SABBATH DAY'S JOURNEY, a distance computed by the Rabbins at 2000 cubits, or about twothirds of an English mile. Journeying on the Sabbath was strictly forbidden to the Jews: and the prohibition in Exodus 16. 29, "Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day," they understood as an injunction not to remove from the town, or other such place of their habitation; except for the distance of 2000 cubits; which space was allowed by the Rabbins because of the 2000

cubits measured out on each side from the cities of the

Levites, (Numb. 35. 5,) and also the 2000 cubits left clear between the Ark and the people. (Josh. 3. 4.)

The Mount of Olives is said in Acts 1. 12, to have been a Sabbath-day's journey from Jerusalem, which shows its distance from the city, before its destruction under Titus, to have been less than an English mile.

COVERT OF THE SABBATH. (2 Kings 16. 18.) It is understood to mean a canopy under which Ahaz used to stand, at the entrance of the porch of the Temple, when he attended the service; but which he removed

So we

when he became an idolator, to show his contempt, and his intention of not resorting thither any more. see in 2 Chronicles 28. 24, that "he shut up the doors of the house of God" that none might enter to worship.

Sabbath is figuratively used for the eternal rest and happiness of the just in Heaven. (Heb. 2. 9.) "There remaineth a rest for the people of God." In the Greek the word translated "rest," is oaßßaтioμos, or sabbatizing; a rest from labour; and a dedication to the praising of God.

W.

SABEANS. There were four races comprehended under the general name of Sabæans, though all of dif

ferent descent. Three of their founders are mentioned in Genesis 10: 1st. Seba, son of Cush, whose name is begun with a samech, ND (The names of the remaining three commence with schin W) 2nd. Sheba, N son of Raamah, and grandson of Cush. 3d. Sheba, son of Joktan, fourth in descent from Cush. The fourth founder of a Sabæan race is Sheba, son of Jokshan, a son of Abraham, by his second wife Keturah. (Gen. 25. 3.) This Sheba settled in that part of Arabia now known as Arabia Deserta, near Idumea, or Uz, the country of Job; and it was his descendants who carried off that patriarch's cattle. (Job 1. 15.) These were a predatory people, but the other three races of Sabæans were a mercantile people. It is most probably to these marauding Sabæans that ver. 9 of Job, ch. 6, alludes: "The troops of Teman looked; the companies of Sheba waited for them." The companies of Sheba are named in conjunction with the troops of Teman; which latter was a district of Idumea named after a son of Ishmael, (Gen. 25. 15,) whose descendants were generally of predatory habits.

Of the other races of Sabeans, those who descended from Seba, ND son of Cush, seem to have settled on the south-east coast of the Arabian Gulf, about the part now called Yemen. They are distinguished in the Hebrew Bible from the other Sabæans by their name being spelt with samech like that of their founder. They

are referred to in Isaiah 45. 14: "The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, (ON) men of stature, shall come over thee;" and Ezekiel 23. 42, "And with the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans (ND) from the wilderness;" and in Psalm 72. 10, "The kings of Sheba (NV) and Seba (20) shall offer gifts;" where the descendants of Seba are particularly distinguished by the spelling from those of Sheba. These Sabeans are said by old writers to have been men of a majestic appearance; which is corroborated by Isaiah 64. 14, above quoted. Seba, their founder, is also said to have been father of a people called Jemamites, so called from a Queen Jemama. (See Patrick, Com. on Gen. 10.) Or possibly, the name might be derived from Jemin, the south; and hence Yemen; and these Jemamites, or Jeminites, were a people of Yemen. Sabe was the capital of these Sabæans.

2nd. Sheba, son of Raamah, and brother of Dedan, (Gen. 10. 7,) and grandson of Cush. He settled near the Persian Gulf, neighbouring to his father and brother, who gave names to the cities of Raamah, or Rhegma, and Dedan or Dadan. These Sabeans, as well as the third and fourth races, are distinguished from the foregoing by being spelled with schin To them refers Ezekiel 27. 22: "The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants;" and Ezekiel 38. 13: "Sheba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish."

3rd. Sheba, son of Joktan, who was fourth in descent from Shem. (Gen. 10. 28.) He settled in the south part of Arabia Felix; having the Indian Ocean to the south; the Sabeans, of the first race, immediately descended from Cush, to the west; the high lands of Arabia to the north; and Dedan to the east. This part included Hazarmaveth, afterwards Hadramaut, and the country of the Homeritæ, or Himyarites, descended from Himyar or Homeir, a descendant of Sheba. The name of Homeritæ has been sometimes used to express the Sabæans generally; or rather those races of them that settled in Arabia Felix. This region was rich in odoriferous shrubs, frankincense, spices, &c.: even gold is mentioned among its products in ancient times, though none is found there at present. It yields, however, the onyx, agate, and a species of ruby. To this race of Sabæans (from Sheba, descendant of Shem,) refers Joel 3. 8: “I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah; and they shall sell them to the Sabæans, to a people afar off." These Sabæans being at the very south of Arabia were farther than the others from Canaan. To them also refers Isaiah 60. 6: "All they from Sheba shall come, they shall bring gold and incense;" and Jeremiah 6. 20: "To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba?" and Psalm 72. 15: "To him shall be given of the gold of Sheba.”

The capital of this country was Mareb. Above it, between the hills, was constructed an immense dyke, which confined in a narrow valley all the precipitous mountain torrents which otherwise would have devastated the plains; but which were then formed into a large reservoir, from whence various channels conducted water for purposes of agriculture, &c. This mound, however, in course of time, was suffered to decay; and at length it burst; and the terrible destruction caused by the inundation occasioned the dispersion of the Sabæans, the survivors emigrating northwards in different bands, (about 300 years B.C.,) whence has arisen much confusion amongst writers of different times, concerning the position of the Sabæans, and concerning the application of the name.

The Queen of Sheba, who visited Solomon, (1 Kings 10.) was an Arab of this race of Sabeans. She appears to have possessed extensive territories; countries lying on

both sides of the Arabian Gulf, viz. Sheba, the south part of Arabia Felix; and on the opposite coast, African Ethiopia, including the country now known as Abyssinia, with Azab, (Ussab or Saba.) Arabian writers call her Balkis, and assert her to have reigned over Sheba, or Sabæa above named; which is corroborated by the kind of gifts she presented to Solomon-spices, gold, and precious stones; all productions of Southern Arabia. Some historians say it was customary for the Sabæans to be governed by queens; and the Queen of Sheba was evidently a queen regnant, not a queen consort. Josephus says she was Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. The latter is a name of wide signification. It applies both to that part of Asia peopled by the descendants of Cush, (from whence a colony early emigrated to African Ethiopia,) and also to Ethiopia in Africa: but it is evidently the latter which Josephus means by his mention of Egypt. The Abyssinians claim her as their sovereign; and affirm, that at Jerusalem she was converted to Judaism; and had by Solomon a son, Menilek, on whom she settled her crown, making at the same time a law that it should never again descend to a female. This law must have been limited to the part of her dominions now known as Abyssinia; for in Acts 8 we read of a Queen Candace (evidently queen regnant) of Ethiopia, whether that be Asiatic or African Ethiopia. Whitby thinks it is the latter; and quotes Pliny, who says of Meroë, that Candace has been for many years the name of their queens. Her treasurer had been to Jerusalem to worship, (Acts 8. 27,) whence it appears he was of the Jewish faith, which had been introduced by Queen Balkis into her African dominions.

With the Sabæans have been sometimes confounded the Sabians, a very ancient sect, said to be named after Sabi, son of Enoch, reputed to have been the founder of their religion, in its original and purest form. Their creed comprehended the worship of one God, the Governor and Creator of all things, who was to be addressed through a mediator, which office was to be performed by pure and invisible spirits; an admiration of the heavenly bodies, and an undue idea of their influence over earthly objects, soon produced an idolatrous worship of the heavenly luminaries, in which they conceived that the mediative intelligences resided. At first the Sabians worshipped towards the planets, as the residences of the mediating spirits between God and man; hence soon arose star worship. Then they made images to represent the stars, in which, after consecration, they imagined the intelligences came to reside; they named the images after the planets, and hence arose idolatry and its corruptions.

They taught that the sun and moon were superior deities, and the stars inferior ones; that the souls of the wicked were punished for nine thousand years, and then pardoned. They highly valued agriculture, and cattle, and that it was unlawful to kill the latter. The principal seats of Sabianism were Harran, and "Ur of the Chaldees."

Maimonides says that Abraham was originally a Sabian, till he was converted and left Chaldea. Maimonides also says that it was very prevalent in the time of Moses. It is to Sabianism that Job alludes, (31. 26,27,) "If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand;" i. e., in token of salutation. Also in different parts of the second Book of Kings, and in Zephaniah 1.5; Jeremiah 19. 13, the idolatrous worship of the host of heaven is mentioned. The Sabians of later times, when praying, turn towards the north pole; pray at sunrise, noon, and sunset; abstain from many kinds of vegetables; believe

in the ultimate pardon of the wicked, after nine thousand years of suffering; keep three yearly fasts, one in February of seven days, one in March of thirty days, and one in December of nine days; offer many burnt offerings, or holocausts; adore the stars; teach that mediators live in the seven planets, whom they call lords and gods, but the true God they call Lord of lords; each planet, they teach, has his distinct region, office, and objects of guardianship; they believe that an intercourse is kept up between the planetary intelligences and the earth, and that their influence is conveyed by talismanic mystic seals, made with spells, and according to astrological rules. They go on pilgrimage to Harran, in Mesopotamia, respect the temple at Mecca, and venerate the pyramids in Egypt, which they believe to be the sepulchres of Seth, Enoch and Sabi; and they offer there a cock and black calf, and burn incense. See Sale's Koran. The name of Sabians is often given by the Mahometans and Eastern Christians to a sect in and about Bagdat and Bassorah, whose proper appellation is Mendaites, or Disciples of John: sometimes improperly called Christians of St. John, as they have in reality no pretensions to Christianity. The name of their founder is John, but it is not quite clear that he is John the Baptist, as has been supposed by their using a kind of baptism. Their sacred books are a ritual; the Book of John, and the Book of Adam; the latter has been published, and is extremely mystical and obscure. It sets out with the Gnostic tenet of two eternal, self-existent, independent principles. It teaches that Jesus is one of the seven planets, viz., Mercury; that he was baptized in Jordan by John; but corrupted the doctrines of John, wherefore the good genius, Anush, delivered him up to be crucified. These Sabians pray at the seventh hour, and at sunset; assemble at the place of worship on the first day of the week, on which day they baptize their children: they use extreme unction, decry celibacy, forbid the worship of images, permit all kinds of meat, but abstain from meat dressed by infidels; sign their children with a particular sign, and contemn all reverence for the planets.

The Rev. Jos. Wolf mentions in his Journal having met with some of these Sabians, or rather Mendaites, about Bassorah; but they evidently wished to impose on him, and give a favourable impression of their doctrines. They affected a great reverence for Christ, as the Messiah, and the Word of God; they professed to require the mediation of Christ and John, and to believe that Christians would be saved, and to expect the second advent; and taught that sin was washed away by re-baptizing. Their remaining tenets, such as sealing their children, abstaining from meats cooked by Mahometans, &c., are the same as have been before quoted. M.

SACK, p sak, and the plural D'p sakim, "sackcloth," is a pure Hebrew word, and has passed into many languages. One of the old commentators assigns a strange reason for its general prevalence; he says that when the confusion of Babel took place, each of the builders of Babel shouted for his sack, in order to run away with his tools, and the word being frequently repeated, dwelt in the memory when the rest of the primitive language was forgotten.

Sackcloth was worn by the Hebrews, and indeed by most nations of the East, as a token of mourning. The custom still exists in China, but is not accompanied by the throwing of ashes on the head as was usual among the Jews. Sackcloth was also worn by ascetics and penitents, and also by the prophets in token either of humility or of their sorrow for the sins of the people.

We find (1 Kings 20. 31,) that persons anxious to deprecate the wrath of a king or a conqueror presented themselves before him clothed in sackcloth for the purpose of deprecating his anger. Oriental conquerors of modern times have frequently exacted similar marks of humiliation, and the refusal of the citizens to submit to such degradation is stated to have been the chief cause of Timur Lenk's sanctioning the massacre of Damascus.

SACRIFICE, an expiatory and vicarious offering, made to God upon an altar. There are strong arguments adduced by several eminent authors, and more especially by Dr. Magee, who has collected the best, to prove that the institution of sacrifice was by Divine authority, and was coeval with the circumstance which caused the need of this expiatory service, viz.; the fall of man, and introduction of sin into the world. The following is a brief summary of the principal arguments. That the grand object of faith propounded to our first parents, on their transgression, was the promise of a Deliverer to overthrow their enemy, and to rescue their posterity from the evils consequent on the Fall. That to perpetuate this fundamental doctrine amongst Adam's descendants, some striking memorial of the Fall and the Deliverer would be appointed; especially, if we admit that the scheme of redemption was determined from the beginning; and that Christ was "the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13. 8.) That nothing could be more appropriate for such memorial than animal sacrifice; exhibiting the death which was the wages of sin, and typifying the death to be suffered by the Redeemer and Expiator: "And the adoption of this rite, with sincere and pious feeling, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death which was inflicted on the victim was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man's transgression; and a full reliance upon the promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment." Magee, On Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. i., p. 51.

That animal food was not granted to Adam, but only a vegetable diet, (Gen.1.29,) and therefore the beasts in whose skins we find him clothed, (Gen. 3. 21,) were sacrificed; not having been slain for food or clothing expressly, as the wool and hair would have answered equally well; or even vegetable materials.

That Adam could not by his unassisted reason invent the rite; for he would not have perceived any congruity between killing an innocent creature and obtaining pardon of sin; on the contrary, he might rather have expected God's displeasure for an act of gratuitous cruelty. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are not mentioned as if the rite were then first instituted; but spoken of in general terms as a thing customary. Abel's sacrifice was appropriately a lamb, and offered in faith, (Heb. 11. 4,) wherefore it was accepted. Cain's was offered in a spirit of scepticism; it was not an animal or bloody offering ("without shedding of blood is no remission," Heb. 9. 22,) as if he doubted the efficacy, or appropriateness; but was merely of fruits, and was rejected. Abel's was accepted by fire coming down supernaturally from heaven and consuming it, as is the general opinion of commentators; a mode of acceptance that was granted to other sacrifices in later times; see Solomon's sacrifice at the dedication of the Temple, (2Chron. 7. 17); Moses's burnt offering, (Levit. 9. 24); David's at the threshing-floor of Ornan, (1Chron. 21. 26); Elijah's when he contended with the priests of

consumed Gideon's sacrifice at the rock. (Judges 6. 21.) That such supernatural mode of acceptance was by no means unusual in ancient times, we learn by a Hebrew etymology; the verb which we translate "to accept" relative to a burnt sacrifice is in Hebrew, "to turn to ashes," dashan. So in Psalm 20. 3, "The Lord accept thy burnt sacrifice," is literally, "The Lord turn thy burnt sacrifice into ashes." Abel's sacrifice would not have been accepted if not of God's institution; for the whole tenor is distinctly opposed to "will-worship." At Noah's going into the Ark, we read of animals clean and unclean, (Gen. 7. 2;) as they were not for food, (animals not having been granted till after the Flood, Gen. 9. 3,) they must have been thus distinguished as fit, or unfit, for sacrifice.

All nations have performed sacrificial rites, which they could not have borrowed from the Mosaic law, because they used them before the days of Moses; nor could they have deduced them from their own reason, because of the incongruity between the act, and the effect intended by it; besides, by the destruction of their flocks and herds it was against their general interest; nor could they have thus gratified any general instinct. The universal prevalence, therefore, of sacrifices in the Heathen world is to be accounted for by deriving it from the example of the antediluvian patriarchs; and tracing it from them to the immediate descendants of Noah, who all lived together as one nation, having one religion and one language, till the days of Peleg, when the earth was divided. (Gen. 10. 25.) Then they spread themselves abroad into various countries, carrying with them the laws, customs, and religion to which they had been habituated. (Magee, vol. ii., part 1.) Of course in process of time, and because of separation from patriarchal teaching, the stream of tradition became turbid, and the application of the sacrificial rite corrupted. Still, the retaining of the rite shows an universal acknowledgement of human demerit and insufficiency, and the need of some external means of propitiation before the acknowledged Deity.

The great and principal view of sacrifice under the Mosaic law, was expiatory, and of vicarious import. That it was expiatory, for the forgiveness of sins, may be seen from the tenor of the whole Book of Leviticus. And before the Mosaic dispensation Job offered up expiatory sacrifices for his children, (Job 1. 4,5;) and his friends were divinely commanded to offer up expiatory animal sacrifices for their rash and uncharitable judgments. (Job 42. 7,8.) That sacrifice was vicarious is plainly shown in Leviticus 1. 4: "He shall lay his hand on the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make atonement for him." In fact, this verse shows sacrifice to have been both expiatory, and of vicarious import. Also in 2Chronicles 19. 23, the sacrifice offered by Hezekiah for all Israel was both expiatory and vicarious; indicated by the laying of hands on the victim; which ceremony expressed, "Let the evils that in justice should have fallen upon my head light upon the head of this victim." (Magee, vol. i., p. 368.) The Mosaic sacrifices were but types and figures to show the Lord's death till He should come. "The sacrifice of Christ was a true and effectual sacrifice, whilst those of the Law were but faint representations, and inadequate copies intended for its introduction." Magee, vol. i., p. 7.

It is expressly said, that the Law had but "a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things," (Heb. 10. 1,) and that Christ came "an highpriest of good things to come," and "neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered at once into the holy place, having obtained

eternal redemption for us." (Heb. 9. 11,12.) That Christ's death was a sacrifice expiatory, and of vicarious import, is shown, (John 1. 29,) "The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;” (Eph. 5. 2,) "Christ hath given himself for us, an offering, and a sacrifice to God;" (1John 4. 10,) "God sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins;" (Rom. 8,) "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all;" (Rom. 5. 11,)" Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement;" "all which, and several other passages speak of the death of Christ in the same sacrificial terms that had been applied to the sin-offerings of old." (Magee, i. 222.)

Here it may be remarked, that in all these passages of the Old Testament, where anything disparaging of sacrifices seems to be expressed, as in Psalm 13," Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" &c., we have a rule given us by Mede to understand them in three senses: 1st., as when men preferred them before the greater things of the Law: 2nd., overvalued them as an antecedent duty, or imagined their efficacy to be in the naked rite, as if thereby God were in any sort benefited. It is against these insufficient, erroneous, and low views, that any text, seemingly disparaging of sacrifice, is directed.

During the patriarchal times, before Moses, it appears that any private person might sacrifice for himself, or others, (like Job for his children,) when and where it might be most convenient to himself. But under the Mosaic dispensation the laws of sacrifice became strict and defined. The office of sacrificer was limited to the high-priest, of the house of Aaron; and the place was prescribed to be the door of the Tabernacle till the Temple was built; and then the sacrifice could be only legal at the Temple. And the kind of sacrifice, and the manner of sacrificing, were definitely laid down by law. It is true, that after Moses, we read of some kings and prophets, not of the house of Aaron, who yet offered sacrifices, such as Solomon, David, and Elijah, and also Samuel; but it has been explained that then they were acting as prophets, under the influence of a special inspiration and direction, which, in extraordinary cases, permitted a dispensation with ordinary rules. And we read in the Books of Samuel of sacrifices offered in other places besides where the ark and tabernacle were; but that was while the sanctuary was desolate, when the tabernacle was without its ark, and the ark removed from God's (figurative) dwelling, the tabernacle.

The Jews under the Law had three kinds of bloody | sacrifices. I. The holocaust, or burnt-offering. II. The offering for sins, or piacular sacrifice. III. The peaceoffering, or thank-offering. In all sacrifices it was requisite that the victim should be clean. Of quadrupeds, only oxen, sheep, and goats were allowed; but all clean birds; the dove and pigeon, however, were the most frequently used. The victim was to be perfectly free from any blemish whatever, which was a beautiful type of the perfect sinlessness of Christ, the "Lamb without blemish, and without spot." (1Pet. 1. 19.) The victim was led to the altar by the person offering, who laid his hand heavily on it, and said some particular prayers. If several persons were united in the offering of the one victim, each laid his hand upon it in succession. The priest then received the victim from the offerer, or offerers, prayed for the divine acceptance; and poured wine on the head of the victim, which act was called the libation. The wine appears to have been symbolic of the anger of God, (see Psalm 60. 3,) "Thou hast showed thy people hard things: thou hast made them to drink of the wine of astonishment;" (Jer. 25. 15,)"Take the wine-cup of this fury at my hand;" and

1169

When a

the libation typified the anger of God poured out on the vicarious offering, in place of the sinner who offered it in expiation. The animal was immediately slain by cutting the throat; the blood was caught in a vessel, and sprinkled round the altar; and this was the grand expiatory type, the blood being considered the life of the animal; (Gen. 9. 4,) "The flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof; (Lev. 17. 11,) "The life of the flesh is in the blood, it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Round the altar was a trench to receive the rest of the blood, which was thence conveyed to the brook Kedron, through subterranean channels. The slain victim was flayed, disembowelled, split open, and quartered. The cutting of the victim in pieces was a type of covenant; for sacrifices were also of a federal nature. sacrifice was offered for ratification of an agreement between two parties, the victim was divided, and a space left between the parts, and the contracting parties passed between them. So when God made a covenant with Abraham; the latter offered a sacrifice, and divided the animals in pieces; and a smoking flame and burning lamp, as a representation of God's presence, passed between the pieces; (Gen. 15. 9,10,17,18, see also Jerem. 38. 18,) "The men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof." After the sacrifice was cut up, it was "salted for the fire," and laid on the altar to be consumed. No sacrifice was permitted to be offered without salt, by God's express command. (Levit. 2. 13.) The salt was not brought by the offerer, but was provided at the public expense; there being, as the Jewish doctors tell us, in the court of the Temple, a chamber for storing it, called the Chamber of Salt; one of the three rooms on the north side of the court. Salt was a type of friendship in the East, and, by its incorruptibility, it was also a type of purity; and thus in the sacrifices it symbolized friendship, or reconciliation with God, and purification from sin. Frankincense was used in the sacrifices because they were to be as a sweet savour unto God, a type of his complacency; so in Ephesians 5. 2, "Christ hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." The sacrifice was burnt either whole, or in part, as the case might be, i. e., whether it were a holocaust or other kind of offering. In particular cases it was consumed by fire from heaven, (vide supra,) but in general was burnt by the fire on the altar. This fire, the Jews tell us, was in fact celestial fire, being a continuation, by the perpetual addition of fuel, of the heavenly fire which fell to consume the first sacrifice offered by Aaron. (Levit. 9. 24.) This fire was to be always kept up by the priests; " And the fire shall be for ever burning on the altar,” (Levit. 6. 13;) and for this reason a quantity of wood was always kept at the Temple, and at a certain appointed time the people were obliged to bring a large supply of that fuel to the Temple-stores, which was a kind of festival, called the Feast of the Wood-carrying. (Josephus, Jewish Wars, lib. ii., cap. 31.) In Leviticus 1. 7, it is said, "The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar;" but the Hebrew is, "give fire," i. e., stir the smouldering fuel, and dispose it to burn more quickly. In the Babylonish captivity, however, this continuation of the celestial fire was lost, and thus, according to a common tradition of the Jews, the want of the sacred fire, was one of the things, the absence of which rendered the second Temple inferior to the first. To return to the sacrifices: in public sacrifices, for the congregation, or people in general, only animals were allowed; it was