and inscriptions preserved in the temples of Phoenicia and Egypt. Philo of Byblos, in the time of Adrian, translated it into Greek, and of this version some fragments are preserved in Porphyry on abstinence from the flesh of animals, and in the evangelical preparation of Eusebius. Dodwell, in an express treatise, has endeavoured to show that the history of Sanchoniathon never existed; and Dupin has attempted to destroy the credit of the supposed fragments; but other learned men consider them as authentic. Suidas mentions this author as having written a treatise on the religious in stitutions of the Phoenicians; another on the physiology of Hermes; and a third on the Egyptian theology. Vossii Hist. Græc. Univers. Hist. Moreri.—A.

SANCROFT, WILLIAM, a learned and eminent English prelate in the 17th century, was born at Fresingfield in Suffolk, in the year 1616. Having been instructed in grammar-learning at St. Edmund's Bury, at the age of eighteen he was entered of Emanuelcollege in the University of Cambridge, where he distinguished himself by his proficiency in all the branches of literature. He took his degree of B. A. in 1637; that of M. A. in 1641; and in 1642 he was chosen a Fellow of his college. This situation he retained till 1649, when his refusal to take the engagement occasioned his being ejected from it; upon which he withdrew to the continent, where he travelled through France and Italy, and became acquainted with the most considerable of the English exiled royalists. He was at Rome in the beginning of the year 1660; but when measures were ripe for the restoration of Charles II. he returned to England, revisited his Alma Mater, and was chosen one of the University preachers. Soon afterwards, Dr. John Cosing having been promoted to the bishopric of Durham, Mr. Sancroft was appointed one of his chaplains, and collated by him to the rectory of Houghton-le-Spring, as well as to a as well as to a prehend in his cathedral church. In 1661, he assisted in reviewing the liturgy, particularly in introducing the alterations which were made in the kalendar and rubrick. During the following year, he was created doctor of divinity at Cambridge by a royal mandamus, and also elected master of Emanuel-college. In 1664, he was promoted to the deanery of York, which he held only ten months, and in that time expended on buildings, &c. two hundred pounds more than he received. Towards the close of that year, upon the death of Dr. John Barwick, he was removed to the

deanery of St. Paul's in London; and soon afterwards he resigned the rectory of Houghton, and the mastership of Emanuel-college. One of the first objects of his attention after having been installed in his new preferment, was the repair of the Cathedral, which had suffered great dilapidations from the misguided zeal of fanatics during the civil wars. Not long afterwards he was necessarily occupied on the greater undertaking of rebuilding that edifice, which was destroyed by the dreadful fire of London in 1666. Towards this design, by his unwearied industry and solicitation, he obtained the act of parliament which laid a duty upon coals, as well as considerable donations from individuals; and he was a contributor of fourteen hundred pounds from his own fortune. He also rebuilt the deanery-house, and by his liberality improved the revenues and patronage of his office. In 1668, the King presented him to the archdeaconry of Canterbury; but he resigned that dignity after he had held it two years. He was chosen Prolocutor of the lower house of convocation: and, he was in that station in 1677, when the King, unexpectedly, and, as it was said, without any inclination on the part of our divine, advanced him to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. Dr. Sancroft entertained high notions of the regal prerogatives. This circumstance, doubtless, proved a strong recommendation of him to the court, who might imagine that he would support, or at least give little opposition to the measures of the King and his brother for establishing an absolute government, and promoting the interests of popery. From the issue it will appear, that his principles of submission could not induce him to sacrifice his religion to the royal pleasure.

Archbishop Sancroft attended King Charles II. upon his death-bed, and is said to have made use of a becoming and honest freedom in the exhortations which he addressed to that profligate prince. In 1686, he was nominated the first in King James the Second's commission for ecclesiastical affairs; but he refused to act under it, notwithstanding that he had not the resolution to go to the court when it was first opened, and formally protest against it as illegal. About the same time, he suspended Thomas Wood, Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, for residing out of, and neglecting his diocese. Soon afterwards he afforded evidence of his zeal to counteract the King's insidious designs for promoting the interests of popery, by refusing, in his capacity of one of the governors of the Charter-house, to admit as pensioner in that hospital one Popham, a Papist,

though he came with a nomination from court. In 1688, he shewed a degree of firmness which did him great honour, by refusing, with six other bishops, to order the reading of King James's declaration of indulgence, and by signing with them a petition to His Majesty containing their reasons for resisting the authority which he assumed. For this petition, which the court pronounced to be a libel, they were committed prisoners to the Tower, and tried at the bar of the King's-Bench in Westminsterhall, on the charge of a misdeameanor; but they were acquitted, to the great joy of people of all ranks and orders, and the deep mortification of the King. During the same year the Archbishop, in the circular letter which he sent to the clergy of his province, exhorted them to cultivate a good correspondence with the Protestant Dissenters, and he endeavoured to promote a comprehension of them in the national church, by proposing a scheme to review and amend the Liturgy by corrections and additions, and by leaving out some few ceremonies which were confessed to be of an indifferent nature. When in the autumn King James had received certain intelligence of the design of the Prince of Orange to bring an army into England in support of the liberties of the country, and had sent for our Archbishop and the other bishops who were in London, to ask their advice in that emergency, they plainly urged the necessity of his giving immediate evidence of his disposition to redress the grievances of the nation, by annulling the ecclesiastical commission, desisting from the exercise of a dispensing power, superseding all further prosecution of Que Warranto's, and calling a free and regular parliament. A few days afterwards, the Archbishop excused himself from signing a declaration expressive of abhorrence of the Prince of Orange's undertaking, in opposition to the pressing solicitations and repeated commands of the King. On this Prince's withdrawing himself, His Grace also concurred with the lords spiritual and temporal who assembled at Guildhall, on the 11th of December, in signing a declaration to the Prince of Orange, for a free parliament, the security of our laws, liberties, and properties, and a due indulgence to Protestant Dissenters.

Hitherto Archbishop Sancroft had given his countenance and support to the measures necessary for opposing the steps taken by King James to establish arbitrary power and bring back popery; but when the Church of England appeared to be secure from danger, he seems to have been alarmed at the part which he had

taken, and resolved to wait the consequences in inactivity and silence. When, therefore, the Prince of Orange came to St. James's, the Archbishop neither went to wait upon him, though he had once promised to do so, nor did he even send him any message. He likewise absented himself from the convention. For this behaviour he is severely censured by Bishop Burnet, who calls him " a poor-spirited and fearful man, who acted a very mean part in all this great transaction.-He resolved," says that author, " neither to act for, nor against, the King's interest; which, considering his high post, was thought very unbecoming. For if he thought, as by his behaviour afterwards it seems he did, that the nation was running into treason, rebellion, and perjury, it was a strange thing to see one, who was at the head of the church, sit silent all the while that this was in debate, and not once so much as declare his opinion, by speaking, voting, or protesting, not to mention the other ecclesiastical methods that certainly became his character." After the convention had declared the throne vacant, and the government was settled upon King William and Queen Mary, the conscientious scruples which our primate entertained concerning the lawfulness of transferring the allegiance which he had sworn to King James to any other prince, determined him to refuse submission to the new settlement of the crown. Accordingly, after the convention had been turned into a parliament, by a bill passed on the 23rd of Jan. 1689, and they were proceeding to call over the members' names in the House of Lords, that the new oaths of allegiance and su premacy might be tendered to them, the Archbishop would not come to the House, and his example was followed by seven of his suffragans. On the 1st of August, the time allowed by act of parliament for the clergy to take the oaths having expired, and the Archbishop refusing when required to qualify, he was suspended ab officio; and on the 1st of February following he was deprived. He resided unmolested at Lambeth till the nomination of his successor, Dr. Tillotson; upon which he received an order from Queen Mary, May 20, 1691, to quit the palace within ten days. Determined, however, not to remove till he was ejected by law, he was cited to appear before the barons of the Exchequer, to answer a writ of intrusion; and though he did appear by his attorney several times, yet as he avoided putting in any plea, judgment passed against him, upon refusal to join issue, on the 23rd of June. On the evening of that day he withdrew

to a private house near the Temple; and a few weeks afterwards he retired to Fresingfield, his native place, where he spent the remainder of his days. During the summer of 1693, he was attacked by an intermitting fever, which brought on him a general weakness and decay, and terminated his life in the following November, in the 78th year of his age. Archbishop Archbishop Sancroft expended considerable sums on the augmentation of small livings, and in benefactions to Emanuel-college, to which he left his select and valuable library. He is said to have been a most learned divine, an universal scholar, and very pious; and of his integrity he certainly gave the strongest evidence, in sacrificing his high and advantageous dignity rather than violate his conscience. His manners, however, were far from being amiable and conciliating. Bishop Burnet informs us, that he was a man of solemn deportment, had a sullen gravity in his looks, and was considerably learned. He had put on a monastic strictness, and lived abstracted from company. -He was a dry, cold man, reserved, and peevish; so that none loved him, and few esteemed him." "Upon an impartial examination of his conduct and character," says Dr. Birch," he will appear to have been slow, timorous, and narrow-spirited, but at the same time a good, honest, and well-meaning man. He was very laborious in his studies, and had amassed a vast collection of papers, having written perhaps more, with his own hand, than any person of his time. But the three sermons which he published give us a very low idea of his taste and judgment, and are more suitable to a disciple of Bishop Andrews, than a cotemporary of Dr. Tillotson." These sermons were published at different times, and reprinted together in 1694, 8vo. His few other publications consist of a Latin dialogue, composed jointly by himself, Mr. George Davenport, and another of his friends, and entitled, "Fur Prædestinatus, sive, Dialogismus inter quendum Ordinis Prædicantium Calvinistam et Furem ad Laqueum damnatum Habitus, &q.," 1651, 12mo., containing a severe satire upon Calvinism; "Modern Politics, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other modern Authors, by an Eye-witness," 1652, 12mo.; a preface to Bishop Andrew's "Defence of the vulgar Translation of the Bible," of which our prelate was the editor; and some offices for January 30th, and May 29. In 1757, "Nineteen Familiar Letters" of his to Mr., afterwards Sir Henry, North, of Milden-hall, Bart., and which were found among the papers of

that gentleman, were published in 8vo. His numerous collections in MS. were purchased some years after his death by Bishop Tanner, and presented to the Bodleian library at Oxford. Biog. Brit. Biog. Brit. Burnet's Own Times, Vol. I. p. 392. Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 164. Brit. Biog.-M.

SANCTA FIDE, HIERONYMUS À, was a converted Jew, who, among his own people, had been known by the name of JOSHUA LURKI. He was physician to Pope Benedict XIII., by whom he was highly esteemed, in consequence of a disputation which he maintained in his presence with some of the principal Jews at Gironne, in 1413. The substance of this disputation exists in two books, the first of which relates to the Messias, and the second to the errors of the Talmud. Of this work, three editions have been given, the second of which is thus entitled: "Contra Judaeos Hieronymi de Sancta Fide Iudaei ad Christianismum conversi Libri duo: quorum prior Fidem et Religionem eorum impugnat Alter vero Talmuth Ad mandatum Domini Papae Benedicti XIII., facta Relatione Anno Domini 1412, Mense Augusto in Hispania." Tiguri, apud Andræam Gisnerum F. et Rodolphum Wissenbachium, 1552, 8vo. The third, with the title of "Hebræomastyx," &c., was printed at Frankfort, in 1602. Hamberger's Zuverlässige nachrubten von den vornehmsten Schriftstellern vom Anfange der Welt bis 1500.-J.

SANCTORIUS, See SANTORIO.

SANCTUIS, vernacularly SANCHEZ, JASPER, a Spanish Jesuit, and learned commentator on the Scriptures in the 16th and early part of the 17th century, was born at Cifuentes in New Castile, about the year 1553. He entered the society of Jesus in his 17th year, and cultivated the different branches of literature with such success, that he was selected by his superiors to teach the learned languages and the belles-lettres in the colleges. belonging to his order at Oropesa, Madrid, and other places. After presiding in these departments during 30 years, he was appointed professor of sacred literature in the college at Alcala. Here he spent 13 years in commenting on the sacred Scriptures, with high reputation, and with a degree of solid erudition and just criticism, little known in his time and country. The results of his labours, which were communicated to the world at the periods mentioned below, met with a favourable reception not only from the Catholics, but also the Protestants. Among the latter, our