Cor to Phil - Enter His Rest

passage now quoted we infer that Timothy was not sent with the epistle; for had he been the bearerof the letter, or accompanied it, would St. Paul in that letter have said, "If Timothy come?" Nor isthe sequel consistent with the supposition of his carrying the letter; for if Timothy was with theapostle when he wrote the letter, could he say as he does, "I look for him with the brethren?" Iconclude therefore that Timothy had left St. Paul to proceed upon his journey before the letter waswritten. Farther, the passage before us seems to imply that Timothy was not expected by St. Paul toarrive at Corinth till after they had received the letter. He gives them directions in the letter how totreat him when he should arrive: "If he come," act towards him so and so. Lastly, the whole formof expression is most naturally applicable to the supposition of Timothy's coming to Corinth, notdirectly from St. Paul, but from some other quarter; and that his instructions had been when heshould reach Corinth, to return. Now how stands this matter in the history? Turn to the nineteenthchapter and twenty-first verse of the Acts, {#Ac 19:21} and you will find that Timothy did not, whensent from Ephesus, where he left St. Paul, and where the present epistle was written, proceed bystraight course to Corinth, but that he went round through Macedonia. This clears up every thing;for although Timothy was sent forth upon his journey before the letter was written, yet he might notreach Corinth till after the letter arrived there; and he would come to Corinth when he did come, notdirectly from St. Paul at Ephesus, but from some part of Macedonia. Here therefore is acircumstantial and critical agreement, and unquestionably without design; for neither of the twopassages in the epistle mentions Timothy's journey into Macedonia at all, though nothing but acircuit of that kind can explain and reconcile the expression which the writer uses.SECTION V.§ #1Co 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and Iof Cephas, and I of Christ."Also #1Co 3:6: "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."This expression, "I have planted, Apollos watered," imports two things; first, that Paul had beenat Corinth before Apollos; secondly, that Apollos had been at Corinth after Paul, but before thewriting of this epistle. This implied account of the several events and of the order in which they tookplace, corresponds exactly with the history. St. Paul, after his first visit into Greece, returned fromCorinth into Syria, by the way of Ephesus; and dropping his companions Aquila and Priscilla atEphesus, he proceeded forwards to Jerusalem; from Jerusalem he descended to Antioch, and fromthence made a progress through some of the upper or northern provinces of the Lesser Asia, #Ac18:19, 23; during which progress, and consequently in the interval between St. Paul's first andsecond visit to Corinth, and consequently also before the writing of this epistle, which was atEphesus, two years at least after the apostle's return from his progress, we hear of Apollos, and wehear of him at Corinth. While St. Paul was engaged, as hath been said, in Phrygia and Galatia,Apollos came down to Ephesus; and being, in St. Paul's absence, instructed by Aquila and Priscilla,and having obtained letters of recommendation from the Church at Ephesus, he passed over toAchaia; and when he was there we read that he "helped them much which had believed throughgrace, for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly;" #Ac 18:27, 28. To have broughtApollos into Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital city, as well as the principal Christian Church,and to have shown that he preached the Gospel in that country, would have been sufficient for our