PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. (continued 36)

Under which name of the Christian sacrifice, says Joseph Mede, first know, that the ancient Church understood not, as many suppose, the mere sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but the whole sacred action or solemn service of the Church assembled, whereof this sacred mystery was then a prime and principal part, and, as it were, the pearl or jewel of this ring, no public service of the Church being without it. This observed and remembered, 676I define the Christian sacrifice, ex mente antiquæ ecclesiæ, in this manner: An oblation of thanksgiving and prayer to God the Father through Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith God had first been agnized. So that this sacrifice, as you see, hath a double object, or matter; first, praise and prayer, which you may call sacrificium quod. Secondly, the commemoration Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, which is sacrificium quo, the sacrifice whereby the other is accepted. For all the prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions of a Christian are tendered up unto God in the name of Jesus Christ crucified. According whereunto we are wont to conclude our prayers with “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” And this is the specification, whereby the worship of a Christian is distinguished from that of the Jew. Now that which we, in all our prayers and thanksgivings, do vocally, when we say per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, the ancient Church, in her public and solemn service, did visibly by representing him, according as he commanded, in the symbols of his body and blood: for there he is commemorated and received by us for the same end for which he was given and suffered for us; that through him, we receiving forgiveness of our sins, God our Father might accept our service and hear our prayers we make unto him.

What time then so fit and seasonable to commend our devotions unto God, as when the Lamb of God lies slain upon the holy table, and we receive visibly, though mystically, those gracious pledges of his blessed body and blood. This was that sacrifice of the ancient Church, which the Fathers so much ring in our ears. The sacrifice of praise and prayer through Jesus Christ, mystically represented in the creatures of bread and wine.

But yet there is one thing more my definition intimates, when I say, “through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, commemorated in the creatures of bread and wine, wherewith God had first been agnized.” The body and blood of Christ were not made of common bread and common wine, but of bread and wine first sanctified by being offered and set before God as a present, to agnize him the Lord and giver of all: according to that, Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus: and “let no man appear before the Lord empty.” Therefore, as this sacrifice consisted of two parts, as I told you, of praise and prayer, which, in respect of the other, I call sacrificium quod; and of the commemoration of Christ crucified, which I call sacrificium quo; so the symbols of bread and wine traversed both, being first presented as symbols of praise and thanksgiving to agnize God the Lord of the creature in the sacrificium quod; then, by invocation of the Holy Ghost, made the symbols of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrificium quo. So that the whole service throughout consisted of a reasonable part and of a material part, as of a soul and a body; of which I shall speak more fully hereafter, when I come to prove this, I have said, by the testimonies of the ancients.

Again, the Lord’s supper is a sacrifice, according to the style of the ancient Church.

It is one thing to say, that the Lord’s supper is a sacrifice, and another to say, that Christ is properly sacrificed therein. These are not the same; for there may be a sacrifice, which is a representation of another, and yet a sacrifice too: and such is this of the New Testament, a sacrifice wherein another sacrifice, that of Christ’s death upon the cross, is commemorated: thus the Papists gain nothing by this notion of antiquity, and our asserting the same; for their tenet is, that Christ in this sacrifice is really and properly sacrificed, which we shall show in due time that the ancients never meant.

To begin with this: as in the Old Testament the name of sacrifice was otherwhile given to the whole action in which the rite was used; sometimes to the rite alone; so in the notion and language of the ancient Church, sometimes the whole action of Christian service (wherein the Lord’s supper was a part) is comprehended under that name; sometimes the rite of the sacred supper itself is so termed, and truly, as you shall now hear.

The resolution of this point depends altogether upon the true definition of a sacrifice, as it is distinguished from all other offerings. Which, though it be so necessary, that all disputation without it is vain, yet shall we not find, that either party interested in this question hath been so exact therein as were to be wished. This appears by the differing definitions, given and confuted by divines on both sides; the reason of which defect is, because neither are deduced from the notion of Scripture, but built upon other conceptions: let us see, therefore, if it may be learned out of Scripture, what that is which the Scripture, in a strict and special sense, calls a sacrifice.

Every sacrifice is an oblation or offering: but every offering is not a sacrifice, in 677that strict and proper acceptation we seek. For tithes, first-fruits, heave-offerings in the law, and whatsoever indeed is consecrated unto God, are oblations or offerings; but none of them sacrifices, nor ever so called in the Old Testament. What offerings are then called so? I answer, burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings. These, and no other, are called by that name.

Out of these, therefore, must we pick the true and proper ratio of a sacrifice: it is true, indeed, that these sacrifices were offerings of beasts, of beeves, of sheep, of goats, of fowls: but the ratio of anything consists not in the matter thereof; as the gowns we wear are still the same kind of apparel, though made of differing stuffs; these sacrifices also were slain, and offered by fire and incense: but neither is the modus of anything the ratio or essential form thereof. That therefore may have the nature and formale of a sacrifice which consists of another matter, and is offered after another and differing manner: those we call sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the passover, were by effusion of blood; ours are not, and yet we esteem them nevertheless true sacraments; and so it may be here.

To hold you, therefore, no longer in suspense, a sacrifice, I think, should be defined thus: an offering, whereby the offerer is made partaker of his God’s table, in token of covenant and friendship with him, &c.: more explicately thus: an offering unto the Divine Majesty, of that which is given for the food of man; that the offerer, partaking thereof, might, as by way of pledge, be certified of his acceptation into covenant, and fellowship with his God, by eating and drinking at his table. St. Augustine comes toward this notion, when he defines a sacrifice (though in a larger sense) opus quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus, et dedicamus, hoc fine, ut sanctâ societate ipsi adhæreamus: for to have society and fellowship with God, what is it else but to be in league and covenant with him?

In a word, a sacrifice is oblatio fæderalis.—Joseph Mede.

SACRIFICATI. Christians who, to avoid condemnation before a heathen tribunal, offered sacrifice to an idol. When such persons, after the persecution was over, returned to the profession of Christ, they were obliged to undergo a very rigid penance before they could be re-admitted into the Church. It must be observed that Sacrificati is their denomination as penitents, after their return to the faith. Those who continued in idolatry were simply apostates. (See Libellatici and Thurificati.)

SACRILEGE. The act of violating sacred things, or subjecting them to profanation; or the desecration of objects consecrated to God. Thus the robbing of churches or of graves, the abuse of sacred vessels and altars, by employing them for unhallowed purposes, the plundering and misappropriation of alms and donations, &c., are acts of sacrilege which, in the ancient Church, were punished with great severity.

SACRISTAN. The person to whose charge the sacred vestments, &c., in a church, are committed; now corrupted to sexton, which see. The sacristan is a dignitary in some foreign cathedrals, as was formerly the case at Glasgow, and the Chapel Royal of Stirling, in Scotland; in both of which places there were treasurers also. In most of the old cathedrals, however, the sacrist was the treasurer’s deputy, and a vicar choral. In those of the new foundation the sacrist is a minor canon, and has often the special cure of souls within the precinct. In Ireland the sacrist at Elphin was a dignitary, now usually styled Treasurer.—Jebb.

SACRISTY. The place in which sacred vestments, &c. are kept, answering to the modern vestry.

SADDUCEES. A famous sect among the Jews; so called, it is said, from their founder, Sadoc. It began in the time of Antigonus, of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. Antigonus, having often in his lectures inculcated to his scholars that they ought not to serve God in a servile manner, but only out of filial love and fear, two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, thence inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life; and, therefore, separating from the school of their master, they thought there was no resurrection nor future state, neither angel nor spirit. (Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8.) They seem to agree greatly with the Epicureans; differing however in this, that though they denied a future state, yet they allowed the power of God to create the world; whereas the followers of Epicurus denied it. It is said, also, that they rejected the Bible, except the Pentateuch; denied predestination, and taught that God had made man absolute master of all his actions, without assistance to good, or restraint from evil.

SAINT. (See Communion of Saints, 678Invocation of Saints.) A person either in the flesh or out of it, who is made holy by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The apostles in their Epistles use this word simply for baptized believers, that is, for all Christians.

The word saints is of the same meaning with the word holy; and, therefore, comprehends all Christians in the same manner as has been already explained. Having communion, is being entitled to partake of benefits and kindnesses, and bound to make suitable returns for them. And thus Christians, or saints, have communion or “fellowship” with “the Father, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift;” with his Son Jesus Christ, (1 John i. 3; James i. 17,) through whom forgiveness and mercy is conveyed to us; with the Holy Ghost, whose sanctifying graces are conferred on such as duly qualify their hearts for the reception of them. And for these blessings we owe all thankfulness and all duty, in thought, word, and deed. Christians have also communion with the holy angels, as these “are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 14): and undoubtedly we ought to think of what they do for us, with an inward sense of gratitude and love. But, as we are unacquainted with particulars, we can make no particular acknowledgments: nor ought we to make any general ones, by outward expressions of respect; since “worshipping God alone” is commanded, (Matt. iv. 10,) and worshipping angels condemned, in Scripture. (Col. ii. 18.)

With respect to those of our own nature, we are bound so far to hold communion even with the worst of unbelievers, as not only to do them every kind of justice, but sincerely to wish, and, if occasion offer, heartily endeavour, their good, both in body and soul. But to all “who have obtained the like precious faith with ourselves,” (2 Pet. i. 1,) we bear a still nearer relation; as being, in a peculiar sense, children of the same Father, disciples of the same Master, animated by the same Spirit, members of the same body. And these things oblige us to the utmost care of preserving, by prudent order and mutual forbearance, as much unity in the Church as we possibly can.

Such, indeed, as obstinately deny the fundamental doctrines, or transgress the fundamental precepts of Christianity, ought to be rejected from Christian communion. But to renounce communicating with any others, who are willing to admit us to it on lawful terms, is the way to cut off ourselves, not them, from the body of Christ; who yet, we doubt not, will allow those on both sides to belong to his Church, who, through pardonable passions or mistakes, will not allow one another to do so.

And, as we should maintain communion with all proper persons, we should show our disposition to it in all proper ways: attend on the public instructions, join in the public worship, sacraments, and discipline, which our Lord hath appointed, and keep the whole of them pure from all forbidden or suspicious alterations or mixtures; avoid, with great care, both giving and taking needless offence, in respect to these or any matters; and by all fit means “edify one another in love” (Rom. xiv. 19; Eph. iv. 16): “obeying those who are set over us;” condescending to those who are beneath us; esteeming and honouring the wise and virtuous; teaching and admonishing the ignorant and faulty; bearing with the weak, relieving the poor, and comforting the afflicted.

Nor have we communion only with the saints on earth, but are of one city and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubtless, they exercise that communion towards us by loving and praying for the brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which we are neither authorized to offer, nor have any grounds to think they can hear; but by rejoicing in their happiness; thanking God for the grace which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and beseeching the Disposer of all things, that, having followed them in holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter; and become, in the fullest sense, “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. ii. 19); “having, with all those that are departed in the true faith of his holy name, our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in his eternal and everlasting glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.” (See Burial Office.)—Abp. Secker.

SAINTS’ DAYS. (See Feasts.) Two of the most ancient monuments of ecclesiastical history that we possess, except the New Testament, are the accounts of the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, both disciples of St. John, written, at the time of their suffering, by the Churches of Antioch and Smyrna, of which they were bishops: and in those they mention, as of 679course, their purpose of celebrating yearly the festival of their birthdays, of their entrance into a better life, for the commemoration of their excellent graces, and the incitement of others to imitate them. Thus did they provide that the “righteous should be in everlasting remembrance,” (Ps. cxii. 6,) and observed the more particular direction given to that intent in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “Remember them which have (had) the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end,” the event, “of their conversation.” (Heb. xiii. 7.) The rest of the primitive Churches appear to have followed the same rule; and each to have honoured the more eminent of their own martyrs, who had been usually their teachers also, by anniversary assemblies for preserving the reverence due to their characters, and offering up thanks to God for their examples.

But the increase of their numbers, and the adoption of the sufferers of one Church into the liturgies of another, and the admission of eminently good persons, who had “not resisted unto blood,” (Heb. xii. 4,) and the frequent grants which in subsequent ages were made, of so high a distinction, with little care of previous inquiry, multiplied the returns of these solemnities very improperly and inconveniently. Then, besides, a still greater evil was, that praises and panegyrics too soon grew to be immoderate, and afterwards impious. In the vehemence of national encomiums and exclamations, the saint was called upon as present, until at length he was thought so; and what at first was merely a bold and moving figure of speech, became at length in good earnest a prayer: which requested of a dead man, who was not able to hear it, not only that he would intercede with God on behalf of his fellow-servants, but that he would himself bestow such blessings upon them, as no creature hath in his power. Things being found in this condition at the Reformation, it was necessary both to abolish entirely these unlawful addresses, and to limit the original sort of commemorations to a moderate list of persons, indisputably worthy of them. Accordingly no day is appointed by our Church for the celebration of any other than the principal saints mentioned in the New Testament, it being hard to stop, if more were added. And amongst these, St. Stephen is the only one who stands solely on the foot of being a martyr; as indeed it was fit that the foremost, the leader, of that “noble army” should be distinguished, and chosen, as it were, to represent the rest.—Abp. Secker.

When a Sunday and a saint’s day coincide, on the question what service shall be used, see the extracts from Shepherd and Bishop Cosin in the article Lessons.

SALUTATION. Having all repeated our creed together, and thereby given good proof that we are members of the Catholic Church, and such as have a right to join in the prayers thereof, we now prepare ourselves to pray. And since salutations have ever been the expressions and badges of that mutual charity, without which we are not fit to pray, therefore we begin with an ancient form of salutation, taken out of Holy Scripture: the minister commencing, salutes the people with “The Lord be with you,” (Ruth ii. 4; Ps. cxxii. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 16,) and they return it with a like prayer, “And with thy spirit,” (2 Tim. iv. 22,) which words have been of early use in the Christian liturgies; and indeed the phrase is the very words of St. Paul; and St. John forbids us to say to any heretic “God speed.” (2 John, ver. 10, 11.) But when the minister hath heard every one in the congregation repeat his faith, and seen, by their standing up at it, a testimony of their assent to it, he can now safely salute them all as brethren and members of the true Church; and surely, as difference in religion creates great animosities, so agreement in one faith is an excellent means to beget charity, and to make minister and people heartily pray for one another: the people are going to pray, which they cannot do without God’s help, and therefore the minister prays that “the Lord may be with them,” to assist them in the duty, according to that gracious promise of our Saviour, that when two or three are met to pray, he will be with them. (Matt, xviii. 20.) And since the minister prays for all the people, and is their mouth to God, they desire he may, heartily and devoutly, offer up these prayers in their behalf, saying, “The Lord be with thy spirit.”—Dean Comber.

By a man’s spirit in Scripture phrase is frequently meant the man himself. So that the people do in reality answer thus: May God be with thee, as thou desirest he may be with us, in the oblation of our joint prayers. In this sense the word is used in the place whence this form is borrowed. (2 Tim. iv. 22.)—Dr. Bennet.

Till every person has finished the repetition of the creed, and there is silence in the whole congregation, the minister should not pronounce the words, “The Lord be with you.” These words ought also to be 680pronounced by the minister in a standing posture, they being addressed to the people. And after the people have returned their answer, the minister should still stand and pronounce these words, “Let us pray;” and then give the people time enough to kneel down, that there may not be the least noise, and every person may be perfectly composed, and ready to join, when the minister begins the prayers.

And because these words, “The Lord be with you,” and the reply of the people, “And with thy spirit;” and those also, “Let us pray,” are all of them directed and spoken, not to Almighty God, but only to men; namely, by the minister and people alternately to each other; therefore care should be taken that a difference be made in the tone of voice between these short forms of mutual compellation, and the prayers themselves.—Dr. Bennet.

In the Romish Church the angelical salutation, as they call it, consists of the angel’s salutation, and that of Elizabeth. It runs thus: Ave Maria, gratiæ plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui. Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ. Amen.

The latter clause, Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, was added, they tell us, in the fifth century; but the last words, nunc et in horâ mortis nostræ, were inserted by order of Pope Pius V.

Urban II. ordered a bell to be tolled three times a day to put the people in mind of repeating this salutation, that God might prosper the Christian arms in the recovery of the Holy Land; which custom, having continued about 134 years, fell at length into neglect; till Gregory IX. revived it, with the addition of a constant noon-bell.

The repeating of this salutation at the beginning of the sermon was first enjoined by St. Dominic, or, as some will have it, by Vincent Ferrerius. (See Idolatry and Mariolatry.)

SALVATION (see Covenant of Redemption) is taken in Scripture, 1. For deliverance or victory over outward dangers and enemies. (Exod. xiv. 13; 1 Sam. xiv. 45.) 2. For remission of sins, true faith, repentance, and obedience, and other saving graces of the Spirit, which are the way to salvation. (Luke xix. 9.) “This day is salvation come to this house.” 3. For eternal happiness hereafter, which is the object of our hopes and desires. Thus it is said, “to give knowledge of salvation to his people.” (Luke i. 77.) “Godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation.” (2 Cor. vii. 10.) And the gospel is called, the “gospel of salvation,” (Eph. i. 13,) because it brings the good news that salvation is to be had; it offers salvation to lost sinners; it shows upon what terms it may be had, and the way how to attain it; it also fits for salvation, and at last brings to it. 4. For the author of salvation. (Ps. xxvii. 1.) “The Lord is my light and my salvation,” he is my counsellor in all my difficulties, and my comforter and deliverer in all my distresses. 5. For the person who is the Saviour of sinners. (Luke ii. 30.) “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,” says Simeon; I have seen him whom thou hast sent into the world, to be the author and procurer of salvation to lost sinners. 6. For the praise and benediction that is given to God. (Rev. xix. 1.) “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power unto the Lord our God.” The Hebrews but rarely made use of concrete terms as they are called; but often of abstracted. Thus, instead of saying, God saves men, and protects them, they say, that God is their salvation. Thus the word of salvation, the joy of salvation, the rock of salvation, the shield of salvation, the horn of salvation, &c., is as much as to say, The word that declares deliverance; the joys that attend the escaping a great danger; a rock where any one takes refuge, and where he may be in safety from his enemy; a buckler, that secures him from the arm of the enemy; a horn or ray of light, of happiness and salvation, &c.—Cruden’s Concord.

SAMARITANS. These were a mixed people, inhabiting the parts of Palestine between Galilee and Judea. They were in part descended from the remnant of the ten tribes, most of whom had been carried away by the Assyrians, blended with other distant nations, and settled in the same district with their conquerors. These different people, Babylonians, Cutheans, and other idolaters, for some time retained their respective forms of worship; but finding the country ravaged by wild beasts, they thought to propitiate the god of the country by restoring his worship; and one of the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and “dwelt at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the Lord.” (2 Kings xvii. 28.) After this, they were delivered from the plague of wild beasts, and embraced the law of Moses, with which they mixed a great part of their ancient idolatry. Upon the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, it appears that they had entirely quitted the worship of their idols. 681But though they were united in religion, they were not so in affection, with the Jews; for they employed various calumnies and stratagems to hinder their rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem; and when they could not prevail; they erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, in opposition to that of Jerusalem. (Ezra iv., v., vi.) The Samaritans at present are few in number, but pretend to great strictness in their observation of the law of Moses. They are said to be scattered, some at Damascus, some at Gaza, and some at Grand Cairo in Egypt.

SAMUEL, THE BOOKS OF. Two canonical books of the Old Testament, so called, because they are usually ascribed to the prophet Samuel.

These two books are styled Reigns in the Greek version, and in the vulgar Latin, Kings; but in the Hebrew they are styled the Books of Samuel. But, since the first twenty-four chapters contain all that relates to the history of Samuel, and that the latter part of the First Book, and all the Second, include the relation of events that happened after the death of that prophet, it has been supposed that Samuel was author only of the first twenty-four chapters, and that the prophets Gad and Nathan finished the work. This is the opinion of the Talmudists, founded upon the following text of the Chronicles: “Now the acts of David, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.”

The Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are a continued history of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah; for which reason, the Books of Samuel are likewise styled the First and Second Books of Kings; and the two Books of Kings are also called the Third and Fourth Books of Kings.

The First Book of Samuel, otherwise called the First Book of Kings, comprehends the transactions under the government of Eli and Samuel, and under Saul the first king; as also the acts of David whilst he lived under Saul; and is supposed to include the space of about 101 years. Here we read, how the republic of Israel was changed into a monarchy, and what great evils they suffered in consequence thereof. We have here an account of the deposition of their first king, Saul, on account of his profane sacrificing, and his wilful disobedience to the commands of God, in relation to the destruction of the Amalekites; his treachery to David, and cruel pursuits of him; and, lastly, the tragical death of himself, and his son Jonathan, on Mount Gilboa.

The Second Book of Samuel, otherwise called the Second Book of Kings, contains the history of about forty years, and is wholly spent in relating the transactions of King David’s reign; the military exploits of that prince, and his administration both of the Church and of the State. With these are mixed the great failings and miscarriages of David, and, in consequence thereof, the many distresses he met with, and the various judgments and plagues inflicted upon him and his people by God.

SANCTE BELL. A small bell which was rung when the “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus, Deus Sabaoth” was said, to prepare the people for the elevation of the host.

Mr. Todd, in his additions to Johnson’s Dictionary, quotes from Warton’s History of Kiddington, as follows: “It was usually placed where it might be heard farthest, in a lantern at the springing of the steeple, or in a turret at the angle of the tower; and sometimes, for the convenience of its being more readily and exactly rung, within a pediment, or arcade, between the church and the chancel; the rope, in this situation, falling down into the choir, not far from the altar.” Thus in Walton’s Life of George Herbert: “And some of the meaner sort of his parish did so love and reverence Mr. Herbert, that they would let their plough rest when Mr. Herbert’s Saints’ bell rung to prayers, that they might also offer their devotions to God with him; and would then return back to their plough.” The small bell at Canterbury rung before service, is hung high in the central tower, and seems to answer to the ancient Saints’ bell. Mr. Todd adds, that “the little bell, which now rings immediately before the service begins, is corruptly called, in many places, Saucebell, or Sauncebell.”

SANCTIFICATION. (See Justification.) The progressive conformity of the heart and life to the will of God, or our inherent righteousness, as distinguished from the righteousness of justification. To say that we detract from the necessity of inherent righteousness, or what is called the righteousness of sanctification, because we exclude it from the office of justification, and thus demolish the whole fabric of human merit, is about as reasonable as to say, that because we receive food by the mouth, and not by the ear or the eye, the eye and the ear are unnecessary members 682in the human frame, and that no other bodily functions are requisite to the life of man. The man will die if, by tetanus, he is unable to open his mouth; but he will also die if, having received food into his mouth, he is unable to digest it; and yet the digestion of food, and its mastication, are processes entirely distinct, while the food itself is a gift from without. It is one thing to assert that a Christian must have inherent righteousness, and another to assert that his inherent righteousness is the ground of his acceptance with a righteous God.

We may refer to Hooker for a clear exposition of the case: “Concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by the faith of Abraham; the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. Of the one, St. Paul, ‘To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John, ‘He is righteous which worketh righteousness.’ Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James, by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith.

“St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth: Being freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.

“‘Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto God;’ this is the righteousness of justification.

“‘Ye have your fruit in holiness;’ this is the righteousness of sanctification.

“By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss; and so the end of both is everlasting life.”

In another passage of the same discourse Hooker says: “It is a childish cavil wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas, by this speech, we never meant to exclude either hope or charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to show that faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification; and Christ the only garment, which, being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, before whom otherwise the weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter.”

“It is not the question,” says Bishop Andrewes, “whether we have an inherent righteousness or no, or whether God will accept or reward it; but whether that must be our righteousness coram rege justo judicium faciente, which is a point very material, and by no means to be forgotten; for, without this, if we compare ourselves with ourselves, what heretofore we have been, or if we compare ourselves with others, as did the Pharisees, we may take a fancy, perhaps, and have some good conceit of our inherent righteousness. Yea, if we be to deal in schools by argument or disputation, we may, peradventure, argue for it, and make some show in the matter. But let us once be brought and arraigned coram rege justo sedente in solio, let us set ourselves there, we shall then see that all our former conceit shall vanish straight, and righteousness in that sense (that is, an inherent righteousness) will not abide the trial.”

“The Homilies of our Church,” as Dr. Waterland, adopting their doctrine, observes, “describe and limit the doctrine thus: ‘Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified: but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying;’ that is to say, from the office of accepting or receiving it; for as to the office of justifying in the active sense, that belongs to God only, as the same homily elsewhere declares. The doctrine is there further explained thus: ‘Because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that, by faith given us of God, we embrace the promise of God’s mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore the Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.’”

It is observed by Faber “that, in the progress of a Christian man from his original justification to his final salvation, these several states or conditions of righteousness successively appertain to him.

“First in order comes the forensic righteousness 683of justification; a righteousness reputatively his, through faith, and on account of the perfect meritoriousness of Christ.

“Next in order comes the inherent righteousness of sanctification; a righteousness infused into him by the Holy Spirit after he has been justified.

“And last in order comes the complete righteousness of glorification; a righteousness acquired by him, when this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.

“The first righteousness, being the righteousness of Christ, is perfect, but not inherent.

“The second righteousness, being the subsequently infused righteousness of a justified Christian man, is inherent, but not perfect.

“The third righteousness, being the acquired righteousness of a departed Christian man in his glorified state hereafter, is both perfect and inherent.”

SANCTIFY. (See Sanctification.) To make holy, to treat as holy, or to set apart for holy services. (Exod. xix. 10, 22, 23; xxx. 29; Deut. v. 13; Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Eph. v. 26; 1 Thess. v. 23.)

SANCTUARY. The holy of holies (Lev. iv. 6); the temple at large (2 Chron. xx. 8); the one place of national worship for the Israelites (Deut. xii. 5); also the place within the Septurn, or rails, where the altar stands in the Christian church.

By sanctuary is also meant the privilege of criminals who have fled to certain sacred places, to have their freedom from arrest and punishment, except ecclesiastical discipline, so long as they remain therein. This custom of sanctuary, which is now almost everywhere done away with, for the abuse to which it gave rise, was derived from the Levitical law of refuge, by which, at God’s express appointment, six cities were made cities of refuge for the involuntary manslayer: and the altar of burnt-offerings was also a place of refuge for persons who had undesignedly committed smaller offences. (Deut. xix. 11, 12; Joshua xx.) In this Divine law the object seems to have been to mark God’s hatred of sin, by showing that even accidental and unpremeditated offences were forgiven only by an especial exercise of his mercy. The corrupt custom of sanctuary in the middle ages was extended to the protection of those who knowingly and willingly committed the most heinous offences. (See Asylum.)

SANCTUS. (See Tersanctus.)

SANDEMANIANS, or GLASSITES. A dissenting community, which had its origin in the preaching and deposition of one John Glas, presbyterian minister of the parish of Tealing, near Dundee, in 1730. His pupil, Robert Sandeman, brought his doctrine into England, and also into America, and from him the sect derives its name, though in Scotland it is still designated after its first founder. The Sandemanians are not a numerous sect.

The following is the account of the Sandemanians in the Registrar-general’s Return.

“The Sandemanians—sometimes called Glassites, both appellations being derived from the names of the founders of the sect—first came into notice in Scotland about 1728 or 1729; when Mr. Glass, a minister of the Scottish National Church, avowed opinions on Church government approaching very nearly those maintained by Congregationalists. Robert Sandeman appeared in advocacy of the same opinions about 1757, and formed a congregation in London in 1762.

“The prominent doctrine of the Sandemanians, on which they differ from most other Churches, relates to the nature of justifying faith, which Sandeman maintained to be ‘no more than a simple assent to the Divine testimony, passively received by the understanding.’

“Sandemanians, also, observe certain peculiar practices, supposed by them to have been prevalent amongst the primitive Christians, such as weekly sacraments, love feasts, mutual exhortation, washing each other’s feet, plurality of elders, the use of the lot, &c.

“The number of Sandemanian congregations in England reported by the Census officers was six; the number of sittings (after an estimate for two chapels where the information was not given) was 956; and the number of attendants on the Census Sunday was: Morning, 439; Afternoon, 256; Evening, 61.

SANHEDRIM, or SENATE. A corrupted word, from the Greek, συνέδριον. (See St. Mark xiv. 55; xv. 1; St. Luke xxii. 66, where mention is made of the Synedrion: St. John xi. 47; Acts iv. 15.) The origin of the Sanhedrim is not without obscurity; for the council of the seventy elders established by Moses was not what the Hebrews understood by the name of Sanhedrim. Nor can we perceive this establishment under Joshua, the Judges, or the Kings. We find nothing of it after the captivity till the time of Judas Maccabeus. The tribunals established by Gabinius were very different from the Sanhedrim. This was the only court of its 684kind, and fixed at Jerusalem; whereas, Gabinius established five tribunals at five different cities, which tribunals do not appear to have been subordinate one to another. Lastly, it is certain that this senate was in being in time of Jesus Christ. (Vide supra.) But the Jews inform us themselves, that they then had not the power of life and death. (St. John xviii. 31.)—Calmet, ed. Taylor. The chief council of the Jewish nation, composed of seventy or seventy-two judges, and said to have taken its rise from the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.

SARUM. (See Use.)

SATAN. A Hebrew word, שטן, signifying an adversary, an enemy, an accuser. It is often translated adversary in our translation of the Bible, as also in the Septuagint and Vulgate. For example, (1 Sam. xxix. 4,) the princes of the Philistines say to Achish, “Send back David, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us, and turn his arm against us.” The Lord stirred up adversaries to Solomon in the persons of Hadad and Rezon. (1 Kings xi. 14, 23, &c.) Sometimes Satan is put for the Devil; for example, Satan presented himself among the sons of God, and the Lord said unto Satan, “Whence comest thou?” (Job i. 6, 7, &c.) And in Psalm cix. 6, it is said, “Let Satan stand at his right hand;” and in Zech. iii. 1, 2, it is said, “Satan standing at his right hand; and the Lord said unto Satan, ‘The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan.’” In the books of the New Testament, the word Satan is taken both in the sense of an adversary, and also for the Devil; for example, Christ says to Peter, (Matt. xvi. 23,) “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me;” that is, Begone, O mine adversary, you that withstand what I most desire, and what I came into the world about. But most commonly Satan is taken for the Devil. (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23.) “If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself.” And in the Revelation, (xx. 2,) “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.” (See the article Devil.)

SATAN, KINGDOM OF. In the Gospel, (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 23, and Luke xi. 18,) our blessed Lord represents Satan to us as a monarch, who has other subordinate devils obedient to him. Beelzebub is, as it were, their king. “If Beelzebub,” says he, “drives out devils, his kingdom is divided against itself; he labours for his own ruin; which is by no means credible; it is therefore false that I drive out devils in the name of Beelzebub.” St. Paul acknowledges in the Acts, (xxvi. 18,) that all those which are not in the religion of Jesus Christ, are under the empire and power of Satan. St. John (Rev. xx. 7) says, that, after a thousand years, Satan should be unbound, should come forth from hell, and subdue the nations.

To be delivered up to Satan is to be excommunicated, and surrendered to the Devil for a season, who visibly possessed this sort of people, that had deserved this punishment for their crimes or errors. St. Paul delivered up to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, (1 Tim. i. 20,) that they might not learn to blaspheme. He also surrendered up to him the incestuous person of Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) “For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

When Christ sent forth his disciples to preach in the cities and villages of Judea, they returned back with great joy, and told him, saying, “Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name.” (Luke x. 17, 18.) Jesus tells them, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven;” where he seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah, (xiv. 12,) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning;” and by which he insinuates that the kingdom of the Devil was coming to a period; that Satan should soon lose his power and dominion in the world, by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and in Luke xxii. 31, he says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:” showing thereby what vain efforts the Devil would make to destroy the infant Church.

SATISFACTION. (See Atonement, Covenant of Redemption, Jesus, Propitiation.) Whatever that is, which being done or suffered by an offending creature himself, or by another person for him, shall secure the favour of the Divine government, in bestowing upon the offender pardon and happiness, may be properly called a satisfaction or atonement made to God for him. In saying this, it is not intended to assert that it is in the power of any creature to satisfy for his own sins, for this is impossible; but only to show what we mean when we speak of his doing it.

Such a sense of the word satisfaction, though not in strict propriety of speech amounting to the payment of a debt, is agreeable to the use of the word in the Roman law; where it signifies to content a person aggrieved, and is put for some valuable 685consideration, substituted instead of what is a proper payment, and consistent with a remission of that debt or offence for which such supposed satisfaction is made: which is a circumstance to be carefully observed, in order to vindicate the doctrine we are about to establish, and to maintain the consistency between different parts of the Christian scheme.

Christ has made satisfaction for the sins of all those who repent of their sins, and return to God in the way of sincere, though imperfect, obedience.

1. Although Christ was innocent, nevertheless he endured very grievous sufferings, both in body and mind (Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 38); and he did this spontaneously. (Heb. x. 7, 9.)

2. It is expressly asserted in Scripture, that these sufferings were brought upon Christ for the sake of sinful men, in whose stead he is also said to have suffered. (Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10; Matt. xx. 28; Rom. iii. 25; v. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2; Heb. vii. 27; ix. 26; x. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 24; iii. 18.)

3. The offers of pardon and eternal salvation are made in Scripture to those that repent and return to God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered: in whom they are therefore declared to be accepted by God, and to whom they are hereupon taught to ascribe the glory of their salvation. (John iii. 14–17; Acts x. 35, 36, 43; ii. 38; iii. 18, 19; Rom. iv. 25; Col. i. 20–22; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20; Eph. i. 5, 7; Heb. ii. 3; ix. 14; x. 4, 10, 14; Rev. i. 5, 6; v. 9, 10; vii. 13, 14.)

4. It is evident that, according to the gospel institution, pardon and life were to be offered to all to whom the preaching of the gospel came, without any exception. (Mark xvi. 15, 16; Acts xiii. 38, 39; 1 John ii. 1, 2; Isa. liii. 6; John i. 29.)

5. It is plain, from the whole tenor of the epistolary part of the New Testament, as well as from some particular passages of it, that there was a remainder of imperfection, generally at least, to be found even in the best Christians; notwithstanding which they are encouraged to rejoice in the hope of salvation by Christ. (Phil. iii. 13; Gal. v. 17; James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8, 10; ii. 1, 2.)

6. Whereas, so far as we can judge, the remission of sin, without any satisfaction at all, might have laid a foundation for men’s thinking lightly of the law of God, it is certain that, by the obedience and sufferings of Christ, a very great honour is done to it; and mercy communicated to us as the purchase of his blood, comes in so awful as well as so endearing a manner, as may have the best tendency to engage those who embrace the gospel to a life of holy obedience.

SATISFACTION, ROMISH. This lies at the bottom of much of the Romish heresy. It directly opposes the doctrine of justification by faith only, and is closely connected with the Romish notion of the merits of good works. The following is the eighth chapter of the Council of Trent upon the subject.

“Lastly, as concerns satisfaction, which of all the parts of repentance, as it has been at all times recommended by our fathers to the Christian people, so now, in our time, is chiefly impugned, under the highest pretence of piety, by those who teach a form of godliness, but have denied the power thereof; the holy synod declares that it is altogether false, and contrary to the word of God, to say that sin is never remitted by the Lord, but the entire punishment is also pardoned. For, besides Divine tradition, clear and illustrious examples are found in the holy books, by which this error is most plainly refuted. In truth, even the principle of Divine justice seems to demand that they who have sinned through ignorance before baptism should be received by him into grace, after a different manner from those who, having been once freed from the bondage of sin and Satan, and having received the gift of the Holy Ghost, have not been afraid knowingly to violate the temple of God, and to grieve the Holy Spirit: and it becometh the Divine mercy that our sins should not be so remitted without any satisfaction, lest we take occasion to think lightly of our sins, and so, injuring and insulting the Holy Spirit, we fall into worse, treasuring up unto ourselves wrath against the day of wrath. For, beyond all doubt, these punishments of satisfaction recall the penitents very much from sin, and restrain them, as it were, with a bit, and make them more cautious and watchful for the future. They cure also the remains of sins, and by actions of opposite virtues, destroy vicious habits acquired by evil living. Nor, in truth, was there ever any way considered in the Church more sure for the removal of the impending punishment of God, than that men, with real grief of mind, should accustom themselves to these works of repentance. To this may be added, that while we suffer by making satisfaction for sins, we are made like unto Christ Jesus, who made satisfaction for our sins, from whom all our sufficiency is derived; and having 686hence, also, a most sure covenant, that, if we suffer with him, we shall be also glorified together. Nor, in truth, is this satisfaction which we pay for our sins in such sort ours, that it should not be through Christ Jesus; for we who of ourselves can do nothing as of ourselves, can do all things by the assistance of him who comforteth us; so that a man hath not whereof he may boast; but all our boasting is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction; doing worthy fruits of repentance, which have their virtue from him, by him are offered to the Father, and through him accepted of the Father. The priests of the Lord therefore ought, according to the suggestions of the Spirit and their own prudence, to enjoin wholesome and suitable satisfaction, proportioned to the quality of the crimes, and the means of the penitents: lest, haply, they become partakers in other men’s sins, if they connive at sin, and deal too tenderly with the penitents, enjoining trifling works for the most grievous crimes. Let them have also before their eyes, that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for a defence of the new life, and a remedy for infirmity, but also a revenge and punishment for past sins: for the ancient Fathers believe and teach that the keys of the priests were given not only for loosing but also for binding. Nor did they therefore think that the sacrament of repentance is the tribunal of anger and punishments; just as no Catholic has ever thought that, by our satisfactions of this kind, the force of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ was either obscured or lessened in any degree: which, while our innovators are unwilling to understand, they teach that a new life is the best repentance, that they may destroy altogether the virtue and use of satisfaction.”

This, says Perceval in his “Romish Schism,” is a remarkable chapter. The repeated expressions of reference to our blessed Lord, “in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction when we perform worthy fruits of repentance, which from them have power, by him are offered to the Father, and through him are accepted of the Father,” plainly show how keenly alive the Tridentine Fathers were to the danger of men considering their own penances as irrespective of our Lord’s death and mediation, against which error they thus endeavour to guard. But the other error of making God, or God’s ministers in his behalf, through vengeance of past sins, and not merely for the correction of the offence, insist upon penal satisfactions from those who, with true repentance, and with faith in Christ, have forsaken their sins, as though the vicarial punishment inflicted upon the Son of God were not sufficient to satisfy the Divine vengeance, is left, and must needs be left, untouched. But how great injury this does to the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of our Lord, and how great injury also to the character of our heavenly Father, there need no arguments to prove. The passages cited by the publishers of the Tridentine decrees, (Gen. iii., 2 Sam. xii., Num. xii. and xx.,) being all taken from the old dispensation, cannot be pressed, because the analogy of God’s dealings before and after the sufferings of our Lord will not altogether hold: besides, they all relate to cases of open sin, in which, for the edification of others, temporal punishment was inflicted, from which no argument whatever can be adduced in behalf of vindictive penalties for secret sins, which have been repented of, confessed, and forsaken, with faith in Christ. It would seem from certain expressions, that they consider the practice of the virtues most opposed to the sins committed among the vindictive penalties for sin. A strange and most unhappy light in which to regard what the Scriptures would have us consider our highest privileges and our choicest happiness. That the practice of the Church of Rome is in accordance with this is placed beyond all doubt, when it is known that the repeating a certain number of prayers is often enjoined as a penance or punishment for sin.

SAVIOUR. (See Jesus.) One who delivers from danger and misery; as God does by his providential care (Psalm cvi. 21; Isa. xlv. 15, 21; lxiii. 8; Jer. xiv. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 10); and as does our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke ii. 11; John iv. 42; Acts v. 31; xiii. 23; Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20). He saves from sin (Matt. i. 21); from the thraldom of Satan (Heb. ii. 14; 1 John iii. 8); from the world (Gal. i. 4); from the sting of death (1 Cor. xv. 55, 57); from the grave (1 Cor. xv. 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21); from hell (1 Thess. i. 10); and brings to the enjoyment of eternal bliss in heaven (Matt. xxv. 34; 1 Pet. i. 3, 4; 2 Pet. i. 11). Christ is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. vii. 25); and he is willing to save all who come to him (Matt. xi. 28; John vi. 37).

SAVOY CONFERENCE. A conference held at the Savoy, in London, in 1661, between the Catholic divines of the Church of England and the Presbyterians; 687of which the following is a brief account: The object was to ascertain what concessions with respect to the liturgy could conciliate the Presbyterians, or Low Church party of that day. The representatives of that body demanded the discontinuance of all responses and similar divisions in the Litany; an abolition of saints’ days; an introduction of extemporaneous prayer; a change as to several of the Epistles and Gospels, which, remaining in the old version, contained various errors; the lengthening of the collects; the rejection of the Apocrypha; a removal from the baptismal office of the word regenerated, as applied to all baptized persons; and a similar rejection of the giving thanks for brethren taken by God to himself, as embracing all alike who were interred, both these phrases being held incompatible with the commination. They would have the liturgy be more particular, and the catechism more explicit. They consented to give up the Assembly’s Catechism for the Thirty-nine Articles somewhat altered; and they wound up their expectations with the old request, that the cross, ring, surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament should be left indifferent.

On the contrary, the Church commissioners maintained that bishops already performed ordination with the assistance of presbyters; that it was expedient to retain a certain number of holy-days for the reasonable recreation of the labouring classes; that the surplice was a decent emblem of that purity which became the ministers of God; that its high antiquity was shown by St. Chrysostom in one of his homilies; and that it received a sanction from several passages in the Revelation (ch. iii. 4, 5). They affirmed that Christ himself kept the feast of dedication, a festival of human appointment; that the sign of the cross had been always used “in immortali lavacro;” that kneeling was an ancient and decent usage, and that the high antiquity of liturgies in the Church is indisputable. To the demand that the answers of the people should be confined to “Amen,” they replied, that Dissenters say more in their psalms and hymns; if then in poetry, why not in prose? if in the Psalms of Hopkins, why not in those of David? and if in a Psalter, why not in a Litany? That Scripture contained all which is needful for salvation, they deemed no more an objection to the Apocrypha than to preaching. To read the Communion Service at the communion table was maintained to be an ancient custom, and “let ancient customs be observed, unless reason demands their abolition,” was the golden rule of the Council of Nice.

They could see no real advantage in compromise and concession. What had the former alternate preaching of regular incumbents and puritanical lecturers ever effected but the sowing of perpetual dissensions in every parish, the aspersion of the characters and defeating of the usefulness of regular pastors, and a distraction of the people’s minds with different winds of doctrine, till they knew not what to believe? In truth, it was certain that whatever concessions might be made, so long as the love of novelty, the pride of argumentation, the passion for holding forth, and the zeal for proselytizing, continued to be principles in the human heart, no concession would ever abolish sects in religion; while the Church of England, by departing from her ancient practice, would only compromise her dignity, and forfeit her title to due reverence. Yet, since some fondly conceived that all parties, tired of dissension and disturbance, were now eager to coalesce; and that to concede the minor points of difference to the Presbyterian ministers would afford them a plausible excuse for maintaining harmony without violating their principles; they would not object to a revision of the liturgy, they would even give up the ceremonies, if any shadow of objection could be brought forward on the score of their sinfulness or impropriety. Their antagonists, however, refused to accept this challenge, since admitting them to be neither sinful nor improper, they deemed it sufficient to show that a positive obligation should not be imposed with respect to things indifferent. On this question, which was in fact the point at issue, as the parties could come to no agreement, the conference, like the former, terminated in mutual dissatisfaction.—See Cardwell’s History of the Conferences.

The object aimed at by those who would have lowered the terms of conformity, was, in itself, inexpressibly inviting. It was their hope to see the great body of professing Christians in England united in one communion: so to annihilate that schism, which, in the judgment of both parties, had been the great blemish of the English Church, from almost the earliest stage of the Reformation. But, allowing every merit to the intention, can we, at this day, refuse the praise of deeper foresight to their opponents; who argued, that if some things were changed, in order to please the party then applying, successive parties might arise, making fresh demands, 688and inventing as good reasons for the second and third concessions, as had been urged for the first?... If such an ecclesiastical modification as was wished for by Judge Hale and his associates had been adopted, general pacification could not, even then, have been attained; and the discovery of new grounds of dissent would have made the prospect more and more hopeless. In the mean time, the English Church establishment would have parted with some of its most distinguishing characteristics; those features, in particular, which are derived from the ancient Church, would have been, in a great measure, defaced; and of course, the principle of adhering, on all doubtful points, to the concurrence of Christian antiquity, could have been insisted on no longer. Had the Church of England thus deserted her ancient ground, where, we cannot but ask, should alteration have stopped? A practice once originated is repeated without difficulty. Can we, then, entertain a doubt, that the successive endeavours which have been used, at one time, to new-modify the forms of our worship; at another, to abate the strictness of our doctrinal creed; would have been as successful as, in our actual circumstances, they have proved abortive? To nothing, under heaven, can we so reasonably ascribe the defeat of all such efforts, as to the dread of disturbing what had remained so long substantially unaltered. Had there been no room for this feeling, other considerations might not have been available, against the apparent plausibility of what was asked, or the persevering ardour of the applicants. Had the work of demolition once begun, its progress would have been both certain and illimitable; each successive change would have been the precedent for another, yet more substantial and vital.—Alexander Knox, Pref. to 2nd Ed. of Burnet’s Lives.

SAXON. The earliest development of Romanesque, as applied to ecclesiastical architecture in England, is so called. Historically this style ought to extend from the coming of St. Augustine to the Conquest (1066); but the intercourse of England with Normandy was so constant before that time, that there can be no doubt we had already much Norman architecture. It is scarcely less to be doubted that many more ante-Conquest buildings yet remain, than are usually accounted Saxon. The characters most relied on to determine Saxon work are the long and short work, triangular headed doors and windows, the splaying of the windows externally as well as internally, and the occurrence of baluster shafts in the windows. These, however, are not constant in well-authenticated Saxon buildings, nor do they invariably indicate a Saxon date.

SAYING AND SINGING. The parts of the service directed to be said or sung, or sung or said, are, the Venite, the Psalms, (in the title page of the Prayer Book,) the Te Deum, (and by inference and analogy,) the Canticles; the Apostles’ Creed, the Litany, the Athanasian Creed, the Easter Anthem, the Nicene Creed, the Sanctus, the Gloria in Excelsis, the psalm in the Matrimonial Service, the commencing sentences and two anthems in the Burial Service, the Communion Service, the communion service in the Ordination of Deacons and Priests, and the Veni Creator in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops. These two phrases have no difference in meaning, since the Apostles’ Creed is directed to be sung or said, in the Morning Service; to be said or sung, in the Evening. It appears that the ecclesiastical use of the word say is two-fold: (1.) As a general term, including all methods of recitation, with or without note, or musical inflection. In this sense it is used in our Prayer Book, when employed alone. (2.) As a more technical and restricted term, used in contradistinction to singing; and yet not to singing in the general sense, but in one or more of its restricted senses.

For the word sing, as is well known, has more than one ecclesiastical sense; since it includes, (1.) all that is recited, in whatever way, in a musical tone; in which sense it is not used in the Prayer Book; (2.) that which is chanted, like the Psalms, Athanasian Creed, and Litany; (3.) that which is sung anthem-wise, like the Anthems, Canticles, Hymns, and Nicene Creed. In these two last senses it is contradistinguished from say in the Prayer Book.

The phrase sung or said specifies those parts of the service only, in which, when said, the minister has a distinctive part, whether (1.) leading or preceding the people in each clause; or (2.) reciting alternate verses with them; or (3.) reciting the passage alone; but which, when sung, are sung by the minister and people, or choir, all together, without any distinctive part being assigned to him. And it may be added, these parts may be, and usually are, sung to the organ. The phrase never applies to those parts of the service which are always to be repeated by the minister alone in the versicle, and by the people in the response.

The instance given above of the communion 689service in the Ordination of Priests and Bishops, is the only direction to which this rule does not appear exactly applicable. But here, from the nature of the case, the Communion Service is spoken of in a general way; and we are, of course, referred to its special rubrics in their proper places. All that is meant is this, that the service shall be performed chorally or parochially, according as circumstances may allow or require.

With respect to the Apostles’ Creed, that is the only instance in which the permission or injunction of the rubric to sing this part of the service, (that is, to sing it anthem-wise, or to the organ,) has never been acted on. This rubric was altered to its present form at the last review; as before it had merely been directed to be said. The words “or sung” seem to have been inserted in order to preserve the analogy between this creed and the Nicene, which it resembles in its construction.

But this is only apparent. For the Litany may seem an exception to the rule. When said, it is repeated alternately, as verse and response, by the minister and people. But the regular choral usage is, not that the minister, or a priest, but two chanters should sing together those parts which the minister reads in a parish church, and which in some old choral books are here called versicles, as far as the Lord’s Prayer exclusive. And this, not with the common intonation and inflection used in prayers and versicles, (which have come under the denomination of singing,) but with the modulation of a regular chant; which in some parts of the Litany (the invocation e. g.) these two chanters sing throughout; while in others they form the first part of the chant, the response of the choir forming the second. This particular service has often been set to artificial music, both before and after the last review. No notice of Minister (or Priest) and Answer are prefixed to the former part of the Litany; while in the latter part, when there are such notices, the suffrages are always recited by one minister, and answered by the choir or people.

Now if in a choir the minister were to read, or simply intone, the versicles of the first part of the Litany, that service would then not be sung, but said, according to the meaning of the rubric, even though the responses were chanted; the word singing including the whole portion of the service then specified, not a part only. And this is probably the reason why the ancient harmonized Litanies by various composers are generally set to music in the former part only; the supplications, or latter part, being customarily sung in choirs to the ordinary chant.

But the rubrics by no means interfere with, and indeed do not allude to, the chanting of prayers and responses immemorially used in choirs; the singing which the rubrics specify being a different thing from choral or responsional recitation. The responses were, and are still, frequently sung to the organ. But singing (as used in the Prayer Book) never has reference to a mere response. In fact, the word answer is an ecclesiastical term, which in choirs always implies singing, (in its common and general sense,) as attention to the older documents on which our Prayer Book was based will show.—Jebb.

SCARF. A piece of silk or other stuff which hangs from the neck, and is worn over the rochet or surplice. It is not mentioned in the rubric of the English ritual, but is worn by our bishops and dignitaries of the Church. It is used from long custom, and may be referred to the ancient practice of the Church, according to which presbyters and bishops wore a scarf or stole in the administration of the sacraments, and on some other occasions. The stole has been used from the most primitive ages by the Christian clergy. It was fastened on one shoulder of the deacon’s alb, and hung down before and behind. The priest had it over both shoulders, and the ends of it hung down in front. Thus simply were the dresses of the priests and deacons distinguished from each other in primitive times.

SCEPTICS. (From the Greek word σκέπτομαι, to look about, to deliberate.) This word was applied to an ancient sect of philosophers founded by Pyrrho, who denied the real existence of all qualities in bodies except those which are essential to primary atoms, and referred everything else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects; in other words, to appearance and opinion. In modern times, the word has been applied to Deists, or those who doubt of the truth and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures.

SCHISM, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, is a breaking off from communion with the Church, on account of some disagreement in matters of faith or discipline. The word is of Greek original, and signifies a fissure or rent.

We shall easily learn what the ancients meant by the unity of the Church and schism, if we consider the following particulars:—1. That there were different degrees of unity and schism, according to 690the proportion of which a man was said to be more or less united to the Church, or divided from it. 2. That they who retained faith and baptism, and the common form of Christian worship, were in those respects at unity with the Church; though, in other respects, in which their schism consisted, they might be divided from her. 3. That to give a man the denomination of a true Catholic Christian, absolutely speaking, it was necessary that he should in all respects, and in every kind of unity, be in perfect and full communion with the Church; but to denominate a man a schismatic, it was sufficient to break the unity of the Church in any one respect; though the malignity of the schism was to be interpreted, more or less, according to the degrees of separation he made from her. Because the Church could not ordinarily judge of men’s hearts, or of the motives that engaged them in error and schism, therefore she was forced to proceed by another rule, and judge of their unity with her by their external communion and professions.

And as the Church made a distinction between the degrees of schism, so did she between the censures inflicted on schismatics; for these were proportioned to the quality and heinousness of the offence. Such as absented themselves from church for a short time (which was reckoned the lowest degree of separation) were punished with a few weeks’ suspension. Others, who attended only some part of the service, and voluntarily withdrew when the eucharist was to be administered: these, as greater criminals, were denied the privilege of making any oblations, and excluded for some time from all the other holy offices of the Church. But the third sort of separatists, who are most properly called schismatics, being those who withdrew totally and universally from the communion of the Church, and endeavoured to justify the separation; against these the Church proceeded more severely, using the highest censure, that of excommunication, as against the professed enemies and destroyers of her peace and unity.

Ecclesiastical history presents us with a view of several considerable schisms, in which whole bodies of men separated from the communion of the Catholic Church. Such were, in the fourth century, the schisms of the Donatists, and the many heretics that sprung up in the Church, as the Arians, Photinians, Apollinarians, &c.; the schism of the Church of Antioch, occasioned by Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, in Sardinia; in the fifth century, the schism of the Church of Rome, between Laurentius and Symmachus; in the ninth century, the separation of the Greek Church from the Latin; but, particularly, the grand schism of the popes of Rome and Avignon, in the fourteenth century, which lasted till the end of the Council of Pisa, 1409.—Bingham.

It is a causeless separation from such governors in the Church as have received their authority and commission from Jesus Christ. If there be a sufficient cause, then there may be a separation, but no schism. But if there be no sufficient ground for the separation, it is schism, that is, a culpable separation, which was always reckoned a sin of a very heinous nature. For St. Paul charges the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, because there is but one God, one faith, one baptism, and one body of Christ. The same doctrine is taught in the writings of the first Fathers of the Church, particularly St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian; and schism was reputed a great sin by them, even before the Church and State were united, and when the meetings of the schismatics were as much tolerated by the State as the assemblies of the Catholics. For toleration does not alter the nature of schism. Such laws only exempt the persons of schismatics from any penal prosecution. Donatism and Novatianism were counted as damnable schisms, under the reigns of those emperors who granted toleration to them, as under the reigns of those who made laws against them.—Nelson.

SCHOOLS. The word was anciently of larger application than at present, and signified places of instruction not only for children, but for those of more advanced age. It was applied generally to what are now called universities. Thus Shakspeare, in Hamlet, speaks of being at school at Wittenberg, that is, at the university. The places in the universities where exercises for degrees are performed, and lectures read, are still called schools, both in England, and at least in the older universities of Europe: and academical degrees were often called degrees of school.

But taking the term in its usual modern acceptation, as places of education for the young, it may be convenient in these days to have a concise history of schools. The following, therefore, is given from Dr. Burn and other writers of authority:—

The determinations in the courts of law relative to schools at the time Dr. Burn wrote, had not been delivered with that precision which was usual in other cases. 691And indeed, excepting in an instance or two in the court of Chancery, the general law concerning schools did not seem to have been considered as yet upon full and solemn arguments. And, therefore, he says, a liberty of animadversion is taken in some of the following particulars, which would not be allowable in matters which had been finally adjudged and settled.

By the 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 37. Whereas it would be a great hinderance to learning and other good and charitable works, if persons well inclined may not be permitted to found schools for the encouragement of learning or to augment the revenues of schools already founded, it shall be lawful for the king to grant licences to aliene, and to purchase and hold in mortmain.

But, by the 9 Geo. II. c. 36, after June 24, 1736, no manors, lands, tenements, rents, advowsons, or other hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, nor any sum of money, goods, chattels, stocks in the public funds, securities for money, or any other personal estate whatsoever, to be laid out or disposed of in the purchase of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall be given or any ways conveyed or settled, (unless it be bona fide for full and valuable consideration,) to or upon any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or otherwise, for any estate or interest whatsoever, or any ways charged or encumbered, in trust or for the benefit of any charitable uses whatsoever; unless such appointment of lands, or of money, or other personal estate, (other than stocks in the public funds,) be made by deed indented, sealed, and delivered in the presence of two witnesses, twelve calendar months at least before the death of the donor, and be enrolled in Chancery within six calendar months next after the execution thereof; and unless such stock in the public funds be transferred in the public books usually kept for the transfer of stocks, six calendar months at least before the death of the donor; and unless the same be made to take effect in possession for the charitable use intended, immediately from the making thereof, and be without power of revocation. And any assurance otherwise made shall be void.

By Canon 77. “No man shall teach either in public school or private house, but such as shall be allowed by the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the place, under his hand and seal; being found meet, as well for his learning and dexterity in teaching, as for sober and honest conversation, and also for right understanding of God’s true religion; and also except he first subscribe simply to the first and third articles in the 36th canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the two first clauses of the second article, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, viz. that it containeth nothing contrary to the word of God, and may lawfully be used.”

And in the case of Cory and Pepper, T. 30 Car. II., a consultation was granted in the court of King’s Bench, against one who taught without licence in contempt of the canons; and (the reporter says) the reason given by the court was, that the canons of 1603 are good by the statute of the 25 Hen. VIII., so long as they do not impugn the common law, or the prerogative royal.—2 Lev. 222. Gibs. 995.

But this is unchronological and absurd; and as the office of a schoolmaster is a lay-office (for where it is supplied by a clergyman, that is only accidental, and not of any necessity at all); it is clear enough, that the canon by its own strength in this case is not obligatory.

Therefore we must seek out some other foundation of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and there are many quotations for this purpose fetched out of the ancient canon law, (Gibs. 1099,) which, although perhaps not perfectly decisive, yet it must be owned they bear that way.

The argument in Cox’s case seems to contain the substance of what has been alleged on both sides in this matter, and concludes in favour of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; which was thus: M. 1700. In the Chancery: Cox was libelled against in the spiritual court at Exeter, for teaching school without licence from the bishop: And on motion before the lord chancellor an order was made, that cause should be shown why a prohibition should not go, and that in the mean time all things should stay. On showing cause, it was moved to discharge the said order, alleging, that before the Reformation this was certainly of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: Wright, lord keeper, decided that both courts may have a concurrent jurisdiction; and a crime may be punishable both in the one and in the other: The canons of a convocation do not bind the laity without an act of parliament: But I always was, and still am of opinion, that keeping of school is by the old laws of England of ecclesiastical cognizance: and therefore let the order for a prohibition be discharged. Whereupon it was moved, that this libel was for teaching school generally, without showing what kind of school; and the court Christian could not have jurisdiction of writing 692schools, reading schools, dancing schools, or such like; to which the lord keeper assented; and thereupon granted a prohibition as to the teaching of all schools, except grammar schools, which he thought to be of ecclesiastical cognizance.

By act of parliament the case stands thus: By the 23 Eliz. c. 1. If any person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall keep or maintain any schoolmaster which shall not repair to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, or be allowed by the bishop or ordinary of the diocese where such schoolmaster shall be so kept, he shall, upon conviction in the courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, or quarter sessions of the peace, forfeit for every month so keeping him £10; one-third to the king, one-third to the poor, and one-third to him that shall sue: and such schoolmaster or teacher, presuming to teach contrary to this act, and being thereof lawfully convict, shall be disabled to be a teacher of youth, and suffer imprisonment without bail or mainprise for one year.

By the 1 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 9. No person shall keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out of any of the universities or colleges of this realm, except it be in some public or free grammar school, or in some such nobleman’s or gentleman’s house as are not recusants, or where the same schoolmaster shall be specially licensed thereunto by the archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spiritualities of that diocese; upon pain that, as well the schoolmaster, as also the party that shall retain or maintain any such schoolmaster, shall forfeit each of them for every day so wittingly offending 40s.; half to the king, and half to him that shall sue.

And by the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4. Every schoolmaster keeping any public or private school, and every person instructing or teaching any youth in any house or private family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall, before his admission, subscribe the declaration following, viz. “I, A. B., do declare, that I will conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established.” Which shall be subscribed before the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese; on pain that every person so failing in such subscription shall forfeit his school, and be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same, and the said school shall be void as if such person so failing were naturally dead.

And if any schoolmaster, or other person, instructing or teaching youth in any private house or family as a tutor or schoolmaster, shall instruct or teach any youth as a tutor or schoolmaster before licence obtained from the archbishop, bishop, or ordinary of the diocese, according to the laws and statutes of this realm, (for which he shall pay 12d. only,) and before such subscription as aforesaid, he shall for the first offence suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail; and, for every second and other such offence, shall suffer three months’ imprisonment, without bail, and also forfeit to the king the sum of £5. (S. 8, 9, 10, 1.)

M. 9 G. II. The King against the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. A mandamus issued to the bishop to grant a licence to Rushworth a clergyman, who was nominated usher of a free grammar school within his diocese. To which he returned, that a caveat had been entered by some of the principal inhabitants of the place, with articles annexed, accusing him of drunkenness, incontinency, and neglect of preaching and reading prayers; and that the caveat being warned, he was proceeding to inquire into the truth of these things when the mandamus came; and therefore he had suspended the licensing him. And without entering much into the arguments, whether the bishop hath the power of licensing, the court held, that the return should be allowed as a temporary excuse; for though the act of the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, obligeth them only to assent to and subscribe the declaration, yet it adds, “according to the laws and statutes of this realm;” which presupposeth some necessary qualifications, which it is reasonable should be examined into.

And by Canon 137. “Every schoolmaster shall, at the bishop’s first visitation, or at the next visitation after his admission, exhibit his licence, to be by the said bishop either allowed, or (if there be just cause) disallowed and rejected.”

By the 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. If any Papist, or person making profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school, or take upon himself the education or government or boarding of youth, he shall be adjudged to perpetual imprisonment in such place within this kingdom as the king by advice of his privy council shall appoint.

In Bales’s case, M. 21 Car. II., it was held, that where the patronage of a school is not in the ordinary, but in feoffees or other patrons, the ordinary cannot put a man out; and a prohibition was granted; the suggestion for which was, that he came in by election, and that it was his freehold.

Upon which Dr. Gibson justly observes, 693that if this be any bar to his being deprived by ordinary authority, the presentation to a benefice by a lay patron, and the parson’s freehold in that benefice, would be as good a plea against the deprivation of the parson by the like authority. And yet this plea hath been always rejected by the temporal courts. And in one circumstance at least, the being deprived of a school, notwithstanding the notion of a freehold, is more naturally supposed, than deprivation of a benefice; because the licence to a school is only during pleasure, whereas the institution to a benefice is absolute and unlimited.—Gibson, 1110.

By Canon 78. “In what parish church or chapel soever there is a curate, which is a master of arts, or bachelor of arts, or is otherwise well able to teach youth, and will willingly so do, for the better increase of his living, and training up of children in principles of true religion, we will and ordain that a licence to teach youth of the parish where he serveth be granted to none by the ordinary of that place, but only to the said curate: provided always, that this constitution shall not extend to any parish or chapel in country towns, where there is a public school founded already; in which case we think it not meet to allow any to teach grammar, but only him that is allowed for the said public school.”

By Canon 79. “All schoolmasters shall teach in English or Latin, as the children are able to bear, the larger or shorter catechism, heretofore by public authority set forth. And as often as any sermon shall be upon holy and festival days, within the parish where they teach, they shall bring their scholars to the church where such sermons shall be made, and there see them quietly and soberly behave themselves, and shall examine them at times convenient after their return, what they have borne away of such sermons. Upon other days, and at other times, they shall train them up with such sentences of Holy Scriptures, as shall be most expedient to induce them to all godliness. And they shall teach the grammar set forth by King Henry VIII., and continued in the times of King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth of noble memory, and none other. And if any schoolmaster, being licensed, and having subscribed as is aforesaid, shall offend in any of the premises, or either speak, write, or teach against anything whereunto he hath formerly subscribed, if upon admonition by the ordinary he do not amend and reform himself, let him be suspended from teaching school any longer.

“The larger or shorter catechism.”—The shorter is that in the Book of Common Prayer; the larger was a catechism set forth by King Edward VI., which he by his letters patents commanded to be taught in all schools; which was examined, reviewed, and corrected in the convocation of 1562, and published with those improvements in 1570, to be a guide to the younger clergy in the study of divinity, as containing the sum and substance of our reformed religion.—Gibson, 374.

“Shall bring their scholars to the church.”—E. 10 & 11 W. Betcham, and Barnardiston. The chief question was, whether a schoolmaster might be prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court for not bringing his scholars to church, contrary to this canon. And it was the opinion of the court that the schoolmaster, being a layman, was not bound by the canons.

“Grammar.”—Compiled and set forth by William Lily and others specially appointed by his Majesty; in the preface to which book it is declared, that, “as for the diversity of grammars, it is well and profitably taken away by the king’s Majesty’s wisdom; who foreseeing the inconvenience, and favourably providing the remedy, caused one kind of grammar by sundry learned men to be diligently drawn, and so to be set out only; everywhere to be taught for the use of learners, and for avoiding the hurt in changing of schoolmasters.”

By the 43 Eliz. c. 4. Where lands, rents, annuities, goods, or money, given for maintenance of free schools or schools of learning, have been misapplied, and there are no special visitors or governors appointed by the founder, the lord chancellor may award commissions under the great seal, to inquire and take order therein.

Whether a mandamus lieth for restoring a schoolmaster or usher, when in fact they have been deprived by the local visitors, is doubtfully spoken of in the books of common law; and the pleadings upon them seem not to touch the present point, but to turn chiefly upon this, whether they are to be accounted offices of a public or private nature.—Gibson, 1110.

Thus, in the case of The King against the Bailiff’s of Morpeth, a mandamus was granted, to restore a man to the office of under-schoolmaster of a grammar school at Morpeth, founded by King Edward VI. The same being of a public nature, being derived from the Crown.

And the distinction seems to be this: If they shall be deemed of a public nature, as constituted for public government, they 694shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the king’s courts of common law; but if they be judged matters only of private charity, then they are subject to the rules and statutes which the founder ordains, and to the visitor whom he appoints, and to no other.

In the case of colleges in the universities, whether founded by the king or by any other, it seemeth now to be settled that they are to be considered as private establishments, subject only to the founder and to the visitor whom he appointeth; and it doth not seem easy to discern any difference between schools and colleges in this respect.

H. 1725. Eden and Foster. The free grammar school of Birmingham was founded by King Edward VI., who endowed the said school, and by his letters patent appointed perpetual governors thereof, who were thereby enabled to make laws and ordinances for the better government of the said school, but by the letters patent no express visitor was appointed, and the legal estate of the endowment was vested in these governors. After a commission had issued under the great seal to inspect the management of the governors, and all the exceptions being already heard and overruled, it was now objected to this commission that the king, having appointed governors, had by implication made them visitors likewise: the consequence of which was, that the Crown could not issue a commission to visit or inspect the conduct of these governors. The matter first came on before Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, and afterwards before Lord King, who desired the assistance of Lord Chief Justice Eyre and Lord Chief Baron Gilbert; and accordingly the opinion of the court was now delivered seriatim, that the commission was good. 1. It was laid down as a rule, that where the king is founder, in that case his Majesty and his successors are visitors; but where a private person is founder, there such private person and his heirs are by implication of law visitors. 2. That though this visitatorial power did result to the founder and his heirs, yet the founder might vest or substitute such visitatorial right in any other person or his heirs. 3. They conceived it to be unreasonable, that where governors are appointed, these by construction of law and without any more should be visitors, and should have an absolute power, and remain exempt from being visited themselves. And, therefore, 4. That in those cases where the governors or visitors are said not to be accountable, it must be intended, where such governors have the power of government only, and not where they have the legal estate and are intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits (as in the present case); for it would be of the most pernicious consequence, that any persons intrusted with the receipt of the rents and profits, and especially for a charity, though they misemploy never so much these rents and profits, should yet not be accountable for their receipts: this would be such a privilege, as might of itself be a temptation to a breach of trust. 5. That the word governor did not of itself imply visitor; and to make such a construction of a word, against the common and natural meaning of it, and when such a strained construction could not be for the benefit, but rather to the great prejudice, of the charity, would be very unreasonable; besides, it would be making the king’s charter operate to a double intent, which ought not to be. And the commission under the great seal was resolved to be well issued.—2 P. Will. 325.