an heresiarch of the third century. Of this man, who has given name to one of the most
enduring modifications of belief in the Christian Church, hardly anything is known.
Philastrius (De Haeres. 100.26) and Asterius of Amaseia (apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 271), call him a Libyan, and Theodoret repeats the statement,
with the addition that he was a native of the Libyan Pentapolis (Haeretic.
Fabul. Compend. lib. 2.9). Dionsius of Alexandria (apud De Trilici Receptione Haercticorum (apud Coteler. Eccles.
Graec. Aonum. vol. iii. p. 385), distinguishes Sabellius the Libyan from Sabellius of
the Pentapolis, but without reason: and his inaccuracy in this respect throws doubt on his
unsupported assertion that Sabellius was bishop of the Pentapolis. Abulpharagius (Hist. Dynastiar. p. 81, vers. Pocock) calls him a presbyter of Byzantium,
and places him in the reign of Gallus and Volusianus, ibid.) calls him a disciple of Noetus, but it does not appear that this means anything
more than that he embraced views similar to those of Noetus, who was of Asia Minor; either of
Smyrna (Theodoret. ibid. 3.3) or of Ephesus (Epiphan. Hacres. lvii.), and flourished about the middle of the third century. When Sabellius
broached his doctrines they excited great commotions among the Christians of the Pentapolis;
and both parties appealed to Dionysius of Alexandria, and endeavoured to secure him to their
side. Dionysius wrote letters to them, which are not extant. There can be no doubt that he
embraced the side of the opponents of Sabellianism, which he brands as "an impious and very
blasphemous dogma :" but it does not appear that he wrote to Sabellius himself, nor do we even
know whether Sabellius was then living (Epistol. de Sententia
Dionysii, 100.5) relates the matter, Dionysius was not engaged in controversy with
Sabellius himself, but with some bishops of his party; from which it is not improbable that
Sabellius was already dead. The intervention of Dionysius is placed by Tillemont in A. D. 257,
and by the Benedictine editors of Athanasius (l.c.) in Haeres. lxii.) found many who held them both in the East and
West, in the plains of Mesopotamia, and in the busy population of Rome.
The characteristic dogma of Sabellius related to the Divine Nature, in which he conceived
that there was only one hypostasis or person, identifying with each other the Father, the Son,
and the Spirit, "so that in one hypostasis there are three designations," Haeres. 62.1). Epiphanius further
illustrates the Sabellian hypothesis by comparing it to the union of body, soul, and spirit,
in man," so that the Father, so to speak, was the body, the Son the soul, and the Spirit the
spirit, of man." He appears not to give this as an illustration of his own, but as one
employed by the Sabellians themselves, who also compared the Deity to the Sun, "which is one
hypostasis, but has three operations (ibid.). According to Basil (Ep. 214), Sabellius spoke
of persons in God, but apparently only in the sense of characters or representations--" that
God was one in hypostasis, but was represented in Scripture under different persons: "Church Hist. by Rose, vol. ii. p. 276) thinks this statement is by no
means to be rejected. However this may be (and we think the authority of Epiphanius in such a
case of little moment), their main reliance in argument was upon passages in the Canonical
Scriptures, especially on that in Deut. 6.4, "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy
God is one Lord," and on Ex. 20.3, Is. 44.6, John, 10.30, 38, and 14.10. They dwelt also on the obvious difficulties in
the popular view of the Godhead, asking the simpler and less-informed believers, "What shall
we say then, have we one God or three ?" And thus, says Epiphanius, they led the perturbed
Christian "unconsciously to deny God, that is, unconsciously to deny the existence of the Son
and the Holy Spirit." It is evident, however, that this denial was only the denial of their
existence as distinct hypostases from the Father. The heresy of Sabellius approximated very
nearly to that of Noetus, so that Augustin wonders that Epiphanius should have distinguished
the Sabellian heresy from the Noetian: but Sabellius did not affirm that the Father suffered,
though the name of Patripassions was given to his followers (Athanas. De
Synodis, 100.7; Augustin, De Haeres. xli.): and Mosheim has well
observed that Sabellius did not, like Noetus, hold that the divine hypostasis was absolutely
one, and that it assumed and united to itself the human nature of Christ; but contended that
"a certain energy (vim) emitted from the Father of all, or, if you choose, a part of the
person and nature of the Father, was united to the man Christ." (Basil, Epistol. 210, 214, ed. Benedictin, 64, 349, editt. prior.; comp. Epiphan. l.c.; Augustin, De Haeres,
De Haeres. post Christi Passionem,
xxvi.; Athanas. Contra Arianos Oratio III. iv., IV.
cxxv., De Synodis, c. vii.; Dionys. Romanus, apud Athanas. Epistola de Sntentia Dionysii, cxxvi.; Theodoret, Haeret.
Fabul. Compend. 2.9.)
From the manner in which Athanasius argues against the Sabellians (Orat.
contra Arianos, 100.11, 25), it appears that they considered the emission of the divine
energy, the Son, to have been antecedent to creation, and needful to effect it: "That we might
be created the Word proceeded forth, and from his proceeding forth we exist" (Fides, apud Mai, Sriptor. Vet. Nova Collectio, vol. vii. p. 171),
and therefore as yet to come. Neander (l.c.) says that Sabellius
considered "human souls to be a revelation or partial out-beaming of the divine Logos," but
gives no authority for the statement.
(The ancient authorities for this article have been already cited. There are notices of
Sabellius and his doctrine in the following modern writers: Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. iv. p. 237, &c.; Lardner, Credibility,
&c., pt. ii. bk. i. c. 43.7; Mosheim, De Rebus Christianor. ante
Constantin. Magnum, Saec. 3. § xxxiii.; Neander, l.c.; Milnan,
Hist. of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 429.)