PHILIP.
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.”