Berdyaev, following in the same Solovyov's vein of the historiosophical interpretation of the principle of God-manhood and in his youth temporarily falling under the influence of Merezhkovsky and Rozanov, appealed to the problematic "new religious consciousness" and demanded that the church participate in social reform. But soon he refined and deepened his innovation. Apparently entering the rut of the Chalcedonian equilibrium, he did not constrain himself by its boundaries and went out of them by underground and roundabout paths. Thus, surpassing Merezhkovsky in the subtlety of philosophical thought, Berdyaev put forward to the line of the Divine-human process not the clumsy question of the sanctification of the flesh, but the spiritual question of the sanctification of human creativity, and thus gave one of the brilliant comments on Solovyov's idea of God-manhood. In the same way, in his search for the solution of antinomic mysteries on the paths of "all-unity," Berdyaev avoided the gross mistake of obscuring the boundaries between the Absolute and the relative. But at what cost? He left the very soil of the Chalcedonian antinomic duality by an underground path. Guided by Bömèv's ghost of the Abyss (Urgrund), he recognized in him the supposedly living prius of the Divinity Himself, the Holy Spirit Herself. Trinity, the dark womb of Divinity Itself, where the key to all antinomies is hidden, even Good and Evil itself. Again we have before us the philosophical self-deception of Gnosticism, which creates the illusion that an antinomy, liquefied in the ten waters, loses its qualitative antinomy, irrationality, or super-rationality by means of gradual transitions from one pole to the other.

S.N. Bulgakov, later Father Sergius, being in the main lines of his religious and philosophical work a disciple and successor of V. Solovyov, flawlessly fits into the framework of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, but within them, like his teacher, he develops both the doctrine of all-unity and the doctrine of sophiology in all its breadth. Solovyov will surpass Bulgakov in these bold flights of theology. But along with the victories won by the latter in the fields of speculative philosophy, there are inevitably those defeats that we noted in his teacher, V. Solovyov, i.e. the illusory role of Sophia in comprehending the mystery of creation, providence and salvation of the world, and the explanation of the relationship between God and the world that slips into pantheism.

Even more harmonious, even more cautious and irreproachable, from the point of view of the Chalcedonian oros, develops the same series of problems that at first Solovyov, which has become traditional for Russian religious philosophy, by S.L. Frank, who has recently passed away from us into a better world. A systematic generalization of this series of problems is set forth with his usual and characteristic clarity in his last book, Light in the Darkness. Frank did not admit an atom of sophiology into his system, but his scheme of all-unity, which caresses philosophical hearts, reigns over all the difficulties obligatory for the Christian in the purely theological problems of evil, original sin, and redemption. Frank fell silent on the verge of pure theology.

At the moment, we do not consider it necessary to cite less characteristic illustrations of the work of Russian thought in the same area of the problem of God-manhood. Here we could mention the names of the brothers S. and E. N. Trubetskoy, Fr. Pavel Florensky, L. P. Karsavin, and others.

We think that the above examples are sufficient to assert that in Christian philosophy and in Orthodox theology the memorable definition of faith of the Fourth Ecumenical Council continues to be felt as a wise and salvific guide in the same essentially Christological questions, which, in the specific, of course, refraction of our time, persistently stand and flare up in the Orthodox consciousness and mainly in Russian philosophical and theological thought.

Monophysitism of the East after Chalcedon

The judgments of the Council of Chalcedon were furnished with guarantees of freedom of opinion; time was given for disputes and reflections. Although the leadership of the secular power was firm, when doubts arose about certain expressions of Pope Leo's epistle, a time was given for consultation and conspiracy. The imperial officials insisted that these conferences be private, and not in the official atmosphere of the council's sessions, in order to avoid any haste and pressure on the conscience of individual members.

Only six days later, on October 17, the second reading of the resolution followed, which reached an agreement. And yet the hesitation still continued. Four days later, we read the draft of the oros again. The Emperor ordered that objectors and vacillators should be granted more and more reprieve. Finally, after new views of the oros, its text was accepted by all. In the history of councils there has not been an even more scrupulous protection of freedom of judgment.

Император поэтому оптимистически верил в счастливые последствия собора: "Пусть замолкнут теперь всякие дурного тона (profana) состязания. Только совсем нечестивый может претендовать на право личного мнения по вопросу, о котором подали свой согласный голос столько духовных особ. Лишь совсем безумный может среди ясного белого дня искать искусственно обманчивого света. И кто поднимает дальнейшие вопросы, после того как истина найдена, тот явно ищет обмана (mendatium)". История обнаружила несостоятельность этого добросовестного оптимизма. Ни об одном соборе, не исключая и Никейского, не было столь тяжких споров. Он стал "знаменем пререкаемым". Вся политика императоров на целое столетие завертелась около одного вопроса: принимать или нет Халкидонский собор? Все противники императорской церкви стали называть православных или презрительным прозвищем "мелхиты" (т.е. "царские" — от "мелех" — царь), или "синодиты" ("халкидунойе" или "сунходойе").

На поверку оказалось, что легальное единогласие епископата на деле, однако, не привело к согласию самую массу церкви. Оказалось, что епископы не выражают настроения большинства. Правители, естественно, оказались компетентнее и мудрее масс, но массы не пошли за ними, стали им изменять. Живое понятие восточной соборности не может быть ограничено одной внешней формой. Учение папы Льва и Евсевия Дорилейского не оказалось просто мудрой серединой между Несторием и Евтихом. Восточный массовый мир воспринял его, как скрытое несторианство. Во всяком случае, считали, что есть другая формула православия — Кириллова, и она — привычная, своя. Но, как известно, именно на Халкидонском соборе 12 анафематизмов были замолчены и даже последующая согласительная формула 433 г. "из двух природ" была зачеркнута. Кирилл был принесен в жертву Льву. Вот сопротивление "кириллистов" и создало тяжелый монофизитский кризис.

Целых два века понадобилось для того, чтобы в новых тактических изворотах все время, в сущности, мирить "Кирилла со Львом" и в конце концов потерять огромные части церкви навсегда... Проблема обнаженной истины и тактики — икономии...

Когда позднее, при Юстиниане, предложена была формула "Един от Святой Троицы пострадал", было уже поздно. Требовали уже не мирить Кирилла со Львом, а пожертвовать Львом ради Кирилла.

Папские легаты, заостряя предлагаемые формулы и затушевывая бывшие в употреблении компромиссы (433 г.), еще раз доказали, что они не понимали психологии Востока. A что императоры ошибались в догматике (а не только в тактике) и очень грубо, им это простительно. Но у императоров была непростительная для них особая ошибка. Они были слепы в своей политической, небогословской сфере. Они упустили опасность сплетения монофизитского кризиса с национальными вопросами Восточной Римской империи.