Eustathius was a prolific writer. Of his numerous works, only an extensive exegetical treatise has been fully preserved: "On the Ventriloquist" (against Origen). Only a few fragments of his other books have survived, the authenticity of which is still debated. Theodoret speaks of Eustathius' commentary on the disputed text of Proverbs (see 8:22) and quotes a passage from the introduction. Other writers have preserved 15 more excerpts from this interpretation. Excerpts from the explanation of some psalms have been preserved. Eustathius is the author of an extensive denunciation against the Arians, in no less than 8 books, of which only a few excerpts have been preserved in Facundus and in the library of Photius. Apparently, for the most part, this denunciation also had an exegetical character. Jerome also called the book "On the Soul," of which eleven fragments have been preserved by various writers, and it was apparently written against the Arians. Jerome speaks of "a great multitude of letters" — they have not been preserved. It is hardly possible to consider the recently published discourse on the resurrection of Lazarus to belong to Eustathius. All the other works attributed to St. Eustathius do not belong to him. Apparently, the literary activity of Eustathius was connected primarily with anti-Arian polemics. He was well prepared for this—he combined serious philosophical erudition with his knowledge of the Scriptures.

As an exegete, Eustathius was a resolute opponent of allegorism and relied primarily on the "letter of the narrative." He makes extensive use of biblical parallels, and in particular shows that the speech of Samuel, who appeared in Endor, is composed of his earliest prophecies about Saul. He analyzes the text in detail and sensitively. Eustathius speaks ironically of Origen: instead of drawing the image of the long-suffering Job as an example of patience, "he spent his time like an old woman, turning lightly to the names of his daughters"...

Only the Christology of Eustathius can be judged with perfect clarity. Strangely, we do not have detailed data on his Trinitarian theology. In Christology, Eustathius dwelt with particular force on the revelation of the fullness of human nature. He speaks of two natures. By Divine nature, Christ is of one essence with the Father, and being a "separate person" He remains invariably with the Father. He is the Divine Word and Wisdom, and through Him all things were created, "the Most Divine Son of the Living God," born of the uncreated essence of the Father, the most sincere Image of the Father. Against the Docetists, Eustathius spoke of the reality of the Incarnation, against the Arians, of the human soul of Christ: "The rational soul of Jesus is of one essence with the souls of men, just as the flesh proceeding from Mary is of one essence with the flesh of men." Of the human nature of the Incarnate Word he usually says: "the man Christ" or "the man of Christ"... The man-Christ is "the image of the Son," the temple of Divine Wisdom and the Word, his "human abode or tabernacle"... God the Word "bears" His humanity upon Himself, "continuously" dwells in Him... The humanity of Christ in the resurrection is "exalted and glorified." This is "acquired glory," which the "God-bearing man" of Christ did not have before. In soteriology, Eustathius seems to have emphasized the moral aspect: in one passage he calls the Savior "the beginning of the most beautiful paths of righteousness." All this brings Eustathius closer to the later "Antiochian theology, to Diodorus of Tarsus, first of all—the ambiguities in the language of St. Eustathius were already noted in antiquity. However, at the Council of Ephesus, his authority was opposed to Nestorius, which clearly speaks against any attempt to attribute to Eustathius the excesses of Antiochian Dyophysitism.

II. Didymus the Blind.

Didyme lived a long life, until he was 83 or 85 years old. Approximately the years of birth and death can be established as 313 and 398. As a child, he lost his sight, but this did not prevent him from going through the usual circle of sciences and passing with such success that already in his young years he was entrusted with the leadership of the Alexandrian school (probably by Athanasius). The rest of Didyme's life was quiet and peaceful. The Arian storms somehow did not touch him. He did not live in Alexandria itself, but in the suburbs, and led a solitary life of an ascetic there. Bodily blindness predisposed to thoughtfulness. Didymus was close to the Egyptian hermits, among whom he had not a few disciples and admirers, in particular Palladius, the author of Lausaicus, and Evagrius. The ascetic and the theologian were intimately combined in Didymus: in his books, theological reasoning often overflows into prayer; And a living sense of churchliness and conciliarity always warms his thoughts. From the theologian he demands good works, concentration, piety... Didymus's life flowed monotonously, in ascetic exercises and scholarly works. Disciples flocked to him from everywhere, in particular from the West: among them should be mentioned blg. Jerome, who, however, spent only a month with Didymus (in 386), and Rufinus of Aquileia. - Didymus was not an independent thinker. He was first and foremost an erudite; but he transformed his erudition not into a speculative synthesis, but into a confession of faith. We know little about the nature of Didymus's teaching activity. Apparently, as a teacher, Didymus was first and foremost an exegete. In theology, he adhered directly to Origen, many of whose opinions he shared. However, in the doctrine of Troid, Didymus is far from Origen and free from his absurdities and inaccuracies, even Jerome categorically admitted this... In Trinitarian theology, Didymus was influenced by the Cappadocians and was especially close to Gregory the Theologian. Didymus, of course, also knew the works of Athanasius, and apparently also Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. He was also well-read in heretical literature. Contemporaries were amazed by his erudition and memory. His knowledge of the general sciences was diverse, but not profound. He often refers to ancient poets. He did not have a special taste for philosophy, he did not worry about metaphysical problems — for him (as well as for Origen) philosophy was only a theological propaedeutic. This is only Hagar. Didymus considered the abuse of philosophy to be the root of heresies – it is unlikely that Didymus did much philosophy, hardly studied the works of philosophers. He has many philosophical motifs, but he could assimilate them through the theological tradition. Of the philosophers, he held Plato in high esteem, but he treated Neoplatonism harshly. In general, Didymus was primarily a scholar of the Alexandrian type. "He died in peace, in the last years of the IV century. And only later a dispute arose around his name. He was suspected of Origenistic wrong-thinking. Blessed Jerome was the first to speak of this, with a reservation about the purity of his Trinitarian faith, and Didymus always remained an exegetical authority for him. Didymos' reputation at this time was not shaken, even in the west. Ambrose in his theology almost repeated Didymus. On blzh. Augustine, Didymus had a great influence on the doctrine of the Trinity. In Alexandria, Didymus was followed by St. Cyril. It was only in the sixth century, during the Origenistic disputes, that the question of Didymus was put directly and sharply. And at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, his eschatology was anathematized, and it remains unclear whether Didymus himself was anathematized. In any case, his name was defamed. And this entailed the almost complete disappearance of his literary heritage, of which only a few remnants survived, and for the most part, only fragments in various collections and purposes.

Didymus wrote a lot. Of Didymus's books, only his great work on the Trinity has survived in full and in the original, in the only and not very defective manuscript of the eleventh century, discovered only in 1759. The compilation of this book dates back to the old years of Didymus, to the time after the Second Ecumenical Council. Adjacent to it is the treatise On the Holy Spirit, which has survived only in the Latin translation of Jerome, a translation which, for all accuracy, does not allow us to judge Didymus' terminology. It was compiled earlier than 381. Until the eighteenth century, it was the only surviving book of Didymus. With a certain reason, it is possible to attribute to Didymus the 4th and 5th books on the Holy Spirit, preserved under the name of St. Basil; there may also be a "Discourse against Arius and Sabellius", preserved with the name of Gregory of Nyssa. — From the references of ancient authors, it is possible to restore the titles of numerous lost works of Didymus: On Dogmas, On the Death of Little Children, Against the Arians, some other book (the "first word"), etc. A special mention should be made of Didymus' book on Origen, an attempt at commentary on Origen's Elements. According to Jerome, Didymus here tried to explain Origen's teaching about the Trinity, in the Orthodox sense; but he incautiously accepted other impious opinions of the teacher: about the fall of angels, about the fall of souls, about the resurrection, about peace, about universal restoration. Rufinus used Didymus' commentary in his translation: On the Elements. "Of Didymus's exegetical works only fragments have been preserved, scattered in the later catenae, where it is not always possible to identify them with certainty—the sign: "Δι" can mean not only Didymus, but also Diodorus or Dionysius. According to the testimony of Palladius, Didymus explained the entire Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. Apparently, this was the case. In any case, there are references or excerpts from Didymus' commentaries on Genesis, on Exodus, on the Books of Kings, on the prophet Isaiah, on Jeremiah, Hosea, Zechariah, on the Psalms, on the Book of Proverbs, on the book of Job, on Ecclesiastes and on the Song of Songs, and on the prophet Daniel. From the books of the New Testament, Didymus explained the Gospel of Matthew and John, from the Epistles of Paul to the Romans, both to the Corinthians, to the Hebrews. Didymus's commentaries were abundantly used by Jerome. And he compares him, as an exemplary exegete, with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Origen... Didymus was first of all an exegete, he thought in biblical images and phrases. His system is first of all a system of biblical truths. For him, the Bible is a divine and spiritual book, a book "anointed by God." And therefore the Old and New Testaments differ only as aspects, only "in invention." The Old Testament is a temporary tabernacle, a shadow of truth, a preparation for the fullness of the Gospel. Those who spoke in the shadows, however, did not know the truth of which they were a symbol, especially the Psalmist, the prophet Isaiah. This determines Didymus's method, which is always allegorical. Didymus sees the task of the exegete, following Origen, in revealing the highest and spiritual meaning in Scripture, to penetrate into the truth through letters, shadows, and images. This is the path of allegory or ascent of αναγωγή... In this respect he was a faithful disciple of Origen. However, he was much more attentive to the literal meaning, especially in the New Testament. Very often he dwells on philological analysis and on discrepancies.

Didymus was first and foremost a Trinitarian theologian, which is explained not only from the historical circumstances of his time, but from his personal experience. Only he who blamelessly confesses the Trinity is for him a true Christian. In the Old Testament the truth of the Trinity was not revealed, but only mysteriously indicated, perhaps only in Ps. 109 it is expressed clearly and not mysteriously. And this is the main imperfection of the Old Testament in comparison with the New. In his doctrine of God, Didymus proceeds from Origen's transcendentism. God is above all and is inaccessible even to the eyes of a seraphim. And one can speak of Him only in negations and in images. When speaking of the essence of God or of nature, it must always be emphasized that this is a pre-existent essence. Among the apophatic definitions of the Divine being, Didymus especially often names "non-quantitativeness" — this definition, apart from Didymus, is found only in Cyril of Alexandria... Therefore, reason can only marvel before God, and knowledge is possible only through revealed Scripture. However, Didymus does not remove God from the world: He is eternally moving and active in the world; in this all-pervading providence of God, Didymus sees the justification of prayerful petitions for worldly things and affairs. Didymus's Trinitarian terminology is determined by the Cappadocian influence: he speaks firmly of three hypostases and one essence. However, he still has traces of the former identification of the concepts ουσία and ύπόστασις – in particular, he repeats the Nicaean one: "from the essence of the Father". But at the same time, after the birth of the Word, he often says "from the hypostasis of the Father," which means: the birth of the Son is a hypostatic property of the Father... At the same time, Didyme's concept of hypostasis primarily emphasizes the moment of reality. Less clearly he makes the Cappadocian identification: ύπόστασις and ιδιότης. The term πρόσωπον is not used by Didymus at all. Thus, through the Cappadocian influence, he recalls the former vagueness of theological language. And in general, Didymus does not strive for clarity of formulas – this is a common Alexandrian feature. Didymus expresses the motif of the Trinitarian unity with particular sharpness, and for this he accumulates an abundance of definitions. He speaks of one Kingdom, of one State, of one Dominion, of one Will and Will. He especially emphasizes the unity of action and from this concludes about consubstantiality. This is the general idea of the Fathers of the fourth century. All these definitions converge in the concept of one Godhead, of the identity of the Godhead. Didymus speaks constantly and not only of the mutual consubstantiality of hypostases, but also of the consubstantiality of the Trinity, and from ομοούσιος he forms: όμοουσιότης. Consubstantial for him means precisely the identity of essence, – όμοούσιος he often replaces through: ταυτούσιος. On historical grounds (against the Arians), Didymus clearly emphasizes the equality of the Trinitarian hypostases. That is why he rejects the asymmetrical formula of doxology: through the Son, as giving rise to misunderstanding, it is necessary to connect the names of hypostases with a preposition. Related to this is the fact that Didymus constantly emphasizes the "dominion" of the Son and the Spirit. Didymus, following Gregory the Theologian (to whom he is generally closest among the Cappadocians), defines the hypostatic properties of the Son and the Spirit as "birth and procession." The difference between these modes of existence is unknown even to the angelic powers. At the same time, Didymus emphasizes the incommensurability of the Divine birth with the created. The Father is the one principle or root of the Godhead. Didymus does not have phrases analogous to "through the Son" in Gregory of Nyssa — he clearly speaks of the procession of the Spirit from the immortal source of the Father... This does not introduce any inequality into the Trinitarian life, and Didymus emphasizes with the last sharpness the motif of perfect equality. In the mouth of the Word he puts the following speech to the heretics: "The Father is God," they say, "and I also: for I am his Only-begotten, true, beloved Son. The Father is the Lord, and so am I, the Lord of all, the heir of the living Father, the lord of the inheritance, for I possess Mine both as the Creator and as the true Son. Through the incarnation, I became the heir. The Father is the Creator and the King, and so am I. For I said unto you, There was a King, and he made marriages unto his Son the King... The Father is unchangeable, and so am I. For it is said of me: Thou abide forever, and Thy years shall not pass away... The Father is impassible, and so am I, and I give Mine a partaker of this impassibility. The Father is without beginning, and so am I, for there has never been a time when the Father did not possess His name, the personal radiance of His glory, the image of His hypostasis, the image of His Divinity, and that is I. The Father is Life, Light, Goodness, and Power, and Truth, and Wisdom, and all that is worthy of God. And so am I, as you have heard. And I am still the Saviour, the shining sun on the righteous and the sinners, who does not return evil for evil. The Father loves men, and I love, I give Myself up for you, taking the form of a servant and suffering from you ridicule, spitting, and the cross"... It is impossible to bear witness to the consubstantiality of the Son with greater power and exaltation. In his Trinitarian theology, Didymus is completely free from Origen's temptations. He coincides with the Cappadocians. And this is not an external coincidence, not a theological agreement. In Didymus' book about the Trinity, one can feel the immediacy and brightness of contemplation, prayerful firmness. This is one of the most striking monuments of Trinitarian theology.

In Christology, Didymus, first of all, is struck by the persistence with which he speaks about the reality and fullness of the human nature of the Saviour, which is explained again by historical circumstances, by the necessity of polemics against Manichean docetism and the Arian denial of the human soul in Christ, and, finally, by the struggle against Apollinarianism. At the same time, Didymus emphasizes the complete inseparability of natures, united forever in the incarnation or, better, the incarnation of the Word. Didymus does not define the image of the union of natures precisely, he only emphasizes that the union is unmerged and unchangeable — it is curious that for some reason he does not use any of the terms: μίξις, κράσις, συνάφεια. He confines himself to the indefinite: "One Christ" – two things are said about the same thing, God-worthy and human, – about one person... And this determines the unity of the worship of Christ in the two natures. It should be added that Didymus constantly speaks of the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God (the term Θεοτόκος, apparently already in Origen and Arius) and emphasizes Her ever-virginity (αεί παρθένος already in Athanasius). The second birth of the Word according to humanity from the Virgin is a mystery which, in Didymus's opinion, can only be compared with His pre-eternal birth from the Father. — Most often, Didymus calls Christ the Savior. In salvation, he emphasizes, first of all, liberation from sin and victory over the devil as having the power of death — apparently, this is Origen's motif. On the other hand, Didymus contrasts Adam's disobedience with the obedience of the Second Adam, and obedience even to death on the cross, to the sacrifice of the cross, in which he sees the central moment of redemption. The first gift of redemption is victory over death, eternal life. Didymus does not speak of deification, he speaks only of the return or restoration of image and likeness. The moment of redemption prevails in Didymos' mind. It remains unclear whether Didymus taught, and in what sense, about apocatastasis. He says ο "universal salvation," but this is a rather vague expression. On the question of the salvation of the fallen angels, he seemed to hesitate, limiting redemption through the incarnation and incarnation to the human race. The fragmentary nature of the surviving data does not allow us to resolve the question, but it is most likely that Jerome was right in accusing Didymus of teaching the restoration of the devil. Apparently, Didymus admitted the pre-existence of souls, and saw a process of purification in the afterlife. He insists that everything that has a beginning is therefore changeable and must have an end. And from this he concludes the final destruction of the sensible world. Metempsychosis and metasomatosis are strongly denied by Didymus. He teaches about the resurrected bodies quite clearly, as about the heavenly bodies... Didymus believed that there would be no wicked in the world to come, not in the sense that their being would be annihilated, but in the sense that evil "quality" would be destroyed. He understands the Day of the Lord as the inner illumination of souls... All these are indisputable Origenistic features. It should be added that Didymus had a sense of the nearness of the end times and an expectation of the Antichrist.

Didymus with great force emphasizes the necessity of podvig. Sinlessness is not enough, virtue is needed, and at the same time, the state or habit of life... The Christian life begins with the baptismal mystery, which frees from sins and restores freedom — believers come out of baptismal regeneration sinless and free... Then the path of good deeds is opened. In the first place among the virtues, Didymus calls wisdom or knowledge, gnosis... This is not abstract and rational knowledge, but precisely virtue, the asceticism of the soul. An example of a philosopher for Didymus is Job, Job Didymus somewhat stylizes as a Stoic. In order to acquire wisdom, it is necessary to renounce the flesh, to mortify the flesh. Didymus represents the entire life of a true Christian under the image of marriage with Christ, a favorite image of Egyptian asceticism. And in the process of purification, holy souls become partakers of the Word, and on the heights they are so closely united with Christ that it is possible to speak of them as of Christs and of gods. Didymus's expressions resemble Methodius more than Origen's. Didymus places a high value on virginity, but as a path for a few, and emphasizes that marriage is sanctified and honored by the birth of Christ... — Of Didymus's private opinions, the clarity of his angelology should be noted first of all. Angels are incorporeal, "intelligent beings"... However, Didymus ascribes to them "heavenly bodies", similar to the bodies of the righteous who have reached perfection. These are created forces created for service. And Didymus emphasizes the participation of angels in the fate of the visible world. This is the basis for invoking them in prayers, for dedicating churches to them. Following Origen, Didymus contrasts the Gnostics with the simpletons, who do not understand the spiritual meaning of the Scriptures and are powerless to give an account of their faith in repelling heretics. The Gnostics have a Divine philosophy. However, this division in Didymus is very softened in comparison with the former Alexandrians.

III. St. Amphilochius of Iconium.

St. Amphilochius is closely connected with the great Cappadocians, apparently he was even related to Gregory the Theologian. He was born around 339-345 in Caesarea in Cappadocia, the son of a rhetorician. He studied under Livanius in Antioch. Then he was a rhetorician and lawyer in Constantinople. In the early seventies, he returned to his homeland and lived in his parents' house for several years. He was attracted to the monastic ideal. At the end of 373, against his will, Amphilochius was elected bishop of Iconium, probably under the influence of Basil the Great. Amphilochius had to govern a vast area. In his pastoral work, he always resorted to the advice and help of St. Basil. In a dispute with the Spirit-fighters, he turned to him and in response received the famous book: On the Holy Spirit, which he offered for the admonition of those who disagreed. In a similar way, he received from Basil the Canonical Rules. For his part, Basil held Amphilochius in high esteem and in high esteem. Already in the episcopal rank, Amphilochius began to systematically study theology. He started with the Bible. It is unlikely that he dealt much with the problems of speculative theology. He had neither philosophical interests nor philosophical training. This is reflected in his theological writings. He theologizes simply, not without naivety, and always on a biblical basis. In 381, Amphilochius was in Constantinople at the Ecumenical Council. Here he was recognized as a "witness of the faith" for Asia... In the following years, Amphilochius visited Constantinople more than once. This was a time of intense struggle against heretics: in addition to the Arians and Apollinarians, Amphilochius had to fight against the Messalians (or Euchites), against whom he convened a council in Side. In general, Amphilochius had the gift and calling of an ecclesiastical and public figure. Perhaps it was not without his influence that the state took severe measures against encratic sects in these years. - In the last years of his life, Amphilochius was close to the circle of the Olympics in Constantinople. He died, apparently, shortly after 384.

Of the works of Amphilochius, not much has survived. First of all, 8 homiles, including on the day of the Meeting of the Lord, is the oldest word for this day. It is also interesting to note the homily on Mid-Midnight or on the Sunday of the paralytic. This is due to the liturgical work of the Cappadocians on the organization of the annual liturgical cycle. In the words of Amphilochius one can feel an experienced rhetorician who knows how to speak expressively, vividly and picturesquely. In style, Amphilochius resembles Gregory the Theologian. Characteristically, Amphilochius strives for historical realism in the explanation of the Gospel texts. First of all, he tries to revive before the eyes of his ministers the historical image of Christ. With good reason, they emphasize the prominent place of Amphilochius in the history of preaching and see in him a predecessor of Chrysostom, on whom he may have had a direct influence. In addition to the homilies, the epistle of the Council of Iconium in 376 to the Holy Spirit and the "Iamba to Sedevok" written by Amphilochius have been preserved, with didactic content. Of the other writings of Amphilochius, only fragments have survived, 22 in number. Apparently he wrote a great deal: among other things, against the Arians, the Holy Spirit, about the apocrypha used by heretics. Of particular note is the commentary on Proverbs. (see 8:22) and a number of interpretations of Christological texts. In recent years, a large passage from the book against the Encratites has been discovered.

Amphilochius was not a thinker. He theologized as a pastor and teacher, opposing the teaching of the Church to the false teaching of the heretics. This does not deprive his theology of originality. In him one can feel the clarity of ardent and calm faith. In Trinitarian theology, he is closest to Gregory the Theologian. Following him, he defines the hypostatic properties of the Son and the Spirit, as birth and procession. He always sharply emphasizes the Trinitarian unity. Related to this is this terminological innovation: he defines hypostases as "images of being", τρόποι της ύπάρξεως. This expression does not yet have the meaning of a term among the great Cappadocians. It acquires such a meaning for the first time in Amphilochius. For Amphilochius, the Trinitarian names are not the names of essence, but the names of relations or "images of being"... Through this concept, the concept of hypostasis also receives symmetrical definiteness. At the beginning of the 5th century, the term Amphilochius became generally accepted. This testifies, in any case, to his theological and philological sensitivity. And it is also reflected in his Christology. Here he succeeds in the clarity of formulas. "Two natures in one Person" is for him the starting point. From this he concludes the "double essence" of Christ and the double consubstantiality. He is ahead of the theological language of his time and introduces the term hypostasis into Christology. With all decisiveness he speaks about the fullness of human nature in Christ. And from the fullness he encloses the two wills... Amphilochius firmly says about the inseparable and unmerged unity of natures: "I say that the one Son of two natures, unmerged, unchanging, indivisible"... This is determined for him by soteriological motives: man suffered for man, and therefore suffering is salvific as co-suffering. Man is freed from death not by power, but precisely by compassion... And how much, only God could remove the curse... And Amphilochius sees the hypostatic focus of the Divine-human face in the Divine nature, which "dwells" in the human, as in a temple.

IV. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus.