Prev TOC Next
[See page image]

Page 207



the invitation to become professor of theology at Leipsic. But the Interim ended his activity in Nassau in 1548, and he then went first to Annaberg, where he wrote his Creutzbuchlein, after which he became pastor at the Thomaskirche in Leipsic, publishing four volumes of sermons in 1551-52, and his Von Synodis and Buch vom heiligen Ehestand in 1553. In 1551 he was one of the theologians to whom the Saxon Confession was submitted for approval and subscription, and in the following year was a member of the unsuccessful delegation to the Council of Trent, which got no further than Nuremberg. In 1553 he published his Hausbuch fur die einfaltigen Hausvater, which is of interest for a history of Lutheran confirmation, and in the following year he was chosen superintendent of Eisleben as the successor of the adiaphoristic Georg Major (q.v.). He now necessarily adopted an attitude of opposition to the teachings of Melanchthon and completely accepted the tenets of the Gnesio-Lutherans, being active at the same time both in visitation and in writing a number of treatises on church government and discipline, the most of which were collected by his son, Wilhelm Sarcerius, in the second edition of his Pastorale oder Hirtenbuch von Amt, Wesen and Disziplin der Pastoren, published in 1562. Meanwhile the course of events was leading him further and further away from Melanchthon, and at the colloquy of Worms in 1557 be was on the side of the Weimar theologians. From Worms he hurried to Heidelberg to prevent the threatened schism in Protestantism, only to take part in the fatal protestation which broke off the conference. In the following year he was one of those called to Weimar to make the final revision of the Weimar Confutation, but his position in Mansfeld was becoming increasingly difficult and he was exposed to ceaseless official interference. Nevertheless, in 1559 he presided. over a synod which formulated the interesting Bekendnis der Prediger in der Grafschaft Mansfelt . . . wider aller Seeten, Rotten and falsche Lere-n (Eisleben, 1560), and almost immediately afterward he accepted a call to Magdeburg as pastor of the Johanniskirche and senior of the ministerium, but lived only long enough to deliver four sermons. (G. KAwERAU.)

BIBL70a&APHY: The funeral sermon was by J. Wigand, Magdeburg, 1560, and Pieu lamentationea by Z. Priitorius, W. Sarcerius, and P. Spenlin, Eisleben, 1560; two monographs are A. W. R8selmaller, Leben and Wirken des Eraemua Sarcerius, Annaberg. 1888, and G. Eakuche, Sarceriua ale Erzieher and Schulmann, Siegen, 1901 (worthful). Compare further H. L. J. Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Proteatantismus, i. 49 eqq., Goths, 1857.

SARDICA, SYNOD OF: A synod held in 343-34-1 at Sardica (the modern Sophia, capital of Bulgaria). The date given above is not that of the historians Socrates (Hist. ecd., ii. 20; NPNF, 2d ser. ii. 4617) and Sozomen (Hilt. eccl., iii. 11-12; NPNF, 2d ser., ii. 289-290), who assign the year 347. But the Historic acephala (discovered in the eighteenth century, ed. S. Maffei in Osservazioni litterarie, vol. iii., Verona, 1738) showed that Athanasius returned to Alexandria from his second exile in 346 (see ATHANASIU$ I., § 4) and this is corroborated by Jerome (MPL, xxix. 682), who places this return in the tenth year of Constantius. The "Paschal Letters" of

Athanasius prove that the synod was held at least two years before his return. The synod may have met late in 343; it was in session in 344, for two envoys sent by Conatans arrived in Antioch at Easter of that year (Athanasius, "Arian History," xx.; NPNF, 2d ser., iv. 276-277, footnote). It was summoned by Conatans and Constantinus (Athanasius, "Defence against the Arians," xliv.; NPNF, 2d ser., iv. 123) with the threefold object of removing causes of dissension in the Church, rooting out false doctrine, and confirming the tradition of the true faith in Christ.

There is some debate as to the number of bishops who attended. Two parties were represented, Eusebians and the orthodox. The former in their synodal letter (Mansi, Concilia, iii. 132) claim to be eighty in number, but seventy-six is given by Socrates and Sozomen (ut sup.) and this seems to be right. Athanasius in his "Arian History" (xv.; NPNF, iv. 274) reckons the entire attendance at 170 "more or less," which leaves ninety-four for the orthodox party. The Eusebians were a compact party, whose principal animus was against Athanasius. When they learned that he was to be present and was expected to take part, they recognized that the logic of events would lead him to take the aggressive and to bring charges of unseemly conduct against them. They therefore demanded on the basis of the findings of the synods of Tyre and Antioch that Athanasius be excluded. The presidency of the synod, in the absence of the bishop of Rome, fell to Hosius of Cordova (q.v.) through whom negotiations were conducted. Hosius warned the Eusebians that their threat to abstain from participation might prove dangerous to them, and advised them to submit their proofs against Athanasius to him alone if they were unwilling to bring them before the synod, promising that if they were conclusive, Athanasius should be excluded. But this advice was rejected, and the Eusebians left the city by night.

The synod proceeded to investigate the charges of the Eusebians (1) against Athanasius and found them baseless; (2) against Marcellus of Ancyra (q.v.), and pronounced him orthodox; (3) against Asclephas of Gaza (whom the Eusebians at Antioch had deposed), and proved him innocent, acquitting of blame also certain minor officials who were involved in the major charges. Certain heads of the Eusebian party were deposed and excommunicated, viz., Theodore of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronias, Acacius of Cxsarea, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Murcia, Menophantes of Ephesus, and George of Laodicea. The alleged "creed of Sardica " rests upon a misunderstanding of a sketch of such a creed by Hosius which was not adopted by the synod, but came to be included in the Acta. The twenty canons were drawn up in Greek and Latin, were adopted by the second Trullan synod, and are usually appended to those of the council of Nica?a, though they are not recognized as ecumenical. The canons have to do with the rights and duties of bishops, w i#l the filling of vacant bishoprics, the'rights and duties of lower clergy, and make an attempt to arrange for union on the date of Easter.