After such statements, one can ask: where is the church as a juridical institution, and where is the kingdom of God as a liberally humanistically formed state? All this gives P. Y. Svetlov the full right to give the following kind of assessment of Solovyov's doctrine: "The great merit of Vl. Solovyov and other like-minded writers must recognize this energetic reminder to us of the main thing on which the success in the great cause of the unification of the churches depends—the necessity of mutual Christian love as a path to the unification of the churches." This means that it is a matter of love, and not of legal organization.

P. Y. Svetlov is absolutely right in that he puts in the foreground the inner disposition of Vl. Solovyov, which, for all its scholarship, is reduced to the simplest and most naïve dream of every believer. Namely: Vl. Solovyov desires at all costs that the entire external life of man, that is, all his social and state life, and all his spiritual hopes placed in the Church, should be united in one and indestructible whole, where the external and internal life of man will be determined by the living, rational and peaceful unification of two independent organizations, the state and the church. This is what he called a theocracy, the doctrine of which can be reproached with romanticism, utopianism, and fairy-tale fiction, but which can in no way be reproached either for reducing it only to a juridical organization, or for ignoring the general Christian commandment of love. P. Y. Svetlov writes: "The theocratic idea a) permeates the entire Christian worldview of Vl. Solovyov and b) serves as a guiding principle for the Christian solution of almost all practical problems of complex church social life, represented by possible questions, such as ecclesiastical, socio-economic, national, Jewish, Polish, etc." [357]. And the further words of P. Y. Svetlov are very characteristic: "Here the idea of the Kingdom of God clearly appears before us as an all-binding principle in Christianity, by which the abstract theoretical in Christianity is organically linked into a single whole the abstract theoretical with the practical, dogmatics with ethics, Christian beliefs with journalism" [358].

It seems to us that the above materials do not need any special comment. They perfectly show both what Anthony is right and wrong about from his personal, pan-Orthodox and Solovyov point of view, and what Vl. Solovyov personally from his own point of view, from the general Orthodox point of view, and from the special Antoniev point of view.

5. M. M. Tareev. M. M. Tareev[359] gives the following general description of Vl. Solovyov: "With the originality of his mystical mood, his mystical contemplations, with the brightness of his artistic work, Solovyov always stands in his philosophical constructions on the firm ground of an objective view, historical perspective and indestructible logic. He created a harmonious system of religious philosophy. He didn't seem to have a weakness that would give him strength, but his strength undoubtedly hid his weaknesses. He was too dialectician. Where he did not lose sight of the shores, he had in his dialectic a victorious weapon, he was an invulnerable publicist. But when he embarked on the boundless ocean of metaphysics, his philosophy became a play of concepts, historical persons and events were formed for him into mere symbols of ideas, and he did not so much listen to reality as pronounce laws for it. His goals are excessively remote, ignoring everything conventional, seeing the absolute in everything erases the colors from the horizon. The logical formula of the highest synthesis has been brilliantly worked out by him, but there is still doubt whether it is not hanging in the air."

Thus, M. M. Tareev is a supporter of the old and, we would say, rather ugly church tradition of reducing everything to faith alone and denying any significance of reason. But this is precisely what Vl. Solovyov fought all his life. He had always thought that you couldn't believe in what you didn't know and couldn't say a word about, and you couldn't develop a system of mind that hung in the air and wasn't based on any reality. M. M. Tareev never tires of singing the praises of religious mysteries. But this is precisely what makes him find in Solovyov's philosophy only rational idle talk.

Developing his position, M. M. Tareev discusses the mysteries of faith in the following way, turning his reasoning into a kind of real hymn.

"To look at a fact religiously means to look at it with a double gaze: one to see in it what the simple positive consciousness sees, and the other to see the higher reality behind this shell.

"Everything is a mystery," says the believer, "in everything is the mystery of God. In every tree, in every blade of grass, this very secret is contained. Whether a small bird is singing, or the stars are shining in the sky with all the host... — all this mystery is the same, the same...

And this mystery will remain forever, despite all the successes of biology, geology, astronomy... Moreover, it is not difficult for faith.

"And what is a mystery, it is all the better: it is frightening to the heart and wondrous; and this fear to the joy of the heart... It is all the more beautiful because the mystery...

A mystery to religion is what water is to a fish. The ability not to know in religion is the same as chastity in love" [361].

One can only wonder how this professor of theology did not understand the most important thing and passed by just the constant Vl. Solovyov's Praises of the Mystery of Faith. M. M. Tareev here stands on the point of view of provincial parish priests of the old type, who answer one thing to every theoretical question of a believer: you reason everything, yes you reason; you would rather pray to God, but you will not go far by reasoning; There is no need to think and reason, no good will come of it.

Denying Vl. Solovyov's constant striving to merge faith and knowledge into one whole, and finding only emptiness in all logic, M. M. Tareev also finds nothing but emptiness in him. At the same time, his usual polite tone reaches great harshness and almost to swearing. "Whether we read his History and the Future of Theocracy, or cast a glance at his whole religious-philosophical system, we shall find in his place of the Gospel an impudently gleaming hole, a disgusting emptiness. It is frightening to think that Solovyov, who wrote so much about Christianity, did not reveal a single word about the feeling of Christ. Playing with the words "Logos", "God-man", "Sophia" with the dexterity of a virtuoso, he did not feel the mystery of the historical Christ. The Logos-God-Man was for him an abstract concept, and not an object of living contemplation" [362].

M. M. Tareev goes so far as to deny any rational meaning to doctrinal truths, so that it turns out that Vl. Solovyov, only fantastic fictions are given on these topics and nothing more. "The eternal pre-natural world with its subdivisions, the world soul, Io areigop, shӗїїg iӗѕ ӓgӧӗѕ, the relation of the eternal Logos to the world soul, the divine humanity of Christ, or Sophia, the bringing of the root of evil and suffering into the realm of pre-worldly existence, the recognition of the real existence of the natural world as improper or abnormal — all these are bizarre images of philosophical fantasy, testifying to the decisive preponderance of abstract thought over religious creativity."