ference that he made between the Father and the Movás. This would happen, only in case Sabellius was wont to ascribe to the Father nearly all those operations ad extra, which others commonly did; and so they were easily led by this to imagine, that he employed the word Father in the same sense as they did, [i. e. as equivalent to the Movas.]

Assuming this as probable, we may now see how Sabellius could retain the expressions Father and Son, in order to communicate his views respecting the Trinity, in such a sense that the first member of the Trinity was named Father, not merely as the Creator of all things, but also in relation to the second person of the Godhead; although Sabellius did not in reality derive the second person from the first. If the second person was a peculiar neoyoagn, or (if I may be allowed the expression) phasis of the Godhead, only in relation to the incarnation, yet this depended on that arrangement of the world in which the first person or Father had developed himself; and this relation of dependence, or this causal and consequential connection of things, might very well be expressed by the terms FATHER and SON. Yea, even if it were established as a general truth, that Son of God meant appropriately the God-Man, yet Sabellius could employ the expression Son tropically and in the way of accommodation respecting the divine nature in the Redeemer, although this was the same as that in the Father, because a peculiar voua (if we may so speak on the present occasion) was appropriate to that nature, insomuch as it dwelt in a particular person which was connected with, or in a sense dependent on, an arrangement of the world made by the Father.

How long Sabellius satisfied himself with such views respecting Father and Son only, as two denominations (ovouάolat) in the Godhead peculiarly related to each other, without adding to them the Spirit, we do not certainly know. This however

should be remarked, viz., we are not to consider that Sabellius, for the greater length of time, and in most of his conversation and writings, made mention only of Father and Son, merely because Basil and Athanasius, in making opposition to his views, hardly ever speak of any Being but Father and Son. We do not feel necessitated here to inquire after a special reason why Sabellius admitted the Spirit to like claims with those of the Father and Son; because we are satisfied that this reason lay in the gradual unfolding of Christian sentiment. In like manner we find it altogether natural to suppose, that each of the VOL. VI. No. 19. 8

men, and manifested himself in this way.

In like manner the

simple Unity of the Godhead becomes σχῆμα οι πρόσωπον (in the sense which Sabellius attached to these words),* only by union with something else, but still in such a way as to suffer no change in itself; even as the Spirit remains one and the same, in all the diversity of zapiouara which it bestows.

The self same one Godhead, then, when developed in the person of the Redemer, is according to him the second лóσшnov in the Trinity; but still without undergoing any change of its own proper nature by this union. This seems to be equivalent to saying, that before union with the Redeemer, this second person as such (κατ ̓ ἰδίαν τῆς θείας ουσίας περιγραφήν had no proper existence. Once united, however, the state or condition that ensues is abiding; and the one and the same Godhead developed himself therein in a peculiar way, so long as the person of the Redeemer exists, or (as we have seen above) so long as his office continues; and all the virtues and active powers of the Redeemer, while this second róσшлоv thus developes itself in him, stand in the relation to him as the gifts of the Spirit do to the Spirit himself.

In like manner, when the one and the same God unites himself with the church, he becomes the third person, the Spirit, who developes himself by the abundance of gifts, which have a kind of organized symmetry or relation. In and by himself, however, the one God remains in this case unchanged and undivided. Here also it may be said, that the Spirit did not become a peculiar лоóбшлоv, before that community existed wherein he operates and dwells in his peculiar manner, viz. the church.

From this view of the subject it is plain, that whether Sabellius held the Spirit of the Old Testament to be the same as to пvεvμa rò aɣiov, depended on the fact, whether he acknowledged a true church under the Old Testament.

The question still remains, how the personality of the Father was constituted. If this sustained a relation to the Unity, such as that sustained by the other persons, in what way was the Godhead affected, or how did it develope itself, in order to be called Father?

* Επεὶ τόνγε ἀνυπόστατον τῶν προσώπων ἀναπλασμὸν οὐδὲ ὁ Σαβέλλιος παρητήσατο, εἰπὼν τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν ἕνα τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ ὄντα, κ. τ. A. Basil. Ep. 210. [Since Sabellius himself did not reject the formation of persons that did not convey the idea of hypostasis, saying that the same God, being one in substance, etc."]

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 'Pouaios ovyyoagεvs. 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