Noetians is the name of the followers of Noefus {i\. v.). They affirmed that their founder was Moses, and that his brother was Aaron, and taught that Christ was the Father himself, and that the Father was begot- ten and suffered and died. See, however, for details the article Noetus, and compare the articles Mono- PHYSiTES and Antitrinitarians.
Noetus or Noetius, a Christian philosopher of the 3d century, noted as the founder of a heretical body of Christians, monophysitic in tendency, was a native of Asia Minor — Hippolytus (Ref. ix, 11) says of Smyrna; and so says Epiphanius (in Sgnoj)sis, I, ii, 11), but in the body of his work {Heer. lib. Ivii) says he is of Ephesus. In all probability Noetus was a native of Ephesus and
a presbyter of Smyrna. In his early life he was one of the most prominent advocates of the Patripassian her- esy. In his views, which he published about A.D. 200, he appeals, like Praxeas, to Rom. ix, 5, where Christ is called the one God over all. Being called upon to de- fend his doctrine before a council of presbyters at Smyr- na, he denied or evaded the charge ; but presently, en- couraged by gaining about ten associates, he openly maintained the doctrine charged to him, and on a sec- ond summons before the synod avowed it, and claimed that it enhanced the glory of Christ. He was excom- municated, and then gathered followers, and formed a school for the propagation of his opinions; shortly after which he died (Hippolytus, Disc, against Noetus; Epi- phanius, liar. lib. Ivii). The author of Prcedestinatus states that he was condemned also by Tranquillus, bishop of the Chalcedonians in Syria {Prcedest. Hcei: xxxvi). From what Epiphanius and Theodoret say, it seems that the manner in which Noetus made Christ to be both the Father and the Son has been understood by the ancients, and the moderns too, in a worse sense than was necessary. For they tell us that Noetus be- lieved the Father and the Son to be one and the same person ; that this person bore the name of Father before he connected himself with the man Christ, but took the title Son after his union with the man Christ ; so that he could be denominated both the Father and the Son, being the Father if viewed in himself and apart from Christ, but being the Son if viewed as coupled with the man Christ. From this exposition of his views con- sequences are frequently, and, as we think, unjustly drawn which are discreditable to the reputation and talents of Noetus; though his system, so far as it can now be ascertained from the writings of the an- cients, was this : 1. Very explicit declarations of Script- ure put it beyond all question that, besides that God who is called the Father of all things, there are 7io gods. 2. But those who distinguish three j)€rsons in God mul- tiply gods, or make more than one God. 3. Therefore that distinction of persons in God must be rejected as being false, 4, Yet the Hoh' Scriptures clearly teach that God was in Christ, and that Christ v.-as the supreme God, from whom all things originated. 5. To bring the two representations into harmony, therefore, we must believe that the God who is in Christ is that supreme God whom the Scriptures call the Father of mankind. 6, This Father, in order to bring relief to fallen men, procreated from the Virgin Mary a 7nan free from all sin, who in a peculiar sense is called the Son of God, That man the Father so united with himself as to make of himself and the Son but 072e person. 8, On account of this union, whatever befel or occurred to that Son, or that divinely begotten man, may also be correctly predi- cated of the Father, who took him into society with his person, 9. Therefore the Father, being coupled with the Son, was born, suffered pains, and died. For al- though the Father, in himself considered, can neither be born, nor die, nor suffer pains; yet, as he and the Son became one person, it may be said that he was born and died. 10. For the same reason, the Father being present in the Son, although he remains still the Father, he may also be correctly called the Son. Ac- cording to Hippolytus, however, it would appear that Noetus taught the truly appalling doctrine that the Fa- ther, the One Primary Principle, suffered on the cross; not in the way in which the catholic faith teaches that Christ suffered, but from a passibility attributed to the Divine Nature itself. In stating the catholic doctrine that the Son of (Jod suffered, it is not said that the Word is in his own nature passible, nor is it said that Christ suffered "ratione divinx naturae," but "ratione humana; naturse qua; sola passibilis erat." "But," says Blunt, truly, " do not the statements of Noetus's doc- trine begin with ascribing passibility to the Divine Nat- ure itself? The Noetians advance statements after this manner — that one and the same God is the Creator \ and Father of all things, and that when it pleased him
NOETUS
156
NOGAROLE