ly it was this; dining myfelf alone with the lady Caverly one Saturday, I happen to fay, that I defign'd the next day to go to Bow Church, of which Dr. Bradford was minifter, and indeed one of the best of all the London minifters; to stay the communion with him. Upon which fhe faid, fhe would also come to the communion with me. Whereupon I went immediately to Dr. Bradford, who knew the report of her living in fornication with Sir John Hubern as well as I, and defired him to deny her the communion upon that report; and we would then go home with her, and talk with Sir John about it. Dr. Bradford thanked me for my information and advice, and refolved to act accordingly: fo in the morning we both came, as was agreed; and Dr. Bradford told the lady, that upon occafion of this fcandal, he muft refufe her the communion, if the offered herself: upon which he fell into tears; as earnestly defiring to be owned for Sir John Hubern's wife, but not able to compafs it. After the communion was over, the lady carried us home in her coach, where we found Sir John. I foon broke the matter to him, and told him, that Dr. Bradford had been forced to do an hard thing to the lady Caverly, and to refufe her the communion, because they lived as man and wife, but he did not own her for his wife. I faid, that this behaviour was unjustifiable, not only upon the foot of chriftianity, but of common morality and humanity while an heathen ought not fo unworthily to expofe the honour of a lady. Sir John, upon this charge, pretended to deny his living with her as man and wife, and made as if he only managed her affairs, as a lawyer, or a friend only. I reply'd, that the lady was there, and knew it to be otherwife; and that it was no doubt but he lived with her as his wife, as much as Dr. Bradford and myself lived with our wives.

So

he

he found this would not bear: I added, that whatever imperfection there had been in the manner 'of their former marriage, Dr. Bradford and myself were both clergymen, and would either of us, if he pleased, marry them publickly again; in which I knew no harm. When he would not agree to that, I ventured to declare my own opinion, that the lady ought to leave him, as the moft unexceptionable way fhe could take in her prefent circumftances. Dr. Bradford was too tender in that matter to agree with 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 refufe her the communion; which was the upfhot of this converfation; and we went on with our ufual vifits accordingly at her own houfe, 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, with I did. She also left my wife 50l. 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 exercise of so much christan difcipline, as is the refufal of the communion for ftrong fufpicion of fornication; I will give another example of it. When Sir Charles Duncomb was lord-mayor of London, A. D. 1709, he was to come, according to custom, to Dr. Bradford at Bow Church, to take the communion: the Dr. heard that he kept an whore in his house, and went to him to talk with him about it, and to let him know that he could

not

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 promised, that he would take care that no farther occafion should be given for any fuch fufpicion. 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. Thefe inftances of difcipline were fo very right, and chriftian, 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 moft Reverend Thomas Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Prefident of the Convocation, 8vo. Price 6 d.

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 Essay 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 prefent copies, but Ezekiel and Jonah, that begin with and, which naturally implies, that fome other prophecy or prophecies originally went before thofe now extant. And that accordingly, we have great reafon to believe, from other ancient teftimonies, that these two principally had other predictions, befides thofe that now appear in their prefent copies. See the forementioned Effay, page 57, 58, 83, 84. Note alfo, that the abfence of the and, in the fecond verse of

L

Ezekiel,

Ezekiel, is an argument that this verfe might, at first, 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 Chriftianity 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 fatisfaction in the fame third Volume of Primitive Chriftianity Reviv'd, page 287, &c.

Page 36, 37. at the bottom, that clause in the common copies of the council of Nice, that this council anathematiz'd thofe who affirmed that Chrift was sos 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 Poftfcripts; the firft to Mr. Chifhul; the fecond to the author of Reflections on Mr. Whifton's Conduct, [Dr. Smallbroke.] 8vo. price 6 d.

Page 15, 16, 17. See, as before, what will be noted upon the third Volume of Primitive Chriftianity 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 purpofe, page of this laft Harmony, 108, 109.

1

In the fame year, 1711, I publifhed Remarks on Dr. Grabe's Efay upon two Arabick MSS. But fince both the hiftory of these two forts 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 elsewhere, in my earlier writings, viz. That Eufebius, and the generality of the ancient writers had, in my opinion, copies of the eight books of Apoftoli cal 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 reafon to fufpect. Nor am I unwilling to grant on the contrary, that altho their contents were univerfally owned to be of apoftolical authority; and that these contents were all along tranfmitted down from the first to the fourth and follwing 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 was the prefervation 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 NewTeftament: or whether thofe books were themfelves feen by the generality of those writers, who fo frequently and undeniably bear witnefs to the Contents of them. It indeed appears to me very

L 2

evident,

1