IN all the three gospel lists, this apostle is placed fifth in
order, the variations in the arrangements of the preceding making no
difference in his position. In the first chapter of Acts, however,
a different arrangement is made of his name, as will be hereafter
mentioned. The mere mention of his name on the list, is all the notice
taken of him by either of the three first evangelists, and it is only
in the gospel of John, that the slightest additional circumstance can
be learned about him. From this authority it is ascertained that he
was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, and probably also the
home or frequent visiting-place of the sons of Zebedee, by the younger
of whom he is so particularly commemorated. Immediately after the
narration of the introduction of Andrew, John and Peter, to Jesus, in
the first chapter of this gospel, it is said that Jesus next proceeded
from Bethabara into Galilee, and there finds Philip; but the particular
place is not mentioned, though Bethsaida being immediately after
mentioned as his home, very probably was the place of the meeting.
Andrew and Peter, on their return home, had doubtless had no small
talk among their acquaintances, about the wonderful person announced as
the Messiah, to whom they had been introduced, and had thus satisfied
themselves that he was really the divine character he was said to be.
Philip too, must have heard of him in this way, before he saw him; so
that when Jesus met him, he was prepared at once to receive the call
which Jesus immediately gave him,――“Follow me.” From the circumstance
that he was the first person who was summoned by Jesus, in this
particular formula of invitation to the discipleship, some writers
have, not without reason, claimed for Philip the name and honors of
the PROTOCLETE, or “_first-called_;” though Andrew has commonly been
considered as best entitled to this dignity, from his being the first
mentioned by name, as actually becoming acquainted with Jesus. Philip
was so devoutly engaged, at once, in the cause of his new Master,
that he, like Andrew, immediately sought out others to share the
blessings of the discipleship; and soon after meeting one of his
friends, Nathanael, he expressed the ardor of his faith in his new
teacher, by the words in which he invited him to join in this honorable
fellowship,――“We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and all the
prophets did write,――Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” The result
of this application will be related in the life of the person most
immediately concerned. After this, no notice whatever is taken of
Philip except where incidental remarks made by him in the conversations
of Jesus, are recorded by John. Thus, at the feeding of the five
thousand, upon Jesus’s asking whether they had the means of procuring
food for the multitude, Philip answered, that “two hundred pence would
not buy enough for them, that every one might take a little,”――thus
showing himself not at all prepared by his previous faith in Jesus,
for the great miracle which was about to happen; though Jesus had
asked the question, as John says, with the actual design of trying the
extent of his confidence in him. He is afterwards mentioned in the last
conversations of Jesus, as saying to him, “Show us the Father, and it
sufficeth us,”――here too, betraying also a most unfortunate deficiency,
both of faith and knowledge, and implying also a vain desire to gratify
his eyes with still more miraculous displays of the divine power of his
Master; though, even in this respect, he probably was no worse off than
all the rest of the disciples, before the resurrection of Jesus.
PROTOCLETE.――Hammond claims this peculiar honor for Philip, with
great zeal. (See his notes on John i. 43.)
Of his _apostleship_ not one word is recorded in the New Testament,
for he is no where mentioned in the Acts, except as being one of the
apostles assembled in the upper chamber after the ascension; nor do
the epistles contain the slightest allusion to him. Some of the most
ancient authorities among the Fathers, however, are distinct in their
mention of some circumstances of his later life; but all these accounts
are involved in total discredit, by the fact that they make him
identical with Philip the deacon, whose active and zealous labors in
Samaria, and along the coast of Palestine, from Gaza, through Ashdod
to Caesarea, his home, are minutely related in the Acts, and have
been already alluded to, in that part of the life of Peter which is
connected with these incidents. It has always been supposed, with
much reason, in modern times, that the offices of an _apostle_ and a
_deacon_ were so totally distinct and different, that they could never
both be borne by one and the same person; but the Fathers, even the
very ancient ones, seem to have had not the slightest idea of any
such incompatibility; and therefore uniformly speak of Philip the
apostle, as the same person with Philip, one of the seven deacons,
who is mentioned by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, as having lived
at Caesarea, in Palestine, with his daughters, who were virgins and
prophetesses. Testimony more distinct than this, can no where be found,
among all the Fathers, on any point whatever; and very little that
is more ancient. Yet how does it accord with the notions of those
who revere these very Fathers as almost immaculate in truth, and in
all intellectual, as well as moral excellence? What is the evidence
of these boasted Fathers worth, on any point in controversy about
apostolic church government, or doctrine, or criticism, if the modern
notion of the incompatibility of the two offices of apostle and deacon
is correct?
The testimony of the Fathers on this point, is simply this.
Eusebius (Church History, III. 31,) quotes Polycrates, bishop of
Ephesus, who, in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, (written
A. D. 195, or 196,) makes mention of Philip in these _exact_
words: “Philip, who was _one of the twelve_ apostles, died in
Hierapolis;” (in Phrygia;) “and so did _two of his daughters_,
who had grown old in virginity. And another of his daughters,
after having passed her life under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, was buried at Ephesus.” This certainly is a most perfect
identification of Philip the apostle with Philip the deacon; for
it is this latter person who is particularly mentioned in Acts,
xxi. 8, 9, as “having four daughters who did prophesy.” He is
there especially designated as “Philip the evangelist, _one
of the seven_,” while Polycrates expressly declares, that this
same person “was _one of the twelve_.” Eusebius also, in the
preceding chapter, quotes Clemens Alexandrinus as mentioning
Philip among those _apostles_ who were married, because _he_
is mentioned as having had daughters; and Clemens even adds
that these were afterwards married, which directly contradicts
the previous statement of Polycrates, that three of them died
virgins, in old age. Yet Eusebius quotes all this stuff, with
approbation.
Papias, (A. D. 140,) bishop of Hierapolis, the very place of the
death and burial of Philip, is represented by Eusebius as having
been well acquainted with the daughters of Philip, mentioned in
Acts, as the virgin prophetesses. Papias says that he himself
“heard these ladies say that their father once raised a dead
person to life, in their time.” But it deserves notice, that
Papias, the very best authority on this subject, is no where
quoted as calling this Philip “an apostle;” though Eusebius,
on his own authority, gives this name to the Philip of whom
Papias speaks. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, that
this blunder, betraying such a want of familiarity with the
New Testament history, originated after the time of Papias,
whose intimate acquaintance with Philip’s family would have
enabled him to say, at once, that this was the _deacon_, and not
the _apostle_; though it is not probable that he was any less
deplorably ignorant of the scriptures than most of the Fathers
were.
Now what can be said of the testimony of the Fathers on
points where they can not refer, either to their own personal
observation, or to informants who have seen and heard what they
testify? The only way in which they can be shielded from the
reproach of a gross blunder and a disgraceful ignorance of the
New Testament, is, that they were right in identifying these
two Philips, and that modern theologians are wrong in making
the distinction. On this dilemma I will not pretend to decide;
for though so little reverence for the judgment and information
of the Fathers has been shown in this book, there does seem
to me to be some reason for hesitation on this point, where
the Fathers _ought_ to have been as well informed as any
body. They must have known surely, whether, according to the
notions of those primitive ages of Christianity, there was any
incompatibility between the apostleship and the deaconship! If
their testimony is worth anything on such points, it ought to
weigh so much on this, as to cause a doubt whether they are not
right, and the moderns wrong. However, barely suggesting this
query, without attempting a decision, as Luther says, “I will
afford to other and higher spirits, occasion to reflect.”
This is all the satisfaction that the brief records of the inspired
or uninspired historians of Christianity can give the inquirer, on
the life of this apostle;――so unequal were the labors of the first
ministers of Christ, and their claims for notice. Philip, no doubt,
served the purpose for which he was called, faithfully; but in these
brief sketches, there are no traces of any genius of a high character,
that could distinguish him above the thousands that are forgotten,
but whose labors, like those of the minutest animals in a mole-hill,
contribute an indispensable portion to the completion of the mass, in
whose mighty structure all their individual efforts are swallowed up
forever.
And though the ancient Polycrates may have blundered grievously, in
respect to the apostle’s personal identity, his hope of the glorious
resurrection of those whom he supposed to have died in Asia will
doubtless be equally well rewarded, if, to the amazement of the Fathers,
the _apostle_ Philip should rise at last from the dust of Babylon, or
the ashes of Jerusalem, while his namesake, the evangelist, shall burst
from his tomb in Hierapolis. “For,” as Polycrates truly says, “in Asia,
some great lights have gone down, which shall rise again on that day of
the Lord’s approach, when he shall come from the heavens in glory, and
shall raise up all his saints;――Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who
sleeps at Hierapolis, with his venerable virgin daughters,――John, who
lay in the bosom of the Lord, and who is laid at Ephesus,――Polycarp,
at Smyrna,――Thraseas, at Eumenia,――Sagaris, at Laodicea,――Papirius
and Melito, at Sardis――all await the visitation of the Lord from the
heavens, in which he shall raise them from the dead.”