me for her leaving him, now they had lived fo long together. Upon which Sir John went his Way in great Discontent and Uneafinefs, as not liking our Freedom with him; yet too genteel to put any Affront upon us. Then it was that Dr. Bradford told the Lady, that fince he now faw that she could not help herself, he would no more refuse her the Communion; which was the upfhop of this Converfation; and we went on with our ufual Vifits accordingly at her own House, till in no long Time Sir John died, and what he left her in his Will was not left as to his Wife, but only as to the Lady Caverly. In fome Time fhe alfo died, after a very long and very tedious Illness of a Cancer in her Breast, and defired me to attend her and pray with her, which I did. She alfo left my Wife 50 l. in her Will to her I fay, not to me; who as the fuppofed would quickly be in Prifon, and ruined for Herefy. And fince I have faid thus much of good Dr. Bradford's Exercife of fo much Chriftian Dicipline, as is the Refufal of the Communion for strong Sufpicion of Fornication; Iwill give anothor Example of it. When Sir Charles Duncome was Lord-Mayor of London A. D. 1709, he was to come, according to Cuftom, to Dr. Bradford at Bow Church, to take the Communion: The Dr. heard that he kept an Whore in his Houfe, and went to him to talk with him about it, and to let him know that he could not give him the Communion; Sir Charles put a good Face upon a bad Matter, and pretended to wonder at fo unjust a Scandal; and promifed that he would take Care that no farther Occafion fhould be

given for any fuch Sufpicion. Whereupon, Dr. Bradford gave him the Communion that Time. But after that, the Dr. heard that Sir Charles did ftill, for certain, retain his old Whore: On which Account he wrote him a Letter, that he would no more give him the Communion. These Inftances of Discipline were fo very Right, and Christian, and yet are fo rare amongst us at this Day, and I fo throughly knew them both to be true, that I could not fatisfy myself to omit them in this Place.

The fame Year 1711, I published a Reply to Dr. Alix's Remarks on fome Places of my Books, either printed or MSS. with an Appendix; containing (1.) The Preface to the Doctrine of the Apofles. (2.) Propofitions containing the primitive Faith of Chriftians, about the Trinity and Incarnation. (3.) A Letter to the most Reverend Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Prefident of the Convocation, 8vo. Price 6d.

Page 4, 5. About the double Date of the first Prophecy of Ezekiel, in our prefent Copies, I have propofed another and a better Conjecture in the Effay on the Old Testament, Page 82. 83. And I add here, that in all the prophetick Books of the old Testament, we have none, even in our present Copies, but Ezekiel and Jonah, that begin with And, which naturally implies, that fome other Prophecy or Prophecies originally went before those now extant. And that accordingly, we have great Reason to believe, from other ancient Teftimonies, that these two principally had other Predictions, befides those that now appear in their prefent Co

pies. See the fore-mentioned Effay Page 57, 58, 83, 84. Note alfo, that the Abfence of the And, in the fecond Verfe of Ezekiel, is an Argument that this Verfe might at firft well begin that Prophecy.

Page 10. Concerning the two Oxford MSS. fee Dr. Grabe's Effay upon them; of which presently. Page 18, 19. Note, that the Answers to certain Objections against the Apoftolical Conftitutions here offered, are but imperfect: As to which, more will occur when I come to the third Volume of Primitive Christianity Reviv'd; And to St. Clement's and St. Irenæus's Vindications of thofe Conftitutions.

Page 25, &c. as to the Appendix, the Reader may also find more Satisfaction in the fame third Volume of Primitive Chriftianity Reviv'd, Page 287, 288, and Page. 559-564.

Page 28, &c. These Propofitions are a very small Matter corrected in my fourth Volume of the fame Work.

Page 36, 37. At the Bottom, that Claufe in the common Copies of the Council of Nice, that this Council Anathematiz'd those who affirmed that Chrift was 50s created; and which I both here, and elsewhere, for fome Time, allowed to be Genuine, proved afterwards, for certain, to be an Interpolation; nay, for certain, an Athanafian Interpolation; nay, with very great Probability, an Interpolation made by Athanafius himself: See my Athanafius convicted of Forgery. Of which hereafter.

Soon after this, the fame Year, 1711, I published A Second Reply to Dr. Alix; with two Poftfcipts; the first to Mr. Chihul; the fecond to

the

the Author of Reflections on Mr. Whifton's Condult, [Dr. Smallbroke.] 8vo. price 6 d.

Page 15, 16, 17. See, as before, what will be noted upon the third Volume of Primitive Chrif tianity Reviv'd, and upon St. Clement's and St. Irenaus's Vindication of the Apoftolical Conftitutions.

Page 37, 38. As to my Affertion concerning the Tranfpofitions in St. Matthew's Gofpel, here refer'd to; fee what I have in my corrected Copy quoted out of Monf. Toinard's Harmony, to the fame Furpofe, Page of this last Harmony, 108, 109.

In the fame Year, 1711, I published Remarks on Dr. Grabe's Efay upon two Arabick MSS. But fince both the History of thefe two Sorts of MSS, as well as what Dr. Grabe and I understood of them, is much fuller fet down in the third Volume of my Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, Page 525— 564. I defire this very imperfect Paper may be printed no more.

N. B. What I had afferted here, and elfewhere, in my earlier Writings, viz. That Eufebius, and the Generality of the ancient Writers had, in my Opinion, Copies of the eight Books of Apoftolical Conftitutions by them continually; tho' they thought themselves obliged to conceal them from the Publick; (which laft Thing is yet very clear, for the Church of Antioch in St. Ignatius's Epiftles to the Philadelphians, §. 8, 9.) and to refer to them in a more obfcure Manner, as Apoftolical Didafcaly, or Doctrine, or Apoftolical Preaching, or Apoftolical Tradition, &c. I afterward faw Reason to fufpect.

Nor

Nor am Iunwilling to grant on the contrary, that altho' their Contents were univerfally owned to be of Apoftolical Authority; and that thefe Contents were all along tranfmitted down from the first to the fourth and following Centuries, in the feveral Churches, by fome authentick Method; which Things appear to me certain; yet there is great Room to doubt whether that Method were the Delivery of intire Copies of the Books themselves down, in all or the greatest Part of the Apoftolical Churches, to which they were originally committed by the Apostles, from one Generation to another, VI. 14-18, VII. 46. As was the Cafe of the publick Books of the New Teftament: Or whether thofe Books were themselves feen by the Generality of thofe Writers, who fo frequently and undeniably bear Witness to the Contents of them. It indeed appears to me very evident, that they were truly written by Clement, in the Days of the Apoftles; who in all Copies and Versions attests them in the 85th Canon. See Effay on the Old Teftament, Appendix. Number II. Page 116-138. That their Contents are all along as fully attefted to, as are the Contents of the other Books of the New Teftament, by Clement, Ignatius, Juftin Martyr, Irenæus Origen, &c. See the third Volume of Primitive Chriftianity Reviv'd; with St. Clement's, and St. Irenæus's Vindication of them. That Irenæus, in his noble Fragment, lately recovered by Pfaffius, quotes them as a Book or written Record; tho' as not then commonly known, or read by Christians. See the laft mentioned Paper, Page 1926. That Origen alfo at laft

faw