THE

BIBLICAL REPOSITORY

AND

Quarterly Observer.

No. XIX.

JULY, 1835.

ARTICLE I.

ON THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE SABELLIAN AND ATHANASIAN METHOD OF REPRESENTING THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

By Dr. Frederick Schleiermacher, late professor in the University of Berlin. Translated with Notes and Illustrations by M. Stuart, Prof. of Sacred Lit. Theol. Sem. Andover.

$4. Creed of Noetus.

[THE circumstances of Noetus' history are very imperfectly known. For what little knowledge we have, we are indebted principally to the work of Hippolytus, contra Haeresim Noeti, II. p. 5, seq. Epiphanius has repeated the principal things there said concerning Noetus, in his Haeres. LVII., and Anacephal. XI. Tom. II. p. 145. Philastrius repeats the common report, in Haeres. LIII. Augustine, Haer. XXXVI. Tom. VIII. p. 9, merely translates the Anacephalaiosis of Epiphanius. Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. 117. 3, also gives the usual report, but adds a few unimportant circumstances.

We have then in fact, as it would seem, but one source of Noetus' history; and this is that of his professed antagonist, Hippolytus.

According to the usual report, Noetus belonged to Smyrna ; whether as a native or merely as a resident, is not certain. Epiphanius only says, that he was of Ephesus, tns 'Eqéσov лóεws vлα, p. 479; which seems to be a lapse of memory here, for in his Anacephalaiosis he follows the usual report. Nothing that is said by the ancient writers, determines whether Noetus held an office in the church or not. The report is,

VOL. VI. No. 19.

1

that after he had begun to broach his opinions against the notion of separate hypostases in the divine Being, he was called to an account by the elders of the church at Smyrna, before whom he denied the truth of the information that had been given them against him. Upon the renewal, however, of his efforts to propagate his peculiar opinions, he and those who adhered to him were excommunicated from the church. Soon after this event took place he died. The time in which Noetus lived and acted at Ephesus is variously given by chronologers, viz., from A. D. 220 to A. D. 245. It is not certain that he was a writer. No treatise of his is definitely mentioned.

As to his creed, it neither appears that he called in question the divine origin and authority of any of the sacred books, nor that he entertained peculiar notions on any point of doctrine save that of personality in the Godhead. But inasmuch as the following pages are devoted to the exposition and discussion of his views, it is unnecessary here to enlarge on this point.

The modern sources worthy of particular consultation, are Walch, II. 1 seq. Martini Geschich. des Logos, pp. 142 seq. Lardner, Cred. of Gosp. Hist. Part II. Beausobre Hist. du Manich. I. p. 534. Tillemont, Memoires, etc. IV. p. 238. Worm, Hist. Sabell. II. p. 5.

As to HIPPOLYTUS, the opponent of Noetus, there seems to have been as little known with certainty about him as concerning his antagonist, among the ancient writers. Jerome (de illustr. Viris) speaks of Hippolytus as bishop of some place unknown to him (cap. LXI). Later writers say, that he was bishop of Portus Romanus in Italy. So Leontius Byzant., Johan. Zonaras; and this is found in the Greek Chronicon of Eusebius (p. 84), although the authority of the reading must be doubtful, after what Jerome says is well weighed. Nicephorus merely says, that he was o 'Papaios ovrroageús. Several modern writers simply assert the fact, that he belonged to Portus Romanus, e. g. Miraeus and others; while they are divided among themselves whether this was Portus Romanus in Italy or in Arabia. Eusebius and Jerome speak of him as the writer of numerous commentaries on the Scriptures, and of many other books; in particular, one against Marcion, and another against all heresies. That he lived in the time of the Roman emperor Alexander, (regn. A. D. 222-235) appears from the fact, that in a work of his on the Paschal canons of computing time, he brings his computation down to the first year of this

emperor's reign. Of course he was a cotemporary of Ori

gen.

Neither Eusebius nor Jerome tells us, that the Hippolytus in question wrote against Noetus; but they speak, as we have seen, of a book which he wrote against Marcion, and another against all heresies. But Photius (Cod. 121) tells us that the last book of his work against all heresies, was in opposition to Noetus. The fact that he was a very voluminous writer, and that he had a particular zeal against those who were regarded as heretics, united with the fact that he was a cotemporary of Noetus, renders it quite probable that he wrote the book against the latter, which now bears his name. But the evidence, on the whole, is rather of a conjectural nature; and we must regard it as a somewhat doubtful question, who is the author of the work against Noetus which is ascribed to Hippolytus. There is no doubt, however, that the work is an ancient one; and so far as our present object is concerned, it is a matter of no great consequence, whether it belongs to the bishop Hippolytus, or to some other person.

The work itself is run in almost the same mold as that of Tertullian against Praxeas. One can hardly doubt that Tertullian's work was before the author. In one respect only,' says Münscher, 'does he distinguish himself from Tertullian. The latter asserts the specific generation of the Son, and says that it took place when God said: "Let there be light." Hippolytus abstains from presenting any definite views in relation to this particular subject; and shews himself in this respect to be not unlike the more cautious Irenaeus.' But Münscher is certainly mistaken here; as the following passage from Hippolytus (cont. Noet. § 10) will plainly shew: yvva Дóyov, öv λόγον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀόρατόν τε ὄντα τῷ κτιζομένῳ κόσμῳ, δρατὸν ποιεῖ· πρότεραν φωνὴν φθεγγόμενος, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς γεννῶν, προῆκεν τῇ κτίσει κύριον, τὸν ἴδιον νοῦν· αὐτῷ μόνῳ πρότερον ὁρατὸν ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ γινομένῳ κόσμῳ ἀόρατον ὄντα, ὁρατὸν ποιεῖ, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ φανῆναι ἰδὼν ὁ κόσμος σωθῆναι δυvηon: i.e. “He begat the Word, which Word, being in himself and yet invisible to the created world, he made visible; when he uttered the first sound, and produced light from light, he sent forth to the creation a Lord, even his own Nous; him who before was visible only to himself, but invisible to the created world, he now made visible, that by his manifestation the world when beholding him might be saved." Here then is Tertullian, and

Justin, and Athenagoras, and Tatian, with their óyos ¿vdiáđe, τος and προφορικός in full measure.—TR.]

A historical connection between Praxeas and Noetus we are unable to establish. At most we can only make out, that both were Asiatics. Of Praxeas Tertullian says this expressly ;* and in regard to Noetus, the historical accounts differ only concerning this, viz., whether he belonged to Smyrna or to Ephesus. According to Epiphanius, Noetus was himself the author of a fearful and pestilential heresy; but Theodoret considers him only as renewing errors that had before been broached by Epigones and Cleomenes, who are so entirely unknown to us, that a reference to them casts no light on any connection which they may have had with Praxeas. We may therefore well make the supposition, that reasons such as operated on Praxeas elsewhere produced the like effects and brought others to like views. That there was a general agreement of opinion between Praxeas and Noetus, there is no good reason to doubt.

That the principal design of Noetus, moreover, was to shun every appearance of polytheism in the representation of the divine nature in the Redeemer, one may see from the very first arguments which Hippolytus and Epiphanius cite from him. The latter indeed, appears to have had some different views from the former; although, as it would seem, their narrative respecting Noetus was derived from one common source.

Noetus, in order to shew that the Godhead of Christ and the Father is the same, appealed to the same texts that had been cited by Praxeas for this purpose. Yet he seems to have laid particular stress on those, in which the very same work is attributed both to the Father and to the Son. I can easily be

* Nam iste primus, ex Asia, hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romae ; cap. 1. [For he, coming from Asia, first introduced this kind of perversity at Rome."]

† Νοητός . . . Ασιανός, τῆς Ἐφέσου πόλεως ὑπάρχων; Epiphan. advers. Haeres. p. 479. ̔Ο δὲ Νοητός, Σμυρναῖος μὲν ἦν τὸ γένος; Theod. Haeret. Fab. III. 3. In the same manner also Hippolytus speaks. ['Noetus, an Asiatic, being of the city of Ephesus.-Noetus was of Smyrna in respect to his descent.']

Martini is of a different opinion; see his Pragmat. Geschichte des Logos, p. 142.

§ Hippolytus (adv. Noetum), and Epiphanius after him, both seem to dispose of the following matter without any embarrassment, and