TDB 3 The Conversion of Father Ray Ryland, Part 3

I do a podcast.

Justification by Faith Alone and Polemical Christianity

I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the air and combating the air.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion. It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible.

Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you. For their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way. As opposed to, Blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

The Purpose of the Diving Board and the Deep-in-History Conference

Okay, this is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and we're back with the Diving Board as we dive deep into history. The purpose of this podcast is to show that Roman Catholic apologists and those who follow them have remained in the shallow end of the history pool while claiming to be deep in history.

And we are focusing on those Protestants who fall for those shallow arguments and convert to Roman Catholicism while thinking that they too are deep in history. We are continuing in this episode with a speech given by Father Ray Ryland who converted from the Episcopalian Church to Roman Catholicism.

The video we are analyzing is entitled, Papal Authority and the Early Church. And it comes to us from a 2004 conference by the Coming Home Network, a ministry founded by former Protestants who have crossed over to Rome, believing that it is the true church.

The conference is called, Deep in History, based on a statement that Cardinal Newman once made that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. Newman's statement was the inspiration for the Deep in History conference sponsored by the Coming Home Network.

And in our first two episodes, we began to examine the claims of Father Ray Ryland in his journey from the Episcopal Church to the Roman Church. We have covered Ray Ryland's claims from a letter of Clement to the Corinthians in the 1st century, Bishop Victor's excommunication of the Eastern bishops in the 2nd century, and the alleged submission of Pope Dionysius of Alexandria to Bishop Dionysius of Rome on doctrinal matters and Emperor Aurelian's alleged request for the Pope to intervene in the dispute between the Church of Antioch and the heretic bishop Paul of Samosata in the 3rd century.

And finally, Ryland's claim that the assembled bishops at Nicaea in the 4th century had convened to confirm the teachings of the Bishop of Rome, and that Sylvester of Rome had presided at the Council of Nicaea, and that Josius of Cordoba was his representative there.

That's a mouthful, and we appreciate everybody paying attention to all the historical details. This week we will cover Ryland's arguments regarding the trial of Athanasius and his claim that Athanasius could not be returned to his episcopal seat in Alexandria until the Bishop of Rome had ruled on the matter.

As we have been emphasizing, Ryland's arguments require that his listeners stay in the shallow end of the history pool. But we are on the diving board, ready to jump in. So let's dive in and go to Ryland's next piece of evidence, the unlawful deposition of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and the ensuing trial in Rome.

Julius of Rome, Athanasius, and the Appeals Process

Here again is Ray Ryland arguing for papal authority because Pope Julius of Rome is alleged to have rescued Athanasius from the charges of heresy.

Or again, in the 4th century, Pope Julius. Pope Julius is the one who really rescued Athanasius. In my readings of church history as a Protestant, I always was told about how Athanasius had saved the church from Arianism.

And he was a devout and strong advocate of the true faith. But without the support of the pope, he would have gone down and had to stay down. Two councils in the east, two heretical councils, condemned Athanasius and evicted him from his seat as patriarch of Alexandria.

When he appealed to the pope, Pope Julius I condemned both councils and reinstalled Athanasius in his seat. He demanded to know why he had not been consulted beforehand and reminded them of the church's rule.

This is what he said. Are you ignorant that this is customary for word to be written to us first and then for a just sentence to be passed from this place? If then any suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place, that is Rome.

This, that is the councils acting on their way, is another form of procedure, a novel practice. What we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I signify to you.

Okay, this one is a little complex, but it is not hard to dissect. I want to provide the key statement from Bishop Julius so that it is fixed in the mind of the listener. Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

This whole episode is about that one sentence and what it means. The events Ryland just described and the statement from Bishop Julius are from around 340 A .D. and they are related to the tumultuous life of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Arians in Antioch who brought charges against him all the way back in 335 A .D.

The letter cited by Ryland was from Julius of Rome to the church at Antioch and is recorded for us in Athanasius' work, Apology Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2. And what Julius is talking about is not papal or Roman primacy but rather the Eusebians' violation of the appeals process.

What he is discussing is Constantine's sweeping judicial reforms dating all the way back to the beginning of his reign in 306 A .D. The first clue that Julius was not talking about Roman primacy is that he refers repeatedly to the fact that Athanasius' accusers, the Eusebians, had in fact already written to him first and had since written to him multiple times and they had been exchanging letters the whole time.

I want to ask the listener to pause briefly and let that sink in. After acknowledging that the Eusebians had in fact already written to him first Julius reminds them of the custom of writing to us first.

What is even more baffling is that Bishop Julius of Rome complains that the Eusebians actually did write, quote, to me alone. That's from Athanasius against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 26, Julius' letter to the Eusebians.

But he goes on and explains that they should not have written to me alone but instead the letter should have been addressed to us all. Wow, what is going on? There is a custom of writing to us first in Paragraph 36 and you did send it to us first, Paragraph 26.

You sent it to me alone but you should have sent it to everyone in Paragraph 35. This otherwise puzzling exchange can by no means be resolved by Ryland's simple summary that there was a tradition of the Bishop of Rome settling the affairs of the Church throughout the world.

There is actually a much simpler explanation but it requires that we not settle for life in the shallow end of the history pool. So, let's dive in. The letter from which Ryland quoted is Julius' second letter to Athanasius' accusers, the Eusebian party, who were Arians, and who had replaced Athanasius in the Episcopal seat of Alexandria with an Arian bishop from Cappadocia.

As noted a moment ago, before chiding the Church at Antioch for violating the custom of writing to him first, Julius acknowledges multiple times that the accusers had in fact already written to him. That is our first clue.

And it is an important one. Listen as Julius explains to the Eusebians that he has already received and read their most recent letter delivered by Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus in which nothing was said of the accusations against Athanasius.

Now citing from Athanasius, against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 21, which is Bishop Julius' second letter to the Eusebians. I have read your letter, which was brought to me by Presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus, and I am surprised to find that, whereas I wrote to you in charity and with conscious sincerity, you have replied to me in an unbecoming and contentious temper, for the pride and arrogance of the writers is plainly exhibited in that letter.

Okay, in the next paragraph, Julius acknowledges that the Eusebians had in fact written a previous letter to that one, and that letter did contain accusations against Athanasius, and was delivered by Presbyters Macarius and Deacons Martirius and Hestius.

Now citing from Paragraph 22 of that same letter, When the persons whom you, Eusebius, and his fellows dispatched with your letters, I mean Macarius the Presbyter and Martirius and Hestius the Deacons, arrived here, and found that they were unable to withstand the arguments of the Presbyters who came from Athanasius, but were confuted and exposed on all sides, they then requested me to call a council together, and to write to Alexandria, to the bishop Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and his fellows, in order that a just judgment might be given in the presence of all parties.

A few paragraphs later, Paragraph 26, Julius explains that he had been writing back and forth with anyone who had written to him, and in fact Eusebius and the other accusers had been writing to him as well, and he had been responding to them.

Now let's think through this. Julius has been writing back and forth to the Eusebians, about the charges against Athanasius, and agreed to write letters to both parties, seeking the facts of the case from both sides, and Athanasius' accusers have now written to him again, and Julius is now responding again, having already written both to Antioch and to Alexandria, requesting information regarding the case against Athanasius.

All of this sounds like a discovery process in a legal proceeding. What on earth is going on? The answer is actually very simple. It sounds like a discovery process in a legal proceeding, because it is a discovery process in a legal proceeding.

But this is nothing Ryland could have understood, because he did not bother looking. Finding it will require that we venture into the deep end of the history pool. And that's where we're going to swim now.

When Emperor Constantine came to power in 306 AD, one of his greatest initiatives was to reform the judicial system of the empire to make it easier for his citizens to obtain justice, while at the same time easing the backlog of cases that he personally had to adjudicate.

At the beginning of his reign, the court of appeals for the empire was often Constantine himself, and it was burdensome both for him to administer and for Roman citizens to obtain justice. To solve the problem, Constantine deputized the governors of the provinces and authorized them to hear cases, and at the same time set up an appeals process that allowed litigants to appeal to a higher court in an orderly process, and ultimately to the imperial court of the emperor as the highest appellate court of all.

The judge in each case was required to obtain written testimonies of both parties to a dispute, document everything in writing, including his own opinion on the matter, and then forward that decision to a higher court or to the imperial court for a final ruling.

That piece of information comes to us from the Edicts of Constantine, as recorded in a fascinating book by John Noel Dillon from 2012, and it is entitled The Justice of Constantine, Law, Communication, and Control.

In it, Dillon describes the appellate process in great detail. We encourage our listeners to study this fascinating period in history, and a great place to start is with Dillon's book. For now, I will cite from pages 215 to 218 of his work.

That's John Dillon, The Justice of Constantine, Law, Communication, and Control. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2012, pages 215 to 218. There were several other rulings by Constantine on this new appeals process, and we will introduce our listeners to them, but two of the most important are the rules that the appellate judge is not allowed to consult with the emperor about questions of law and justice during a case, because that would defeat the entire purpose of the judicial reform.

At the same time, the litigant was not allowed to appeal his case to the emperor while a lower court was still deciding the case, because that, too, would defeat the entire purpose of the judicial reform and would keep the emperor's court constantly occupied with the legal proceedings of the lower courts.

I am now citing from the Theodosian Code, as compiled by Clyde Farr in his 2001 translation of the Theodosian Code and novels in the Sermondian Constitutions, which contain the many correspondences between the Caesars and the appellate judges.

Those letters reflect the expressions of Constantine's legal theory as the new appellate system was being developed. Regarding the prohibition against the judge consulting with the emperor, I will now cite from the Theodosian Code, Book 11, Title 29, Chapter 1.

In view of the fact that there remains to litigants the legitimate choice of an appeal from decision, you must consult Our Majesty only concerning a few matters which cannot be decided by judicial sentence, in order that you may not interrupt our imperial occupations.

That's Constantine from 313 A .D. That was the rule, saying that the judge is not to ask the emperor's opinion on a case under consideration because that just puts the burden of judicial analysis back on the emperor.

And besides, the litigants always have the avenue of appeal if they do not believe the judge has decided correctly. The next citation is from Book 11, Title 30, Chapter 6, prohibiting the litigants from doing the same thing.

To supplicate the emperor during the pendency of a suit is not permitted, except perhaps in the case of a litigant to whom a copy of the report is denied, or when the transmission of all the documents of the case has been suppressed.

That's from Clyde Farr, page 323. The ruling was from Constantine in 326 A .D., saying that a litigant is not allowed to appeal to the emperor while a lower judge is still hearing the case, unless, of course, the judge refused to provide a written report of his decision.

In fact, the judge could get in trouble for not providing the written report to the litigants, and, a point that is quite relevant in our current discussion, the litigants could get in trouble for not responding to the judge's inquiries.

One significant point that Dillon makes in his book is that since the right of appeal was sacred to Constantine,.

Quote,.

It was a fundamental principle, for one, that a judge could not try and appeal against his own sentence, unquote. That's from Dillon, page 221. What that means is a judge could not preside in an appeal of his own decision.

A different judge had to do that. That will become very important to our discussion momentarily. So what does this have to do with the accusations against Athanasius? Well, in 318 AD, Constantine issued one of the most transformative edicts of his entire judicial reform, and the trial of Athanasius cannot be fully understood without knowledge of it.

In 318 AD, Constantine allowed that anyone who wanted to have his case heard by a bishop of the church instead of by a civil officer was entitled to change the venue to have his case heard in an episcopal court.

This law allowed a litigant to have his case tried in an ecclesiastical court and further required that the civil judge not object to it, even though the case had begun in his civil courtroom. Now citing from Theodosian Code, Book 1, Chapter 27, Paragraph 1, Judicial Decisions of Bishops.

Pursuant to his own authority, a judge must observe that if an action should be brought before an episcopal court, he shall maintain silence, and if any person should desire him to transfer his case to the jurisdiction of the Christian law and to observe that kind of court, he shall be heard, even though the action has been instituted before the judge, and whatever may be adjudged by them shall be held as sacred.

That's from Clyde Farr, page 31, a ruling from Constantine in 318 AD. Later, in 333 AD, just a few years before the accusations against Athanasius materialized, Constantine modified the law to allow for a civil case to be transferred to an episcopal court at any time, even if the other party to the suit disagreed.

Now citing from Sirmondian Constitution, 1, from 333 AD. Therefore, if any man, either as a defendant or as a plaintiff, should have a suit at law, and either at the beginning of the suit, or after the statutory time limits have elapsed, or when the final pleadings are made, or when the judge has already begun to pronounce sentence, and if such litigants should choose the court of a bishop of the sacrosanct law, even though the other party to the suit should oppose it, immediately, without any question, the principles in the litigation shall be dispatched to the bishop.

That's Clyde Farr, page 477, an edict from Constantine in 333 AD. The reason this matters to us is that the initial trials against Athanasius were all civil in nature, not ecclesiastical. That may come as a surprise to many because Athanasius' accusers appeared for the most part to conduct their proceedings against Athanasius on theological grounds.

But when the history of the case is examined, we find that the eastern bishops had proceeded against Athanasius in a civil trial, at which a civil officer, a count, presided, not a church synod at which a bishop presided.

In fact, that is the constant complaint of Athanasius and his defenders, that the trial against Athanasius had, to this point, been a civil trial. We see this from the several descriptions of the trials against Athanasius until this point.

The council of Egypt convened to defend Athanasius and complained that the trial of Athanasius at Tyre had been conducted under the authority of a count, a civil officer, and in the presence of soldiers.

Now citing from that letter, as recorded in Athanasius, against the Arians, Part 1, Paragraph 8,. How can they have the boldness to call that a council, at which a count presided, which an executioner attended, and where an usher, instead of the deacons of the church, introduced us into court, and where the count only spoke, and all present held their peace, or rather, obeyed his directions?

Julius, in his letter, made similar complaints, and so did Athanasius when he had the trial transferred to an episcopal court. Now citing from Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part 2, Chapter 11,. But as soon as Eusebius and his fellows heard that the trial was to be an ecclesiastical one, at which no count would be present, nor soldiers stationed before the doors, and that the proceedings would not be regulated by royal order, for they have always depended upon those things to support them against the bishops, and without them they have no boldness even to speak, they declined to participate.

We highlight these facts because it is extremely important not only to place the trial of Athanasius in its historical context, but also to highlight the various attempts to adhere to the rigors of Constantine's judicial reforms, and importantly, to show how the accusers were constantly violating those principles.

The context is the appeals process, as you can see when you read the history of the case, and the communications between Athanasius and his accusers were not only about Arianism, but also about Constantine's judicial reforms.

For example, when Julius was explaining the validity of a church council in Rome as a venue for judging the merits of the case against Athanasius, the Eusebians rejected it, arguing that the judgment of one council could not be overturned by another council.

Julius corrected them by laying out the appeals process, explaining that Constantine's appellate process predated the Council of Nicaea, and in fact had been adopted by the council as the proper means of appealing the ruling of councils.

I will now cite Bishop Julius's letter to the Eusebians, explaining that by now, the appeals process has long been in place, and the bishops at Nicaea had in fact adopted it as their own. As you listen, notice that the context of Julius's argument is the right of appeal, and notice as well that he believed the bishops of Nicaea had adopted the rule that a judge cannot serve again as a judge in an appeal against his own case, because that would be fundamentally unfair.

Now citing from Julius's letter to the Eusebians, from Athanasius, Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 22. Those who have confidence in their proceedings, or as they choose to term them, in their decisions, are not wont to be angry if such decision is inquired into by others.

They rather show all boldness, seeing that if they have given a just decision, it can never prove to be the reverse. The bishops who assembled in the great council of Nicaea agreed, not without the will of God, that the decisions of one council should be examined in another, to the end that the judges, having before their eyes that other trial which was to follow, might be led to investigate matters with the utmost caution, and that the parties concerned in their sentence might have assurance that the judgment they received was just and not dictated by the enmity of their former judges.

Now if you are unwilling that such a practice should be adopted in your case, though it is of ancient standing, and has been noticed and recommended by the great council, your refusal is not becoming, for it is unreasonable that a custom which had once been obtained in the church, and had been established by councils, should be set aside by few individuals.

Julius is, of course, referring to Canon 5 of Nicaea, which specifies that a sentence of excommunication by one bishop should be respected by the other bishops, but that such excommunications are subject to appeal, now citing from Canon 5.

But let an inquiry be held, in order that there may be proper opportunity for inquiry into the matter. And importantly, Julius says that the appellate process had been adopted by the church prior to Nicaea, and then codified into canon law when the council was convened.

As the council concluded, the decisions of councils and synods are weighty matters, but they are subject to appeal. And importantly, the accused is entitled to have his case heard by another set of judges.

Nicaea had simply adopted a part of Constantine's appeals process, codified it as a canon of the church, and Julius is insisting that the Eusebians must participate in that appeals process. And remember, the trial of Athanasius is taking place 15 years after the council of Nicaea, and Julius is appealing to a church tradition that predated the council by at least 7 years, since the rights of appeal to Episcopal courts were established by Constantine in 318 AD, and the council took place in 325.

And that gets us back to the custom that Julius thought the Eusebian party had violated. Remember the part of the Theodosian Code from 326 AD that prohibited the practice of appealing to the emperor while a lower court was hearing the case?

By way of reminder, here is Theodosian Code, Book 11, Title 30, Section 6. To supplicate the emperor during the pendency of a suit is not permitted, except perhaps in the case of a litigant to whom a copy of the report is denied, or when the transmission of all the documents of the case has been suppressed.

Julius had, in fact, accepted the transfer of the case to an Episcopal court, and in his role as appellate judge, he started exchanging letters with the Eusebians and the Alexandrians, trying to compile the required documentation from both sides in accordance with due process and Constantine's judicial reforms.

But then the Eusebians started stonewalling and refused to participate in Julius' adjudication of the case. They would neither come to trial, nor provide answers to Julius' questions in their written responses to him.

This is why Julius complained that after writing to them, their response contained nothing related to the matter of the Church of Alexandria, which was the whole point of the inquiry. But there was something more.

While the Eusebians refused to answer Julius' inquiries, and refused to participate in the council so that the charges against Athanasius could receive a fair hearing, they nevertheless continued arguing their case before the emperor, in plain violation of Constantine's judicial reforms.

They simply were not supposed to argue their case before the emperor when it was still being adjudicated in a lower court. That was against the rules, unless the appellate judge was not cooperating. But Julius had been cooperating, and in fact had been going out of his way to accommodate them, and they had no cause to circumvent the lower court while the trial was still in process.

This is precisely why Athanasius complained that his accusers proceeded to argue their case in front of the emperor, even while the case was still being heard in Rome. Now reading from Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part 2, Chapter 9.

Julius, bishop of Rome, wrote to say that a council ought to be held, wherever we should desire, in order that they might exhibit the charges which they had to make, and might also freely defend themselves concerning those things of which they too were accused.

Whereupon these men, whose conduct is suspicious in all that they do, when they see they are not likely to get the better in an ecclesiastical trial, betake themselves to Emperor Constantius alone. Athanasius had legitimately changed the venue to an episcopal court, and the Eusebians were required by law to cooperate, and further, they were prohibited by law from appealing the case to the emperor while that lower court was still hearing the case.

What they were doing was judicially out of order, and that brings us back to the substance of Julius' complaint. Keep in mind what it was that has frustrated Julius in his role as an appellate judge. The Eusebians did not answer his questions regarding their charges against Athanasius of Alexandria, and they continued pressing the matter to the emperor's court, when they were supposed to be cooperating with the process and letting the wheels of justice turn according to Constantine's reforms.

In that light, Julius' next statement makes perfect sense, because the Eusebians had continued arguing the case before the emperor. Now reading again from Julius' letter, as cited from Ryland,. And why was nothing said to us concerning the church of the Alexandrians in particular?

Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the church of this place.

Whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, they now desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. It is easy enough to understand what had happened.

Athanasius changed the venue to an episcopal court. Julius started compiling evidence. The Eusebians boycotted the proceedings in Rome, and continued to bring charges against Athanasius directly to the emperor, in violation of Constantine's reforms, and expected the episcopal court to defer to their civil proceedings.

The custom the Eusebians were violating was not a custom of having the bishop of Rome settle all church disputes, but rather the custom of the lower court collecting the evidence and drafting an opinion, before sending the compiled documents to the emperor, and they were required to honor that process and not circumvent it.

This is an extremely important point, so I will restate it. The custom the Eusebians were violating was not a custom of having the bishop of Rome settle all church disputes, but rather the custom of the lower court collecting the evidence and drafting an opinion, before sending the compiled documents to the emperor, and they were required to honor that process and not circumvent it, by continuing to argue their case before the emperor.

The Eusebians had not violated Roman primacy. They had violated due process and Constantine's judicial reforms that had by then been adopted by the church since long before Nicaea. But what happened next is even more interesting.

Remember that Ryland argued that bishop Athanasius had not been restored to his seat until the bishop of Rome exonerated him. Again, here is Ryland.

When he appealed to the pope, Pope Julius I condemned both councils and reinstalled Athanasius in his seat.

Well, that is either flatly deceptive, or it is a case of gross ignorance. But either way, it is simply false. The emperors received the written report from the council in Rome exonerating Athanasius, but without the participation of his accusers, and at the same time received the reports from his accusers, but without the participation of his defenders.

To hear Ryland tell it, as soon as the emperor received bishop Julius' report, he immediately exonerated Athanasius, dismissed the case, and restored Athanasius to his episcopal seat in Alexandria. Well, that is a grotesque revision of history.

The emperor did not, I repeat, he did not defer to the opinion of Julius, but instead called yet another episcopal trial to have the matter settled once and for all. Now reading from Athanasius, History of the Arians, Part 3, Chapter 15.

While these things were taking place, a report of the council held at Rome, and of the proceedings against the churches in Alexandria, and through all the east, came to the hearing of Emperor Constans.

He writes to his brother Constantius, and immediately they determine that a council shall be called, and matters be brought to a settlement, so that those who have been injured may be released from further suffering, and the injurious be no longer able to perpetrate such outrages.

Accordingly, they are assembled at the city of Sardica, both from the east and west, to the number of 170 bishops, more or less. As you can see from the historical record, the emperors did not accept the ruling of either party, but instead called yet another church court to decide the matter once and for all, and that church court was assembled at Sardica, essentially at the boundary between the east and west.

And the presiding judge in this case was Hosius of Cordoba, as reported by Athanasius in the same chapter. In accordance with Constantine's reforms, as we mentioned earlier, Julius could not preside in an appeal against his own ruling, and Julius acknowledged this, so he could not and did not preside at Sardica, and once again, the eastern accusers, seeing again that it was going to be an episcopal trial rather than a civil trial, refused to participate.

Hosius of Cordoba thus prepared the canons of Sardica and the required documentation of the case, forwarded it all to the imperial court for a final ruling, and only then was Athanasius finally exonerated by the emperors.

It is a fascinating period in the church, and the listener is encouraged to dive in and understand it thoroughly. It is certain, however, that Ray Ryland had no idea of the historical, literal, or judicial context of the case when he concluded that there was a custom of all disputes being handled by the Bishop of Rome, and that it was the Bishop of Rome who finally exonerated Athanasius.

His assessment is plainly false. Athanasius was exonerated based on the rulings of Hosius of Cordoba at the Council of Sardica, not by the rulings of Julius at the Council of Rome. Roman Catholics, in an attempt to imbue the Sardica Council with Roman authority, have since claimed that the Council was urgently called by Julius of Rome, and he commissioned Hosius of Cordoba to preside at the trial, and yet there is no evidence for this claim anywhere in the historical record.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its entry under the Council of Sardica, states that Sardica, quote, was convoked by the emperors Constans and Constantius at the urgent entreaty of Pope Julius, unquote, based on no historical evidence at all.

Listen to what Athanasius wrote. A report of the Council held at Rome, and of the proceedings against the churches at Alexandria and through all the East, came to the hearing of the emperor Constans. He writes to his brother Constantius, and immediately they both determine that a council shall be called, and matters be brought to a settlement.

There is nothing, nothing about the Bishop of Rome requesting another council. The Roman Catholic reconstruction of the trial of Athanasius is simply an intricately woven lie. Nothing more. Bishop Julius had served as an appellate judge in accordance with Constantine's judicial reforms, and in accordance with those reforms, forwarded his findings to the emperor.

The emperor found them wanting, because there was nothing in it from the opposing party, and simply decided that this was insufficient for making a final ruling, and called yet another council. The emperor simply did not rely on Julius's argument in order to exonerate Athanasius.

Now to give you some additional context, the Council of Sarnica, under the presidency of Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, also codified some of the more relevant aspects of Constantine's judicial reforms as they applied to Athanasius and his accusers.

For example, in Canon 7, Hosius proposed a decree that bishops stop going directly to the emperor. He said, quote, Our importunity and great pertinacity and unjust petitions have brought it about that we do not have as much favor and confidence as we ought to enjoy, for many of the bishops do not intermit resorting to the imperial court.

Unquote. Notice that the council recognized the whole purpose of the appeals process, which is to not bother the emperor with every trifling disagreement that arises within the church. Additionally, there was some discussion at the Council of Sarnica about whether to commemorate Julius's participation in the trial by requiring appeals to be forwarded to Julius of Rome.

You can see these discussions in Canons 3, 4, and 5. But Canon 5 clarifies that an appellant may request that the bishop of Rome intervene, but does not require it. Canon 9 then clarifies that any bishop of any province can send his petitions to the emperor as long as he sends it first to the bishop of the metropolis of his province, and the bishop of the metropolis can evaluate it and forward it to the emperor.

In other words, someone in Syria would forward the petition first to Antioch, then to the imperial court, and would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Antioch was hearing it.

Someone in Egypt would forward the petition first to Alexandria, then to the imperial court, but would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Alexandria was still hearing it.

Someone in Numidia, in northern Africa, would submit his petition through his metropolitan in Carthage, then to the imperial court, and would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Carthage was hearing it.

And importantly, someone in Italy would submit his petition through the metropolitan in Milan, which was the metropolis of Italy at the time, and then to the imperial court, and would refrain from arguing his appeal before the emperor while the metropolitan of Milan was hearing it.

There were only two exceptions to the rule. First, if a bishop had friends in the emperor's court and he can manage to secure an audience without bothering the emperor too much, he may reproach the emperor directly.

And second, if someone decides not to advance his appeal through his own metropolitan bishop, but decides instead to come to Rome, the bishop of Rome must preside as his appellate judge, and the appeal would thenceforth be sent to the emperor for final approval.

Notice again that the emphasis was focused on not disturbing the emperor too much, and canonically, to exonerate what Athanasius had done. Now citing from Canon 9 of the Council of Sardica, Bishop Hosius said,.

This also, I think, follows, that if in any province whatever, bishops send petitions to one of their brothers and fellow bishops, he that is in the largest city, that is, the metropolis, should himself send his deacon and the petitions, providing him also with letters commendatory, writing also, of course, in succession to our brethren and fellow bishops, if any of them should be staying at that time in the places or cities in which the most pious emperor is administering public affairs.

But if any bishops should have friends at the court and should wish to make requests of them as to some proper object, let them not be forbidden to make such requests through his deacon and move these, that is, his friends in the court, to give their kind assistance as his desire.