$

SIR.

A

CCORDING to your Defire I have made Inquiry of that Learned Mufcovite Gentleman of my Acquaintance concerning the Book de Antichrifto, faid to be written and printed in the Year 1704. by the prefent Patriach of Mufcovy. But I find the Author of that Book Jaworowky, to be no more than aMetropolitan,and foHono rary Patriarch, or vice-Patriarch. There being at this time no Patriarch, upon some Political Reasons, as well as for that the Revenues of the Patriarchate (which are very confiderable) are thought fit to be confifcated for the maintenance of the War. The faid Gentleman further told me, that he had not only read this Treatife; but had alfo for the fatisfaction of fome that were curious,tranflated it himself into High Dutch, during his Travels thro' Germany. I was the more earneft hereupon, you may well think, to purchase a View of it. But this could not be done: for upon my Request to him, he presently told me that he had neither the Original nor the Tranflation by him to fhew me; he having left them behind him, with other things in a certain University, where he had spent fome time before he came hither.However,I hope to receive the former at his return, or perhaps before in his Paffage again through Germany. If I do, I fhall be very glad to gratifie you with it. From the Account however that is given me both of the Treatife and its Author from this Learned Friend, who feems well acquainted

a 2

acquainted both with his Character and Perfon, I perceive there is not much to be expected thence, beyond what your own Reading and Thoughts have already fuggefted to you, and which you have mánaged with fo much Sobriety and Judgment. For I am told there is little in it befides a Collection out of the Greek Fathers, particularly S. Hyppolitus, S. Chryfoftom; Damafcene, &c. with fome fhort Remarks of his own upon them, not in themselves very confiderable, (as my Muscovite tells me) and the Narrative of the occafion, which gave birth to fuch an Undertaking; it having never been fo much as a Question among the Chriftians in those Parts, or indeed among the Greeks in general, that Antichrift was to be a Perfon as much as Chrift was. This then was the Report about fix or feven Years ago (as I take it) that we find published in fome of the Foreign Gazettes, about a certain ftrange Child, faid to be born in New Babylon or Bagdat, that could speak feveral Languages, &c. and was presently concluded by fome of the Greek and Latin Communion that gave credit to the Story, to be no other than the Perfonal Antichrift, that was to be revealed before the coming of Chrift in Glory. Now it feems this Arch-Prelate, the Primate of all Mufcovy, had just then or not long before publish'd a fhort Differtation, concerning the Signs which (upon the Principles of the Greek Church) are to precede the End of the World and the Birth and Coming of Antichrift, from fome Obfervations made

by

by him upon the prefent State of Chriftianity. The Tale of the Babylonish Child or Prodigy being about that time difperfed in that Empire, as well as in the more Weftern Parts of Europe, and by the Credulity of many of the Greeks eafily fucked in; a certain Anonymous Author (whofe Name I heard indeed, but have forgotten) undertook to prove, that Antichrift was already born: To which a Reply was quickly after given by the Primate according to the received Principles of that Church, under the Title of Brevis refponfio ad famofum fcriptum de nato bis temporibus Babylonia Antichrifto; wherein by Teftimonies out of the Fathers and Doctors of his Church, he takes upon him at once to refute the Arguments of that concealed Author, and to corroborate his own Sentiment (which he will have to be that alfo of the Catholick Church) concerning the Perfon of Antichrift, and the manner of his Appearance in the laft Days. I could not learn exactly what were the Particulars wherein this Author differs from the present Roman Church; for he differs not only from the Proteftants: But that he adheres very closely herein to the Sentiments of the Greek Church (of which you know the Mufcovian is a Colony) and that thefe are the fame now as to this Point that they have ever been, I, by the best Account I have been yet able to get, am as fully afcertained, as I can almost wish to be; without I had read the Book it felf, I could not be more. I was in hopes of another Conference upon this Subject, as well

as fome other Matters of another nature, with this learned Muscovite; but was herein prevented by his too-fudden departure, to both our Difappointments, as I afterwards heard. As to the Character of the Author, (as before was hinted) it was not fo advantageous, as might perhaps be expected, confidering both his high Poft in the Church, and the Pains which this Gentleman confeffed himself to have been at, in turning this piece of his into another Language. Yet the Relater allowed him notwithstanding a good Latin Scholar (which among the Greek Clergy you know is a rare Accomplishment) and to have an Eloquent and Pathetical way of Preaching that is much taking with his Auditory; he having been frequently prefent at his Sermons before the Court: while he seemed to me yet to have but an indifferent Value for his Judgment upon the Confideration of this his Preformance about Antichrift. Be it as it will, I fee not why his Authority fhould be the lefs, only for want of that: furely to be a good Writer and a good Witnefs are two things very different. Hence we are not a little beholden to fome injudicious Writers, whofe Cuftom it is more fimply to narrate the matters delivered to them, than if they had excelled more in Wifdom, they would have done. I must confefs ingenuoufly for my own part, I have not a few times, gathered more out of thefe weak (and even defervedly contemptible) Writers, than out of feveral others of much better Senfe and Learning;

and

and I have always thought that no great - ftock of Judgment is required in order to - be a true Witnefs of what are the Opinions or Traditions which any one hath been taught, and are univerfally received in that Society whereof he is a Member. Such a one methinks this Great Bifhop may juftly at leaft pafs for, as well as his Illuftrious Predeceffors, thofe burning and fhining Lights in the Greek Church, notwithstanding whatever otherwife may be objected I against him or them, by fome that are much prejudiced with modern Notions. You know it is impoffible for all Men to judge alike, and if in any, fpecially in Cafes of this nature. But it is not only poffible, but moft eafy furely for any one but of ordinary Senfe, to tell what he has been told, and that, not once, but commonly; nor that which has ever been, fo much as controverted, but conftantly believed and maintained by all thofe whom he has had an opportunity of converfing with. wherefore how mean foever his Performance may be thought, which is no wonder among fo many ftrong Prejudices as are found among the contending Parties against the Doctrine of Antiquity; it cannot but be allowed that he muft needs be a competent Evidence nevertheless of what is the Doctrine (whether true or falfe) of his own Church as concerning the Perfonality of Antichrift; and if he and his Church diffent both from the Romanists and the Proteftants in this matter, I can affign no other reafon, but that it is becaufe

"

a 4