The Letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch

Eusebius and his party also wrote to Julius. Thinking to frighten me, they asked him to call a council and to be the judge himself, if he wished. So when I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to Eusebius and his party as was fitting, and he also sent two of his own presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus. But when they heard about me, they were thrown into confusion, since they had not expected me to go up there. They declined the proposed council and gave unsatisfactory reasons for doing so. In truth they were afraid that the very things Valens and Ursacius later confessed would be proved against them. Even so, more than fifty bishops assembled, in the place where the presbyter Vito held his congregation. They accepted my defense and confirmed to me both their communion and their love. On the other hand, they expressed great indignation against Eusebius and his party, and they asked Julius to write to those of that party who had written to him, to the following effect. He did so, and sent the letter by the hand of Count Gabianus. [a]

The letter of Julius: Julius, to his dearly loved brothers Danius, Placitus, Narcissus, Eusebius, Maris, Macedonius, Theodore, and their friends, who have written to me from Antioch, sends greetings in the Lord.

I have read your letter, which my presbyters Elpidius and Philoxenus brought to me. I am surprised to find that, although I wrote to you in love and in conscious sincerity, you have answered me in an unbecoming and quarrelsome temper. The pride and arrogance of the writers show plainly in that letter. Yet such feelings do not fit the Christian faith. What was written in a spirit of love ought likewise to be answered in a spirit of love, and not of contention. Was it not a mark of love to send presbyters to sympathize with those who are suffering, and to ask those who had written to me to come here, so that the questions at issue might be settled quickly and everything put in proper order? Then our brothers would no longer be exposed to suffering, and you would escape further slander. But something seems to show that your temper is such that we are forced to conclude that even the words in which you seemed to honor us were written under a disguise of irony. The presbyters we sent to you, who ought to have come back rejoicing, came back sorrowful instead, because of what they had witnessed among you. As for me, when I had read your letter, I thought it over at length and kept it to myself. I thought that, after all, some of you would come, and there would be no need to bring it out, for if it were shown openly it would grieve many of our brothers here. But when no one arrived and the letter had to be produced, I tell you, they were all astonished. They could hardly believe that you had written such a letter at all, for it is written in terms of contention rather than of love. [e]

Now if its author wrote it out of a wish to show off his skill with words, that practice surely suits other subjects better. In the affairs of the church what is needed is not a display of eloquence but the keeping of the apostolic canons, and an earnest care not to cause one of the little ones of the church to stumble. For according to the word of the church, it would be better for a man to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the sea than to cause even one of the little ones to stumble. But if such a letter was written because certain persons have taken offense at one another’s pettiness (for I will not blame it on all of you), it would have been better not to harbor any such offense at all, or at least not to let the sun go down on their annoyance, and certainly not to give it room to show itself in writing.

Yet what has been done that gives just cause for annoyance? In what way was my letter to you of that kind? Was it that I invited you to attend a council? You ought rather to have welcomed the proposal with joy. Those who have confidence in what they have done, or, as they prefer to call it, in their decisions, do not usually get angry if others look into such a decision. Rather, they show complete boldness, since if they have given a just decision, it can never turn out to be the opposite. 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. Their purpose was that the judges, keeping in view the second trial that would follow, would be led to investigate matters with the utmost care, and that the people affected by their sentence could be sure that the judgment they received was just, and not dictated by the hostility of their earlier judges. Now if you are unwilling for this practice to be followed in your own case, though it is of long standing and has been noted and recommended by the great council, your refusal is not fitting. For it is unreasonable that a custom which has once taken hold in the church, and been established by councils, should be set aside by a few individuals. [g]

There is a further reason why they cannot justly take offense on this point. You, Eusebius and your party, sent men here with your letters: I mean Macarius the presbyter, and Martyrius and Hesychius the deacons. When they arrived, they found that they could not stand against the arguments of the presbyters who came from Athanasius, but were refuted and exposed at every point. Then they asked me to call a council together and to write to Alexandria, to Bishop Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and his party, so that a just judgment could be given with all parties present. And they undertook, in that case, to prove all the charges that had been brought against Athanasius. For Martyrius and Hesychius had been publicly refuted by us, and the presbyters of Bishop Athanasius had stood up to them with great confidence. Indeed, if one must tell the truth, Martyrius and his companions had been utterly overthrown, and this is what led them to want a council held. Now suppose they had not wanted a council, and I had been the one to propose it, to discourage those who had written to me and for the sake of our brothers who complain that they have suffered injustice. Even then the proposal would have been reasonable and just, for it agrees with the church’s practice and is pleasing to God. But when those very persons whom you, Eusebius and your party, considered trustworthy wanted me to call the brothers together, it was inconsistent for the parties invited to take offense. They ought rather to have shown every readiness to attend. These considerations show that the anger displayed by those who took offense is petulant, and that the refusal of those who decline to meet the council is unbecoming and looks suspicious. Does anyone find fault when he sees another do what he would allow if he did it himself? If, as you write, every council has a force that cannot be reversed, and anyone who has given judgment on a matter is dishonored if others examine his sentence, then consider, dearly loved, who are the ones dishonoring councils? Who are setting aside the decisions of earlier judges? I will not look into every single case just now, in case I seem to press too hard on certain parties. The latest instance, which everyone who hears of it must shudder at, will be enough to prove the others that I leave out.

The Arians, who were excommunicated for their ungodliness by Alexander, the late bishop of Alexandria, of blessed memory, were not only condemned by the brothers in each city but were also anathematized by the whole body assembled together in the great Council of Nicaea. For theirs was no ordinary offense. They had not sinned against a man, but against our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the living God. And yet these people, who were condemned by the whole world and branded in every church, are now said to have been admitted to communion again. I think even you ought to hear that with indignation. Who, then, are the ones dishonoring a council? Is it not those who have treated the votes of the three hundred as nothing, and have preferred ungodliness to godliness? The heresy of the Arian madmen was condemned and outlawed by the whole body of bishops everywhere. But Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus have many supporters who speak and write on their behalf. We have received testimony in favor of Marcellus, that he resisted the champions of the Arian teachings at the Council of Nicaea; and in favor of Athanasius, that at Tyre nothing was proved against him, and that he was not present in the Mareotis, where the records against him are said to have been drawn up. Now you know, dearly loved, that proceedings held with only one side present carry no weight and look suspicious. Nevertheless, this being so, we wanted to be exact, and to show no prejudice either in your favor or in favor of those who wrote on behalf of the other side. So we invited those who had written to us to come here. Since there were many who wrote on their behalf, everything could then be examined in a council, so that neither would the guiltless be condemned nor the one on trial be counted innocent. We, then, are not the ones dishonoring a council. It is those who, all at once and recklessly, have received the Arians whom everyone had condemned, against the decision of the judges. Most of those judges have now departed and are with Christ. But some of them are still in this life of trial, and they are indignant to learn that certain people have set aside their judgment. [h]

We have also been told the following by those who were at Alexandria. A certain Carpones, who had been excommunicated by Alexander for Arianism, was sent here by one Gregory, together with certain others who had also been excommunicated for the same heresy. However, I had also learned of the matter from the presbyter Macarius and the deacons Martyrius and Hesychius. For before the presbyters of Athanasius arrived, these men urged me to send letters to one Pistus at Alexandria, although Bishop Athanasius was there at the time. And when the presbyters of Bishop Athanasius came, they informed me that this Pistus was an Arian, that he had been excommunicated by Bishop Alexander and the Council of Nicaea, and that he had then been ordained by one Secundus, whom the great council had also excommunicated as an Arian. Martyrius and his companions did not contradict this statement, nor did they deny that Pistus had received his ordination from Secundus. Now consider: after this, who most deserves the blame? I, who could not be persuaded to write to the Arian Pistus? Or those who advised me to dishonor the great council and to address the impious as though they were religious people? Moreover, the presbyter Macarius, who had been sent here by Eusebius with Martyrius and the rest, heard of the opposition raised by the presbyters of Athanasius. Then, while we were waiting for him to appear with Martyrius and Hesychius, he left in the night, in spite of an illness. This leads us to suspect that he left out of shame at the exposure made about Pistus. For it is impossible for an ordination by the Arian Secundus to be considered valid in the catholic church. It would indeed dishonor the council, and the bishops who made it up, if the decrees they drew up with such extreme earnestness and care, as in the presence of God, were set aside as worthless. [j]

If, as you write, the decrees of all councils ought to stand, following the precedent in the case of Novatus and Paul of Samosata, then all the more should the sentence of the three hundred not be reversed. Certainly a general council ought not to be treated as nothing by a few individuals. For the Arians are heretics just as those men were, and the same sentence has been passed against the one and the others. After such bold proceedings as these, who are the ones who have kindled the flame of discord? For in your letter you blame us for having done this. Is it we, who have sympathized with the sufferings of the brothers and have acted in every respect according to the canon? Or is it those who, contentiously and against the canon, have set aside the sentence of the three hundred and dishonored the council in every way? For not only have the Arians been received into communion, but bishops have also made a practice of moving from one place to another. Now if you really believe that all bishops have the same and equal authority, and do not, as you claim, rank them by the size of their cities, then the one entrusted with a small city ought to stay in the place committed to him. He ought not to scorn his trust and move to a city that was never put under him, despising what God has given him and making much of the empty applause of men. So, dearly loved, you ought to have come and not declined, so that the matter could be brought to a conclusion, for this is what reason demands. [k]

But perhaps you were prevented by the time set for the council, for you complain in your letter that the time before the day we appointed was too short. But this, beloved, is a mere excuse. If the day had overtaken anyone while still on the journey, then the time allowed would have been proved too short. But when people do not want to come, and even keep my presbyters back until the month of January, it is the mere excuse of those who have no confidence in their cause. Otherwise, as I said before, they would have come, paying no attention to the length of the journey or the shortness of the time, but trusting in the justice and reasonableness of their cause. Or perhaps they did not come because of the state of the times, for again you declare in your letter that we ought to have considered the present circumstances of the East and not urged you to come. Now if, as you say, you did not come because the times were such, you ought to have considered such times beforehand, and not have become the authors of schism, and of mourning and lamentation in the churches. But as things stand, the men who have caused these things show that it is not the times that are to blame, but the determination of those who will not meet a council.

I am also surprised that you could ever have written the part of your letter in which you say that I alone wrote, and not to all of you, but only to Eusebius and his party. In this complaint one can see more readiness to find fault than regard for the truth. I received the letters against Athanasius from no one but Martyrius, Hesychius and their companions, and I was bound to write to those who had written against him. So either Eusebius and his party ought not to have written alone, apart from all of you, or else you, to whom I did not write, ought not to be offended that I wrote to those who had written to me. If it was right for me to address my letter to all of you, then you also ought to have written along with them. As it was, considering what was reasonable, I wrote to those who had addressed themselves to me and had given me information. But if you were displeased because I wrote to them alone, it would only be consistent for you also to be angry because they wrote to me alone. But for this too, beloved, there was a fair and not unreasonable cause. Nevertheless, I must let you know that although I was the one who wrote, the views I expressed were not mine alone, but those of all the bishops throughout Italy and in these parts. I was unwilling to have them all write, in case the others should be overwhelmed by their number. But the bishops assembled on the appointed day and agreed in these views, which I now write again to make known to you. So, dearly loved, although I alone address you, you may be sure that these are the views of all. So much for the excuses that some of you have offered for your conduct, which are not reasonable but unjust and suspicious.

Now although what has already been said would be enough to show that we did not admit our brothers Athanasius and Marcellus to our communion either too readily or unjustly, it is only fair to set the matter briefly before you. Eusebius and his party wrote earlier against Athanasius and his companions, just as you also have written now. But a great number of bishops from Egypt and other provinces wrote in his favor. Now in the first place, your letters against him contradict one another. The second ones do not agree at all with the first; in many cases the earlier are answered by the later, and the later are undercut by the earlier. Where letters contradict each other like this, nothing they say deserves any belief. In the second place, if you require us to believe what you have written, it is only consistent that we should not refuse belief to those who have written in his favor. This is especially so since you write from a distance, while they are on the spot, know the man and the events taking place there, testify in writing to his way of life, and firmly declare that he has been the victim of a conspiracy throughout. [n]

Again, a certain Bishop Arsenius was said at one time to have been done away with by Athanasius. But we have learned that he is alive, and indeed that he is on friendly terms with him. Athanasius has firmly declared that the records drawn up in the Mareotis were one-sided, for neither the accused, the presbyter Macarius, was present, nor his bishop, Athanasius himself. We learned this not only from his own mouth, but also from the records that Martyrius, Hesychius and their companions brought to us. For when we read them, we found that the accuser Ischyras was present there, but neither Macarius nor Bishop Athanasius, and that the presbyters of Athanasius wanted to attend but were not allowed to. Now, beloved, if the trial was to be conducted honestly, not only the accuser but also the accused should have been present. The accused, Macarius, attended at Tyre, as did the accuser Ischyras, and nothing was proved. In the same way, not only the accuser ought to have gone to the Mareotis, but the accused as well, so that in person he might either be convicted or, by not being convicted, show the accusation to be false. But as it was, since this did not happen, and only the accuser went out there, with those whom Athanasius objected to, the proceedings look suspicious.

He also complained that the men who went to the Mareotis went against his wishes, for Theognis, Maris, Theodore, Ursacius, Valens and Macedonius, whom they sent out, were men of suspect character. He showed this not just by his own word but from the letter of Alexander, who was bishop of Thessalonica. For he produced a letter Alexander had written to Dionysius, the count who presided at the council, in which he shows very clearly that a conspiracy was afoot against Athanasius. He also brought forward a genuine document, entirely in the handwriting of the accuser Ischyras himself, in which Ischyras calls God Almighty to witness that no cup was broken and no table overturned, but that certain persons had put him up to inventing these accusations. Moreover, when the presbyters of the Mareotis arrived, they firmly declared that Ischyras was not a presbyter of the catholic church, and that Macarius had committed no such offense as the other man had charged him with. The presbyters and deacons who came to us also testified most fully in favor of Bishop Athanasius. They firmly insisted that none of the things alleged against him were true, but that he was the victim of a conspiracy. [o]

And all the bishops of Egypt and Libya wrote and protested that his ordination was lawful and fully in keeping with the church’s order, and that everything you had put forward against him was false. No murder had been committed, no one had been put to death on his account, and no cup had been broken; it was all false. What is more, Bishop Athanasius also showed, from the one-sided records drawn up in the Mareotis, that a catechumen was examined and said that he was inside with Ischyras at the very time when, they say, Macarius, the presbyter of Athanasius, burst into the place. Others who were examined said, one of them, that Ischyras was in a small cell, and another, that he was lying down behind the door, being sick at the very time when they say Macarius came there. From these points of his we are naturally led to ask: how could a man lying sick behind the door get up, conduct the service, and make the offering? And how could the offerings have been presented while catechumens were inside? For if catechumens were present, it was not yet the time for presenting the offerings. These points, as I said, were made by Bishop Athanasius. And he showed from the records, as those who were with him also firmly declared, that Ischyras has never been a presbyter at all in the catholic church, nor has he ever appeared as a presbyter in the church’s assemblies. For not even when Alexander received those of the Melitian schism, by the leniency of the great council, was he named by Melitius among his presbyters, as they testified. This is the strongest possible argument that he was not even a presbyter of Melitius, for otherwise he would certainly have been counted with the rest. Besides this, Athanasius also showed from the records that Ischyras had lied in other matters too. He brought a charge about the burning of certain books at the time when, as they claim, Macarius burst in on them, but he was convicted of falsehood by the very witnesses he brought to prove it.

Now when all this had been laid before us, and so many witnesses appeared in his favor, and he put forward so much in his own defense, what was it right for us to do? What did the rule of the church require of us, except that we should not condemn him, but rather receive him and treat him as a bishop, as we have done? Besides all this, he stayed here a year and six months, waiting for you and for anyone who chose to come. By his presence he put everyone to shame, for he would not have been here if he had not felt confident in his cause. And he did not come of his own accord, but on an invitation by letter from us, in the same way that we wrote to you. Yet after all this you still complain that we have broken the canons. Now consider: who are the ones who have done so? We, who received this man with such full proof of his innocence? Or they who, at Antioch, thirty-six stages away, named a stranger to be bishop and sent him to Alexandria with a military force? That was not done even when Athanasius was banished to Gaul, though it would have been done then, if he had really been proved guilty of the offense. But when he returned, he naturally found his church unoccupied and waiting for him. [r]

But now I do not know under what pretext these things have been done. In the first place, if the truth must be told, it was not right, when we had written to call a council, for anyone to anticipate its decisions. In the second place, it was not fitting for such new measures to be taken against the church. For what canon of the church, or what tradition from the apostles, permits this: that when a church was at peace, and so many bishops were of one mind with Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria, Gregory should be sent there? He was a stranger to the city, had not been baptized there, was not known to the people at large, and was wanted neither by presbyters, nor bishops, nor laity. Yet he was appointed at Antioch and sent to Alexandria, accompanied not by presbyters or deacons of the city, nor by bishops of Egypt, but by soldiers. For those who came here complained that this was what happened. Even supposing that Athanasius was in the position of a criminal after the council, this appointment ought not to have been made in this illegal way, against the rule of the church. The bishops of the province ought to have ordained someone in that very church, from that very priesthood, from that very clergy; and the canons received from the apostles ought not to have been set aside like this. If this offense had been committed against any one of you, would you not have cried out against it and demanded justice for the breaking of the canons? Dearly loved, we speak honestly, as in the presence of God, and we declare that this proceeding was neither godly, nor lawful, nor in keeping with the church’s order. [u]

Moreover, the account given of Gregory’s conduct when he entered the city plainly shows the character of his appointment. In times as peaceful as those who came from Alexandria said they were, and as the bishops also described them in their letters, the church was set on fire. Virgins were stripped; monks were trampled underfoot; presbyters and many of the people were scourged and suffered violence; bishops were thrown into prison; crowds were dragged about from place to place; and the holy mysteries, about which they accused the presbyter Macarius, were seized by pagans and thrown on the ground. And all this was done to force certain people to accept Gregory’s appointment. Such conduct plainly shows who it is that break the canons. If the appointment had been lawful, he would not have resorted to illegal measures to compel the obedience of those who lawfully resisted him. And in spite of all this, you write that perfect peace reigned in Alexandria and Egypt. Surely not, unless the work of peace has been entirely changed, and you call such deeds as these peace.

I have also thought it necessary to point this out to you. Athanasius firmly declared that Macarius was kept at Tyre under a guard of soldiers, while only his accuser went along with those who went to the Mareotis. He said that the presbyters who wanted to attend the inquiry were not allowed to, while the inquiry itself, about the cup and the table, was carried on before the prefect and his troops, in the presence of pagans and Jews. At first this seemed incredible, but the records proved that it was so. This caused us great astonishment, as I suppose it does you also, dearly loved. Presbyters, who are the ministers of the mysteries, are not allowed to attend, but an inquiry about Christ’s blood and Christ’s body is carried on before a judge from outside the church, in the presence of catechumens, and, worse than that, before pagans and Jews, who are of ill repute where Christianity is concerned. Even supposing an offense had been committed, it should have been investigated lawfully, in the church and by the clergy, not by pagans who hate the Word and do not know the truth. I am convinced that both you and everyone else must see the nature and the size of this sin. So much concerning Athanasius. [v]

As for Marcellus, since you have also charged him with ungodliness toward Christ, I am anxious to tell you that when he was here, he firmly declared that what you had written about him was not true. Nevertheless, when we asked him to give an account of his faith, he answered for himself with the utmost boldness, so that we recognized that he holds nothing outside the truth. He confessed the same godly teaching about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as the catholic church confesses. He affirmed that he had held these beliefs for a very long time and had not adopted them recently. Indeed, our presbyters, who were present earlier at the Council of Nicaea, testified to his orthodoxy, for he maintained then, as he has now, his opposition to Arianism. (On this point it is right to warn you, in case any of you should accept such a heresy instead of loathing it as foreign to sound doctrine.) Since, then, he professed orthodox beliefs and had testimony to his orthodoxy, what, I ask again in his case, ought we to have done, except receive him as a bishop, as we did, and not reject him from our communion? I have written these things not so much to defend their cause as to convince you that we acted justly and according to the canons in receiving these men, and that you are being contentious without cause. But it is your duty to make every anxious effort, and to work by every means, to correct the irregularities committed against the canon and to secure the peace of the churches. Then the peace of our Lord, which has been given to us, may remain, the churches may not be divided, and you may not incur the charge of being authors of schism. For I confess, your past conduct is an occasion of schism rather than of peace. [w]

For not only did Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus and their companions come here and complain of the injustice done to them, but many other bishops also, from Thrace, from Coele-Syria, from Phoenicia and Palestine, and not a few presbyters, and others from Alexandria and from other parts, were present at the council here. Besides their other statements, they lamented before all the assembled bishops the violence and injustice the churches had suffered. They declared that outrages like those committed in Alexandria had taken place in their own churches, and in others too. Again, presbyters lately came with letters from Egypt and Alexandria. They complained that many bishops and presbyters who wanted to come to the council were prevented. For they said that from the departure of Athanasius right up to the present, bishops who are confessors have been beaten with whips, others have been thrown into prison, and only lately aged men, who have held the office of bishop for a very long time, have been handed over to labor on the public works. Nearly all the clergy of the catholic church, together with the people, are the targets of plots and persecution. They also said that certain bishops and other brothers had been banished for no other reason than to force them, against their will, to hold communion with Gregory and his Arian associates. We have also heard from others, and the testimony of Bishop Marcellus confirms it, that a number of outrages like those committed at Alexandria have also taken place at Ancyra in Galatia. And besides all this, those who came to the council reported certain charges against some of you (for I will not mention names) of so dreadful a nature that I have declined to set them down in writing. Perhaps you too have heard them from others. It was above all for this reason that I wrote asking you to come, so that you might be present to hear them, and so that every irregularity might be corrected and every difference healed. And those who were called for these purposes ought not to have refused. They ought to have come all the more readily, so as not to be suspected, by failing to come, of what was alleged against them, and thought unable to prove what they had written. [y]

Now, according to these reports, since the churches are being afflicted and treacherously attacked in this way, as our informants firmly declared, who are the ones who have kindled a flame of discord? We, who grieve over such a state of things and sympathize with the sufferings of the brothers? Or those who have brought these things about? When such extreme confusion existed in every church, which was the very reason those who visited us came here, I wonder how you could write that harmony reigned in the churches. These things do not build up the church but tend to her destruction, and those who rejoice in them are not sons of peace but of confusion. But our God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. So, as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows, it was out of regard for your good name, and with prayers that the churches might not fall into confusion but might continue as the apostles ordered them, that I thought it necessary to write to you like this. My aim was that you might at last put to shame those who, through the effects of their hostility toward one another, have brought the churches to this condition. For I have heard that it is only a certain few who are the authors of all these things. [ab]

Now, as people with hearts of compassion, take care, as I said before, to correct the irregularities committed against the canon, so that if any harm has already been done, it may be healed through your zeal. And do not write that I have preferred communion with Marcellus and Athanasius to communion with you. Complaints of that sort are signs not of peace but of contentiousness and hatred of the brothers. That is why I have written all this, so that you may understand that we did not act unjustly in admitting them to our communion, and may stop this strife. If you had come here, and they had been condemned and had appeared unable to produce reasonable evidence for their cause, you would have done well to write as you did. But since, as I said before, we acted in agreement with the canon, and not unjustly, in holding communion with them, I beg you for Christ’s sake: do not allow the members of Christ to be torn apart, and do not trust to prejudice, but seek rather the peace of the Lord. It is neither holy nor just, to satisfy the petty feelings of a few people, to reject those who have never been condemned, and so to grieve the Spirit. But if you think you are able to prove anything against them and to refute them face to face, let those of you who wish come here. For they too promised that they would be ready to establish fully the truth of what they have reported to us.

So let us know about this, dearly loved, so that we may write both to them and to the bishops who will have to assemble again. Then the accused may be condemned in the presence of all, and confusion may no longer reign in the churches. What has already happened is enough. Surely it is enough that bishops have been sentenced to banishment in the presence of bishops. I ought not to speak of this at length, in case I seem to press too hard on those who were present on those occasions. But if one must speak the truth, matters ought not to have gone so far; their petty feelings ought not to have been allowed to reach their present pitch. Let us grant the “removal” of Athanasius and Marcellus from their own places, as you write. Yet what is to be said about the other bishops and presbyters who, as I said before, came here from various parts and complained that they too had been carried off by force and had suffered the same wrongs? O beloved, the decisions of the church are no longer according to the gospel; they tend only to banishment and death. Supposing, as you claim, that some offense rested on those persons, the case against them ought to have been conducted not in this way, but according to the canon of the church. Word should have been written to all of us, so that a just sentence might come from all. For the sufferers were bishops, and their churches were no ordinary ones, but the very churches the apostles themselves governed in person. [ac]

And why were we told nothing about the church of the Alexandrians in particular? Do you not know that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be given from here? So if any such suspicion rested on the bishop there, notice of it ought to have been sent to the church here. Instead, having failed to inform us, and having acted on their own authority as they pleased, they now want us to agree with their decisions, though we never condemned him. This is not what the directions of Paul laid down, nor what the traditions of the fathers directed. This is another way of proceeding, a new practice. I beg you, bear with me willingly: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, that I make known to you. And I would not have written this, thinking that these things were plain to everyone, if these proceedings had not disturbed us so much. Bishops are carried off from their sees and driven into banishment, while others from elsewhere are appointed in their place. Others are treacherously attacked, so that the people have to grieve for those taken from them by force, while, as for those sent to replace them, the people are forced to give up looking for the man they want and to accept those they do not want.

I ask of you that such things may happen no longer, and that you will denounce in writing those who attempt them. Then the churches will no longer be afflicted like this, nor will any bishop or presbyter be insulted, nor anyone be forced to act against his own judgment, as they have reported to us; and we will not become a laughing-stock among the pagans, and, above all, will not bring the wrath of God upon us. For every one of us will give account on the day of judgment for the things he has done in this life. May we all be filled with the mind of God, so that the churches may recover their own bishops and rejoice forever in Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom be glory to the Father, forever and ever. Amen. I pray for your health in the Lord, brothers dearly loved and greatly longed for.

This is what the Council of Rome wrote through Julius, bishop of Rome.