or “men of stature,” Isa. xlv, 14. These men were probably the
Sabeans of Arabia Felix, or of Asia. They submitted to Cyrus. The
Sabeans of Arabia were descended from Saba; but as there are several of
this name, who were all heads of peoples, or of tribes, we must
distinguish several kinds of Sabeans. 1. Those Sabeans who seized the
flocks of Job, i, 15, were, probably, a people of Arabia Deserta, about
Bozra; or, perhaps, a flying troop of Sabeans which infested that
country. 2. Sabeans, descendants from Sheba, son of Cush, Gen. x, 7, are
probably of Arabia Felix: they were famous for spices; the poets gave
them the epithet of soft and effeminate, and say they were governed by
women:
_Medis, levibusque Sabæis
Imperat hic sexus._
[This sex governs the Medes, and the gentle Sabeans.]
Several are of opinion, that from them came the queen of Sheba, 1 Kings
x, 1, 2; and that of these Sabeans the psalmist speaks, Psalm lxxii, 10,
“The kings of Arabia and Sheba shall give gifts;” and Jeremiah, vi, 20:
“What are the perfumes of Sheba to me?” and Isaiah, lx, 6: “All who come
from Sheba shall offer gold and perfumes.” 3. Sabeans, sons of Shebah,
son of Reumah, Gen. x, 7, probably dwelt in Arabia Felix. Probably it is
of these Ezekiel speaks, xxvii, 22, who came with their merchandise to
the fairs of Tyre: and Joel, iii, 8: “I will deliver up your children to
the tribe of Judah, who shall sell them to the Sabeans, a very distant
nation.” 4. Sabeans, descendants from Joktan, may very well be those
mentioned by Ezekiel, xxvii, 23: “Saba, Assur, and Chelmad, thy
dealers.” They are thought to have inhabited beyond the Euphrates;
whence they are connected with Asshur and Chilmad, Gen. x, 28; 1 Chron.
i, 22. 5. Sabeans are also placed in Africa, in the isle of Meroë.
Josephus brings the queen of Sheba from thence, and pretends that it had
the name of Shebah, or Saba, before that of Meroë.
SABELLIANS were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to
others, a bishop, of Upper Egypt, who was the founder of the sect. As,
from their doctrine, it follows that God the Father suffered, they were
hence called by their adversaries, Patripassians; and, as their idea of
the trinity was by some called a modal trinity, they have likewise been
called Modalists. Sabellius having been a disciple of Noëtus, Noëtians
is another name by which his followers have sometimes been known; and
as, from their fears of infringing on the fundamental doctrine of all
true religion, the unity of God, they neglected all distinctions of
persons, and taught the notion of one God with three names, they may
hence be also considered as a species of Unitarians. Sabellius
flourished about the middle of the third century, and his doctrine seems
to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was
soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author
by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263. Sabellius
taught that there is but one person in the Godhead; and, in confirmation
of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: As man, though
composed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians
reduced the three persons in the trinity to three characters or
relations, and maintained that the Word and Holy Spirit are only
virtues, emanations, or functions, of the Deity; that he who is in
heaven is the Father of all things; that he descended into the virgin,
became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having
accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he effused himself upon the
Apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost.
This they explain by resembling God to the sun, the illuminative virtue
or quality of which was the word, and its quickening virtue the Holy
Spirit. The word, according to their doctrine, was darted, like a divine
ray, to accomplish the work of redemption; and having reäscended to
heaven, the influences of the Father were communicated, after a like
manner, to the Apostles. They also attempted to illustrate this mystery,
by one light kindled by another; by the fountain and stream, and by the
stock and branch. With respect to the sentiments of Sabellius himself,
the accounts are various. According to some, he taught that the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, were one subsistence, and one person, with three
names; and that, in the Old Testament, the Deity delivered the law as
the Father; in the New Testament dwelt among men as the Son; and
descended on the Apostles as the Holy Spirit. According to Mosheim, his
sentiments differed from those of Noëtus, in this, that the latter was
of opinion, that the person of the Father had assumed the human nature
of Christ; whereas Sabellius maintained, that a certain energy only
proceeded from the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine
nature was united to the Son of God, the man Jesus; and he considered,
in the same manner, the Holy Ghost as a portion of the everlasting
Father.
Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling
scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not
precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is
chiefly founded on that passage in the New Testament, where the Apostle
speaking of Christ says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.” Dr. Watts, toward the close of his life, adopted this opinion,
and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the trinity
appear to have been, that the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally
distinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus; in
consequence of which union or indwelling of the Godhead, he became
properly God. Mr. Palmer observes, that Dr. Watts conceived this union
to have subsisted before the Saviour’s appearance in the flesh, and that
the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the
foundation of the world: on which ground he maintains the real descent
of Christ from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation,
which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him.
Sabeans of Arabia Felix, or of Asia. They submitted to Cyrus. The
Sabeans of Arabia were descended from Saba; but as there are several of
this name, who were all heads of peoples, or of tribes, we must
distinguish several kinds of Sabeans. 1. Those Sabeans who seized the
flocks of Job, i, 15, were, probably, a people of Arabia Deserta, about
Bozra; or, perhaps, a flying troop of Sabeans which infested that
country. 2. Sabeans, descendants from Sheba, son of Cush, Gen. x, 7, are
probably of Arabia Felix: they were famous for spices; the poets gave
them the epithet of soft and effeminate, and say they were governed by
women:
_Medis, levibusque Sabæis
Imperat hic sexus._
[This sex governs the Medes, and the gentle Sabeans.]
Several are of opinion, that from them came the queen of Sheba, 1 Kings
x, 1, 2; and that of these Sabeans the psalmist speaks, Psalm lxxii, 10,
“The kings of Arabia and Sheba shall give gifts;” and Jeremiah, vi, 20:
“What are the perfumes of Sheba to me?” and Isaiah, lx, 6: “All who come
from Sheba shall offer gold and perfumes.” 3. Sabeans, sons of Shebah,
son of Reumah, Gen. x, 7, probably dwelt in Arabia Felix. Probably it is
of these Ezekiel speaks, xxvii, 22, who came with their merchandise to
the fairs of Tyre: and Joel, iii, 8: “I will deliver up your children to
the tribe of Judah, who shall sell them to the Sabeans, a very distant
nation.” 4. Sabeans, descendants from Joktan, may very well be those
mentioned by Ezekiel, xxvii, 23: “Saba, Assur, and Chelmad, thy
dealers.” They are thought to have inhabited beyond the Euphrates;
whence they are connected with Asshur and Chilmad, Gen. x, 28; 1 Chron.
i, 22. 5. Sabeans are also placed in Africa, in the isle of Meroë.
Josephus brings the queen of Sheba from thence, and pretends that it had
the name of Shebah, or Saba, before that of Meroë.
SABELLIANS were so called from Sabellius, a presbyter, or, according to
others, a bishop, of Upper Egypt, who was the founder of the sect. As,
from their doctrine, it follows that God the Father suffered, they were
hence called by their adversaries, Patripassians; and, as their idea of
the trinity was by some called a modal trinity, they have likewise been
called Modalists. Sabellius having been a disciple of Noëtus, Noëtians
is another name by which his followers have sometimes been known; and
as, from their fears of infringing on the fundamental doctrine of all
true religion, the unity of God, they neglected all distinctions of
persons, and taught the notion of one God with three names, they may
hence be also considered as a species of Unitarians. Sabellius
flourished about the middle of the third century, and his doctrine seems
to have had many followers for a short time. Its growth, however, was
soon checked by the opposition made to it by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, and the sentence of condemnation pronounced upon its author
by Pope Dionysius, in a council held at Rome, A. D. 263. Sabellius
taught that there is but one person in the Godhead; and, in confirmation
of this doctrine, he made use of this comparison: As man, though
composed of body and soul, is but one person, so God, though he is
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is but one person. Hence the Sabellians
reduced the three persons in the trinity to three characters or
relations, and maintained that the Word and Holy Spirit are only
virtues, emanations, or functions, of the Deity; that he who is in
heaven is the Father of all things; that he descended into the virgin,
became a child, and was born of her as a son; and that, having
accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he effused himself upon the
Apostles in tongues of fire, and was then denominated the Holy Ghost.
This they explain by resembling God to the sun, the illuminative virtue
or quality of which was the word, and its quickening virtue the Holy
Spirit. The word, according to their doctrine, was darted, like a divine
ray, to accomplish the work of redemption; and having reäscended to
heaven, the influences of the Father were communicated, after a like
manner, to the Apostles. They also attempted to illustrate this mystery,
by one light kindled by another; by the fountain and stream, and by the
stock and branch. With respect to the sentiments of Sabellius himself,
the accounts are various. According to some, he taught that the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, were one subsistence, and one person, with three
names; and that, in the Old Testament, the Deity delivered the law as
the Father; in the New Testament dwelt among men as the Son; and
descended on the Apostles as the Holy Spirit. According to Mosheim, his
sentiments differed from those of Noëtus, in this, that the latter was
of opinion, that the person of the Father had assumed the human nature
of Christ; whereas Sabellius maintained, that a certain energy only
proceeded from the supreme Parent, or a certain portion of the divine
nature was united to the Son of God, the man Jesus; and he considered,
in the same manner, the Holy Ghost as a portion of the everlasting
Father.
Between the system of Sabellianism and what is termed the indwelling
scheme, there appears to be a considerable resemblance, if it be not
precisely the same, differently explained. The indwelling scheme is
chiefly founded on that passage in the New Testament, where the Apostle
speaking of Christ says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.” Dr. Watts, toward the close of his life, adopted this opinion,
and wrote several pieces in its defence. His sentiments on the trinity
appear to have been, that the Godhead, the Deity itself, personally
distinguished as the Father, was united to the man Christ Jesus; in
consequence of which union or indwelling of the Godhead, he became
properly God. Mr. Palmer observes, that Dr. Watts conceived this union
to have subsisted before the Saviour’s appearance in the flesh, and that
the human soul of Christ existed with the Father from before the
foundation of the world: on which ground he maintains the real descent
of Christ from heaven to earth, and the whole scene of his humiliation,
which he thought incompatible with the common opinion concerning him.