journey, his errand, his sickness, or even his existence, might, for what we know, have no other foundation than in the invention of the forger of the epistle; I answer, that a forger would have set forth his story connectedly, and also more fully and more perspicuously. If the epistle be authentick, and the transaction real, then every thing which is said concerning Epaphroditus and his commission, would be clear to those into whose hands the epistle was expected to come. Considering the Philippians as his readers, a person might naturally write upon the subject, as the author of the epistle has written; but there is no supposition of forgery with which it will suit. No. II. The history of Epaphroditus supplies another observation: "Indeed he was sick, nigh unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow." In this passage, no intimation is given that Epaphroditus's recovery was miraculous. It is plainly, I think, spoken of as a natural event. This instance, together with one in the Second Epistle to Timothy, ("Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick,") affords a proof that the power of performing cures, and, by parity of reason, of working other miracles, was a power which only visited the apostles occasionally, and did not at all depend upon their own will. Paul undoubtedly would have healed Epaphroditus if he could. Nor, if the power of working cures had awaited his disposal, would he have left his fellow traveller at Miletum sick. This, I think, is a fair observation upon the instances adduced; but it is not the observation I am concerned to make. It is more for the purpose of my argument to remark, that forgery, upon such an occasion, would not have spared a miracle; much less would it have introduced St. Paul professing the utmost anxiety for the safety of his friend, yet acknowledging himself unable to help him: which he does almost expressly, in the case of Trophimus, for he "left him sick;" and virtually in the passage before us, in which he felicitates himself upon the recovery of Epaphroditus, in terms which almost exclude the supposition of any supernatural means being employed to effect it. This is a reserve which nothing but truth would have imposed. No. III. Chap. iv. 15, 16. "Now ye, Philippians, know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only: for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity." It will be necessary to state the Greek of this passage, because our translation does not, I think, give the sense of it accurately. Οιδατε δε και ύμεις, Φιλιππησίοι, ότι εν αρχῇ το ευαγίελις, ότε εξήλθον απο Μακεδονιας, εδέμια μοι εκκλησία εκοινωνησεν εις λογον δόσεως και ληψεως, ει μη ύμεις μονοι· ότι και εν Θεσσαλονίκη και άπαξ και δις εις την χρειαν μοι επέμψατε. The reader will please to direct his attention to the corresponding particles ir and iTi xa, which connect the words εν αρχή το ευαγίελία, ότε εξήλθον απο Μακεδονιας, with the words ey Oraving, and denote, as I interpret the passage, two distinct donations, or rather donations at two distinct periods, one at Thessalonica, aлaž na dis, the other after his departure from Macedonia, ότε εξηλθον απο Μακεδονίας I would * Luke, ch. ii. 15. Και εγένετο, ώς απήλθον απ' αυτών εις τον κρανον δι αγγελοι, "as the angels were gone away," i. e. after their departure, di malueres είπον προς αλλήλες. Matth. ch. xii. 43, Όταν δε το ακαθαρτον πνεύμα εξέλθη από Taroρ, "when the unclean spirit is gone," i. e. after his departure, render the passage, so as to mark these different periods, thus: "Now ye, Philippians, know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I was departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only; and that also in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity." Now with this exposition of the passage compare 2 Cor. ch. xi. 8, 9: “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service and when I was present with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied." It appears from St Paul's history, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, that upon leaving Macedonia he passed, after a very short stay at Athens, into Achaia. It appears, secondly, from the quotation out of the Epistle to the Corinthians, that in Achaia he accepted no pecuniary assistance from the converts of that country; but that he drew a supply for his wants from the Macedonian Christians. Agreeably whereunto it appears, in the third place, from the text which is the subject of the present number, that the brethren in Philippi, a city of Macedonia, had followed him with their munificence, ότε εξηλθον απο Μακεδονιας, when he was departed from Macedonia, that is, when he was come into Achaia. The passage under consideration affords another circumstance of agreement deserving of our notice. The gift alluded to in the Epistle to the Philippians is stated to have been made "in the beginning of the gospel." This phrase is most naturally explained to signify the first preaching of the gospel in these parts; viz. on that side of the Super. John, ch. xiii. 30, ‘Ore sğnλbe (Iadas) “when he was gone,” i. e. after his departure, λέγει Ιησες, Acts, ch. x. 7, ὡς δε απηλθεν ὁ αγΓέλος ὁ λαλων. Te Kopvang, "and when the angel which spake unto him was departed," i. e. after his departure, parnas duo Tav oixetav, &e. Ægean sea. The succours referred to in the Epistle to the Corinthians, as received from Macedonia, are stated to have been received by him upon his first visit to the peninsula of Greece. The dates therefore assigned to the donation in the two epistles agree; yet is the date in one ascertained. very incidentally, namely, by the considerations which fix the date of the epistle itself; and in the other, by an expression ("the beginning of the gospel") much too general to have been used, if the text had been penned with any view to the correspondency we are remarking. Further, the phrase, "in the beginning of the gospel," raises an idea in the reader's mind that the gospel had been preached there more than once. The writer would hardly have called the visit to which he refers the "beginning of the gospel," if he had not also visited them in some other stage of it. The fact corresponds with this idea. If we consult the sixteenth and twentieth chapters of the Acts, we shall find, that St. Paul, before his imprisonment at Rome, during which this epistle purports to have been written, had been twice in Macedonia, and each time at Philippi. No. IV. That Timothy had been long with St. Paul at Philippi is a fact which seems to be implied in this epistle twice. First, he joins in the salutation with which the epistle opens, "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi." Secondly, and more directly, the point is inferred from what is said concerning him, chap. ii. 19: "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort when I know your state; for I have no man like minded, who will naturally care for your state; for all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's; but ye know the proof of him, that as a son with the father, he hath served with' me in the gospel." Had Timothy's presence with St. Paul at Philippi, when he preached the gospel there, been expressly remarked in the Acts of the Apostles, this quotation might be thought to contain a contrived adaptation to the history; although, even in that case, the averment, or rather the allusion in the epistle, is too oblique to afford much room for such suspicion. But the truth is, that in the history of St. Paul's transactions at Philippi, which occupies the greatest part of the sixteenth chapter of the Acts, no mention is made of Timothy at all. What appears concerning Timothy in the history, so far as relates to the present subject, is this; "When Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a certain disciple was there named Timotheus, whom Paul would have to go forth with him." The narrative then proceeds with the account of St. Paul's progress through various provinces of the Lesser Asia, till it brings him down to Troas. At Troas he was warned in a vision to pass over into Macedonia. In obedience to which he crossed the Egean sea to Samothracia, the next day to Neapolis, and from thence to Philippi. His preaching, miracles, and persecutions at Philippi follow next; after which Paul and his company, when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, came to Thessalonica, and from Thessalonica to Berea. From Berea the brethren sent away Paul; "but Silas and Timotheus abode there still." The itinerary, of which the above is an abstract, is undoubtedly sufficient to support an inference that Timothy was along with St. Paul at Philippi. We find them setting out together upon this progress from Derbe, in Lycaonia; we find them together near the conclusion of it, at Berea, in Macedonia. It is highly probable, therefore, that they came together to Philippi, through which their route between these two places lay. If this be thought probable, it is sufficient. For what |