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 (Hist. Ecc.
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 Alex. 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
