might know he was to take Ephefus in his way to Rome, he might write to him concerning feveral things at Ephcfus, as he alfo does what he fhould do at Troas, through which he likewise knew he was to pafs. The fuppofition that Timothy was at Lyftra and Derbe when Paul wrote this epiftle to him, but that he was to make Ephefus and Troas his way to Rome, will folve all the arguments Dr. Benson brings for this epiftle's being written to Timothy at Ephesus. These more bold and pernicious doctrines feem rather to have spread very much, when Paul wrote his fecond epiftle to Timothy, ann. 67'.

HAVING alfo promised in the Preface, that I would give my reafons in the Postscript for preferring Bishop Pearfon's Chronology to Bishop Lloyd's, in the points where they ditfer; I will now likewife difcharge myself from that engagement.

I THINK, Bishop Lloyd has made two mistakes, which have fet great part of his chronology wrong. The one is, his fuppofing Paul to be wrapt up into the third heaven when he was ftoned at Lyftra, ann. 46; for which he has not any foundation that I know

See the ad Epift. to Timothy, p. 5—3.

See 2 Tim. i. 15. and ii. 15-25. and ii. 6-13.

of, but imagination; and against which, I think, I have affigned fome reasons in the Third Effay having there endeavoured to prove, that he was wrapt up into the third heaven about three years before; namely, when he fell into a trance in the temple, ann. 43. And the Bishop (upon this idea, and upon St. Paul's telling the Corinthians, that he was wrapt up into the third heaven "above fourteen years ago") fixes the year 60 for the time of his writing that epiftle; against all other appearances, and (I believe) all former opinions. The other mistake of Bishop Lloyd's is, as I apprehend, that the fourteen years, which St. Paul fpeaks of, Gal. ii. 1. the Bishop begins from the first time of Paul's being at Jerufalem, ann. 58. and which Paul mentions, Gal. i. 18. instead of beginning it from Paul's converfion, ann. 35. which is the only epoch of his own ftory that he fixes in that epiftle; as is very juftly obferved by Bishop Pearfon, and as appears very plainly both by the fcope of the apoftle there, and particularly by ver. 11-19. These two things are what have made Bishop Lloyd's chronology differ from Bishop Pearfon's, not only in thefe two points, but in feveral others which depend upon them. And, as I appre

"Acts ii. 30. and xxii. 17-22

* 2 Cor. xii. 1, 2.

hend

hend Bishop Lloyd to be mistaken in both thefe, I cannot but in the main rather agree with Bishop Pearfon in his chronology than with Bishop Lloyd in his.

AND though Dr. Whitby, in his Preface to his first volume, fays, that his Commentary no where differs from this Chronology of Bishop Lloyd's (which he annexes to that Commentary); yet the Doctor feems to have faid this from an uncertain memory, without duly comparing them when he said it. For the Doctor differs from Bishop Lloyd in one of those two mistaken points, as may be feen in his Notes on Gal. ii. 1. and in moft of thofe points of Bishop Lloyd's Chronology that depend on either of them, and generally agrees with Bishop Pearfon in them, or at leaft differs from him very little; as may be feen in the following inftances,

I MAKE these remarks to fhew how much Bishop Lloyd feems to be mistaken in most of thofe points of his Chronology where he differs from Bishop Pearfon; fince Dr. Whitby, who annexes Bifhop Lloyd's Chronology to

his book, being difpofed to think very favourably of it, and imagining that he no where differs from it, fcarce ever agrees with it, or differs from that of Bishop Pearfon, where these two late learned Prelates differ from one another.

ON perusing these sheets, after their being kept a year in the prefs (from feveral accidents that are not worth the reader's notice), I find fome quotations imperfect, fome few repetitions, and a great many errors that are not the author's. All this has been in a great measure owing to the author's being under too many engagements, and in too much motion, whilft thefe papers were compofing and printing. The greater miftakes the reader will find in the errata; the lefs he will eafily correct; and, I hope, forgive.

AND yet I heartily with, that confidering the nice and intricate nature of the matter; the great number and difficulty of feveral of the texts that have fallen in my way; the little affiftance I have met with from others, and the little time I have had to examine them myfelf: I wish, I fay, confidering all this, that the reader may not find a great many worse mistakes in the thoughts of the author than in the prefs. They are but Effays; and I hope the reader will confider d 4

them