mary Egypt. Apud. Bolland. February. T. 1. p. 274–279. Ex. MS. Graeco Medico Regis Francie. It is attributed to Sophronius, in addition to Bolland, by Fabricius (bibl. T. 8. p. 201.). In Maxim. Bibl. PP. T. 12. p. 209.59. Apud. Galland. In Bible Vet. PP. T.III. p.252. Notit. in lib. 3. Const. Apostol. p. 200. In. Bibl. Craec. T. VIII. p. 200. Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς βρωντῆς ὑιός, τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος βρωντᾷ. So in the publication. ― Editorial of the ABC of Faith. In act. 4.apud. Bin. Concil. T.V.p. 640.59. For more information on this, see Chet. Min. 31 Gen., when the memory of these martyrs is celebrated Catalog.. Melod in Bibl. Fabr. T. X p.137. See Anafalagion, where in these troparia in the first hour of both feasts, and in the rite of consecration of water at the Vespers of Epiphany, the following is inscribed: “Creation of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem.” Fabr. Bibl. Graec T. XI p. 45. See witness about this Simeon of Thessalonica - Apud. Allat. In dissertation. De libr. Graecar. Eccles. p. 5. Le Quien. Orien. Christ. T.III. p. 266. Apud. Allat. In diatrib. de Symeon. p. 5. About it, see Luga D. Ch. 183. See note. to ch. 183 – Meadows D., from where we see that Sophronius left other poems, recently published by May, Vid. Spec. Roman. T.IV. Romae. 1840. p. 121–125. 641–643. For example, it is enough to mention the biography of Mary of Egypt. In comment Lambecu lib. 3. p. 52. Tertull. Lib de Bapt. c.11. In epist 108 (ad Seleuciam). In Hist. litter vol. 1 p.379. Im Maxim Bibl. PP. T V fol 1125. See Bibliotheca publishers' note. Fathers in the indicated text. Annal. Eccles. T 1 ad. an. 31 num 25. Lib. de vir. Illustr. ad finem Fabr. In Bible Eccles.World. descript. Eccles. p. 33. For example about the election of Matthew - Acts 1:23 and gave. Evidence that the opinion about the leadership of St. Peter over the society of the apostles and so on ... does not agree with the teachings of St. Scripture and Tradition of the Church - see in detail - apud Basnagium. Annal. T1.p.311–312. num. 75, 78. Vid. Seriem Auctor in T.V. Maxim Bibl. Ad Sophron Presbyt. Annal T. VIII. Ad an.627 num 1. Chr. Thurs. 1831. Part 42. See the article: “A brief historical account of the chants of our Church.” Memory Christ Antiquities Vetrin. T. 3. Part 5. p. 115. In Orat 1. De Imag opp. T.1.p.328. m 3., where we read “(Τὸ Λειμωνάριον τὲ ἁγίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Σωφρονίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἱεροσολύμων.)" In act. 4.ap.Bin. T.V. p.642. Eg. “Sophronius told me” ch. 76. Ch. 92.102.135 and others, see details about this in the preface to the publication. L.D. in Russian translation We wrote about this in order to give you a lesson, ch. 76. Apud fabr.in Bibl.Graec. T.VIII. p.201.59.Baronius also attributes to Sophronius one letter to Sergius of Constantinople, in which the former asks the latter to blot out the VII member of the Alexandria Council of Cyrus. (Annal. T. VII. Ad.an. 633. n.11.) - but besides the fact that no one else mentions this letter, such an act does not agree with the meek character of Sophronius, then a humble monk. It is obvious that Baronius accepts as an essay Sophronius’ oral request to Sergius on the same subject (Vid. Epist. Serg. ad Honor. in act. 12, Sex. Sin. Bin. T. V. p.199.200.) Orient Crist. T. III p. 279. We extract them mainly from the conciliar epistle, and partly from the treatise on the Incarnation and the baptismal conversation. Cyrus of Alexandria, apparently, distorted not only the meaning, but also the original text of St. Dionysius, adding the word μεία [So in the ed. vm. μία. - Ed. ABCs of faith. ], which St. does not have. father: because St. does not read this word. Sophrony. Vid.etiam – later.syn sub Mart. 1.in secr. 3. Apud. Bin. T.IV. P.694. It can be assumed that it is revealed in detail in books containing 600 paternal passages that have not reached us; why in other works about him, as is already known, is spoken of only in passing. For example at St. Maximus the Confessor we find names and references to the same Fathers as Sophronius testified in his letter to Honorius and Sergius. Vid. opp. S. Maxim. T.2.p.154.59. At St. Martin, Pope of Rome, and other Fathers present at the Lateran Council, we read the same explanation of the word Θεανδρική, as in Sophronius, with the addition of only a denunciation for the addition of μείαν. [So in ed. vm. μίαν. - Ed. ABCs of faith. ] In Secr. 3. Later Syn Sub.Mart. 1.Ap.Bin.T. IV. p. 694.695. For example “One and the same Christ and Son performs Divine and human actions by one God-man, according to the expression of St. Dionysius, by action." Vid. artic. VII. Cyri in act.13. Sex. Syn. Apud. Bin. T.V. p.218. For example “The Word became incarnate, and the animate and rational flesh (in Him) was immutably deified.” In.act.18..apud. bin.T. V.p. 259. Demolished. book right cathedral Dogma of the 170th Fathers of the 6th Council.